W52P1J15R0185_Amd_1.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. Contract ID Code Page Of

2. Amendment/Modification No.

3. Effective Date

4. Requisition/Purchase Req No.

5. Project No. (If applicable)

6. Issued By Code 7. Administered By (If other than Item 6) Code

8. Name And Address Of Contractor (No., Street, City, County, State and Zip Code)

9A. Amendment Of Solicitation No.

9B. Dated (See Item 11)

10A. Modification Of Contract/Order No.

10B. Dated (See Item 13) Code Facility Code

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning ____________ copies of the amendments: (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. Accounting And Appropriation Data (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

It Modifies The Contract/Order No. As Described In Item 14.

A. This Change Order is Issued Pursuant To: The Changes Set Forth In Item 14 Are Made In

The Contract/Order No. In Item 10A.

B. The Above Numbered Contract/Order Is Modified To Reflect The Administrative Changes (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) Set

Forth In Item 14, Pursuant To The Authority of FAR 43.103(b).

C. This Supplemental Agreement Is Entered Into Pursuant To Authority Of:

D. Other (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return _______________ copies to the Issuing Office.

14. Description Of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. Name And Title Of Signer (Type or print)

16A. Name And Title Of Contracting Officer (Type or print)

15B. Contractor/Offeror 15C. Date Signed 16B. United States Of America 16C. Date Signed

By (Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

30-105-02 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SEE SCHEDULE

X

Cost Plus Fixed Fee

W52P1J

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - RI

ROCK ISLAND, IL 61299-8000

BLDGS 60 & 62

KATELYN M. LEE

EMAIL: KATELYN.M.LEE5.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W52P1J-15-R-0185

2016APR06

X

X

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 8

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of Document Being Continued Page of

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Buyer Name: KATELYN M. LEE

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCRC-DA/(309)782-3309

Type of Contract 1: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Kind of Contract: Research and Development Contracts

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of Amendment 0001 is to:

1. Pre-Statement: The solicitation in question has been developed to support the Overarching Research and Evaluation Program (OREP).

This program has been part of the Governments Research and Development effort for over twenty years. During this twenty year period, tremendous work has been accomplished. The organization that successfully competes for this effort must be able to do and realize the following:

a. Demonstrate the ability to meet the Governments requirements to hit the ground running (with very little learning curve).

b. Realize that the Government has structured this effort in a manner in which success criteria must be achieved in order for the effort to move forward.

c. The Government is in the last of a three phase effort. The first phase was a demonstration of Proof of Concept. The second phase was undertaken to demonstrate how viable the Non-Intrusive Threat Detection System (NITDS) is by testing with known and unknown targets. The third phase, which this solicitation addresses, is designed to develop systems that the

Government can use to non-intrusively assess recovered chemical warfare materiel (RCWM).

d. The handling of RCWM is a very dangerous business. Lives are at stake. The assessment of these items must be accurate because further treatment of RCWM is based on this assessment (storing, monitoring, destruction, etc.).

e. The Government is at a point where we need to seriously consider fielding systems.

f. Northrop Grumman has already demonstrated success in meeting criteria put forth by the Government and the Government believes that moving to open the field to other offerors can only be accomplished or pursued if there is demonstrated evidence/data that a better system than the NITDS exists.

2. Provide responses to the following contractor questions:

Q1. Does the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation under solicitation number W52P1J15R0185 contain requirements similar to a current contract?

If possible, please provide the current contract number.

A1. Yes and the current OREP contract is W52P1J-13-C-0004.

Q2. The original synopsis of the JPM-E OREP Program from 22 September 2015 announcing full and open competition summarized the 3 primary categories of support as follows:

a. Perform evaluations/studies on various technologies, involving both commercial vendors and government laboratories, suitable for analyzing treating JPM-E WMD

b. Design and oversee testing to validate engineering assumptions and system performance

c. Provide conceptual and detailed designs for prototypical fieldable systems based on laboratory and subscale tests and to fabricate and validate the design through operational testing

Section L.1.2.1 requires that "Experience in working with Northrop Grumman Corporation neutron spectroscopy systems must be demonstrated." which seems to reflect more restrictive requirements favoring the incumbent. Can demonstrated experience working with neutron spectroscopy system with other government or industry partners be considered?

A2. The demonstrated experience must include the assessment of key elements (such as hydrogen, nitrogen, chlorine, sulfur, phosphorous, arsenic, etc.). Additionally the identification of compounds which are similar to what the Government expects to recover (such as mustard, sarin, phosgene, Lewisite) must be demonstrated.

Q3. L.1.2.2, Non-Intrusively Assess (NIA) System Subfactor, requires that the offeror provide historical storylines for NIA system performance and testing based on the requirements of Statement of Work (SOW) 3.3. This request for historical details on past testing does not provide a foundation for evaluating an offeror's ability to provide the support required for future efforts. Will the government consider revising the evaluation criteria to reflect the offeror's approach and ability to support the future technical goals of the OREP program?

A3. No. The evaluation criteria are critical to ensure an ability to develop systems that can be fielded within a year.

Q4. Section L.1.3, requires the offeror to provide past performance information that will verify the contractor as a recognized and

2 8

W52P1J-15-R-0185 0001

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

successful operator of an NIA system to assess RCWM, simulants, and chemical agent within the last 3 years. This requirement seems restrictive to the current incumbent. Will the government consider allowing experience operating an NIA system to asses other compounds or removal of this restrictive requirement?

A4. The Government will not remove this requirement, but the Government will consider allowing the experience of operating an NIA system to assess other compounds provided that these compounds have some relevance to what the Government expects to encounter with RCWM. The offeror will need to demonstrate that these other compounds (similar to the chemical agents cited in the answer to Question 2) have some relevance to RCWM.

Q5. Section L.1.3.1 (a) indicates that Contractors Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) will be provided to references provided on Form

2 and other persons knowledgeable about the offerors performance on contracts listed in Form 1. The Government reserves the right to determine to whom and for which contracts questionnaires will be sent to ensure that a fair sampling of past performance is considered.

Can the Government please clarify whether the offeror is supposed to send out the PPQ requests, or is the Government intending to send these after the proposal submissions?

A5. The offeror should send out the PPQ.

Q6. Based on the criteria in L.1.3 for the offeror to have experience operating an NIA to assess RCWM specifically, how can anyone except the incumbent receive a "Very Relevant" rating on past performance?

A6. There is no doubt that the incumbent has a distinct advantage here, but any offeror that plans to win this solicitation must have a very detailed knowledge of RCWM and know how to translate their past experiences to this topic which is very critical to the Government and to this solicitation.

Q7. Per FAR Part 9.5, an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) may occur when contractor personnel are placed in positions in which their individual judgment may become biased or when a contractor may gain a competitive advantage by having access to the Government or another contractors proprietary data, processes or review of performance. It appears that this situation may occur based on the award of option 3 in PWS 1.2.1.3 where system development and independent evaluation might be performed by the same prime contractor. Would the government consider mitigating this OCI by separating the independent evaluation scope and awarding it under a separate contract to a true third party who is not affiliated with the NITDS testing and operational outcomes?

A7. The government plans to award the basic two years and evaluate for possible future award all three options to the offeror who provides the best value to the government based on the evaluation criteria. Making the award to one contractor will eliminate finger pointing if the developed system does not work as planned. It is no different from any development contract where one contractor develops and then builds the end item. This is not considered an OCI. Also, a "true third party who is not affiliated with the NITDS testing and operational outcomes" would not be aware of the requirements that are important for the Government to satisfy in terms of moving forward. In order for this option to be exercised, the organization that wins the award must meet success criteria established at the beginning of this effort. Once the success criteria are satisfied, the next OREP efforts success will be primarily based on the contractors in-depth knowledge of the NITDS system. Otherwise, the contractor will not be able to design a ground mounted system.

Q8. PWS 3.2.3 requires the offeror to provide health and safety planning and PWS 3.4.2.8 requires the offeror to schedule and participate in safety pre-operational surveys and testing. Based on CB&I's role as the performer of both the current JPL-E OREP contract

(W52P1J-13-C-0004) and the PAIS V Task Order entitled, Recovered Chemical Materiel Directorate (RCMD) Developmental Testing Support, this appears to create an OCI between this OREP scope and the PAIS V scope. Would the government consider mitigating this OCI by separating the safety planning and oversight scope and awarding it under a separate contract to a true third party who is not affiliated with the NITDS testing and operational outcomes?

A8. The OREP SOW and the RCMD's Developmental Testing Support are basically the same type of contract for different end items. The OREP is for NITDS and Advanced surface cleaning while the Developmental Testing Support is for Explosive Destruction System so being the prime contractor on one contract does not create an OCI on the other contract. Solicitation W52P1J-15-R-0185 will replace contract

W52P1J-13-C-0004. Also, the Government will not compromise on safety. The Government has other organizations, such as Edgewood Chemical

Biological Center (ECBC), that could perform this function, if it were necessary. There is no need to consider a separate contract.

The JPL-E has used ECBCs Safety Office in the past to fulfill a safety requirement. It is doubtful that a contractor that does not satisfy requirements to win the base contract effort will be able to fulfill this function.

Q9. Based on PWS 3.4.1.5, the contractor shall deliver two concept drawing packages reflecting equipment layouts and general fabrication specifications for a modified trailer mounted NITDS and a ground mounted NITDS, NLT 18 months after the base contract award. Will the trailer mounted system also be required to utilize existing equipment?

A9. This will be the successful offerors decision on what equipment should or should not be used, but the success criteria must be

3 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

demonstrated in order for this effort to continue to move forward.

Q10. In the PWS, Section 3.4.1.6, the contract is required to upgrade the NITDS software. Because the NITDS was developed by Northrup

Grumman Information Systems, Defense Systems, and Defense Systems Division, is the software designated for upgrades Northrup Grumman proprietary, or will the Government provide that software to the awardee to satisfy the upgrade requirements contained within this section of scope?

A10. The successful offeror must perform the software upgrades along with Northrup Grumman. The Government is currently not committed to providing software to satisfy the upgrade requirements contained within this section of the scope. The offeror and Northrup Grumman must work together to be successful.

Q11. Would the Government please indicate the anticipated date of contract award?

A11. The Government is working to have this contract awarded by the end of September 2016.

Q12. Please confirm the Governments intent, consistent with PWS Section 3.4.1.7.2 Procurement Activities and associated DITS (D016, D017, D018), that the Bidders cost proposal will not include Northrop Grumman costs as they will be solicited and obtained following award of the Base Contract.

A12. The proposal shall include Northrup Grumman subcontract costs. Even though the offeror will develop with the Governments concurrence and RFP (D016) and receive a proposal from Northrop Grumman (D017), which will be reviewed by the Government, it is important to obtain Northrup Grumman costs for evaluation purposes and determining the amount and percentage for the fixed fee.

Q13. If Northrop Grumman costs are not required to be submitted with this proposal, please verify, the 1200 hours for software upgrades specified in Section 3.4.1.6 are intended to be Northrop Grumman hours/cost, rather than the OREP prime contractor. Therefore these hours will not be reflected in the iRFP cost proposal.

A13. Northrop Grumman costs are required to be submitted with your proposal. The 1200 hours specified in Section 3.4.1.6 were placed to give Northrup Grumman an indication of the upward bound that the Government plans to place on this endeavor. You are correct in assuming that the OREP prime contractor will not be subject to this time requirement.

Q14. Please clarify for the two two-year options to build NITDS prototypes and the three one-year options to continue OREP support without NITDS development, are the costs for the two-year options for NITDS development to be inclusive of all additional OREP support work (i.e., SOW Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9), or additive for those services priced under the one-year options (as suggested in Section 11.0)?

A14. The two two-year options to build NITDS prototypes will run concurrently with the one-year options depending on whether or not success criteria are achieved. It could be that success criteria are achieved for the one year option but not for the two year option to build NITDS prototypes. If this were to occur Northrup Grummans effort would not continue and some or all of the Sections (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9) would be addressed depending on how the Government decided to move forward.

Q15. Please verify the costs for Testing and Evaluation Support Elements in Section 3.2 are in addition to those specified for NITDS

Base Year in SOW Section 3.4.2.

A15. The costs for Testing and Evaluation Support Elements in Section 3.2 should be the same as the cost specified for NITDS Base Year in SOW Section 3.4.2. In Section 3.2 the offeror should be cognizant of the fact that 5 test plans are required for the base contract.

Thus in section 3.4.2 the offeror is also limited to five efforts. The efforts that the offeror cites could be all NITDS efforts or they could be a mixture of NITDS and Special Study efforts. These efforts must be proposed to the Government for final determination.

Q16. Is there a Technical Requirements Document (or similar) that specifies the criteria for the modified NITDS material handling equipment (SOW 3.4.1.3) or the ground based version of the NITDS (3.4.1.4)?

A16. Currently, there is not a Technical Requirements Document that specifies the criteria for the modified NITDS material handling equipment (SOW 3.4.1.3) or the ground based version of the NITDS (3.4.1.4). The Government along with the OREP contractor will develop success criteria for the modified NITDS material handling equipment and the ground based version of the NITDS. These success criteria will be developed after award of the contract. The success criteria will form the basis for the decision that the Government will make concerning whether or not this effort moves forward.

4 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Q17. Can the Government provide additional detail on the criteria for the ground mounted NITDS which could range widely?

A17. At present, the Government will not provide any additional details on the criteria for the ground mounted NITDS. The Government plans to address the criteria after contract award.

Q18. Please clarify SOW Section 3.4.2.5 is noted as a priced option in FY18. Based on the current procurement schedule, we anticipate the majority (if not all) two-year Base Contract services will be FY17/FY18. Is this intended to be a priced option within the Base

Contract, or was it intended to include this task (and SOW 3.4.2.6 3.4.2.10) in the two-year NITDS Option costs/services? (Note, SOW

3.4.2.10 is listed as FY18/FY19 activities, which would run into an option year [FY19]).

A18. It is a good assumption to assume that Section 3.4.2.5 will occur during the two-year Base Contract and be a priced option.

Section 3.4.2.10 could be impacted by 3.4.2.5, it will depend on whether or not the proposed Blinds Testing can be set up in FY18 or

FY19. As noted, this could run into an option year. Before this effort runs into an option year, the Government will make a decision concerning the success criteria for this effort. The current goal is to not have this effort run into the option year.

Q19. SOW Section 3.4.2.21 - please clarify is this intended to assess up to 10 items at each of three facilities (30 total), or 10 items across three facilities?

A19. This should be 10 items across three facilities.

Q20. Is the Travel specified in Section 8.0 intended to be inclusive of the additional NITDS testing to be conducted at APG (SOW Section

3.4.2.10) and other government facilities (SOW Section 3.4.2.21), or in addition to that necessary to conduct additional testing?

A20. Yes. The travel specified in Section 8.0 is intended to be inclusive of the additional NITDS testing to be conducted at Aberdeen

Proving Groung and other government facilities.

Q21. SOW Section 3.3.1 the 5th bulleted item references D005, which is the Draft HASP for the Phase 3 NITDS at NG. Should this be D012?

A21. Yes. This should be D012.

Q22. What level of effort should be assumed for proposal purposes to complete the requirements listed in SOW Section 3.3.1?

A22. For proposal purposes assume that three corrective action notifications will be made.

Q23. SOW Section 3.4.1.6 references "success criteria" that will be evaluated. It is implied that this criteria relates to upgrading the software. What are the success criteria that will be used to evaluate software upgrades? If the criteria are not in reference to software upgrades, what are the success criteria?

A23. The success criteria will be presented to the OREP contractor after contract award. The success criteria referenced in Section

3.4.1.6 are related to the upgrading the NITDS "to eliminate interferences due to the ground mounted version of the NITDS".

Q24. SOW Section 3.4.1.7.2 references Sections 3.2.8 and 3.4.1.2.3.7. Neither of these sections exists. Please clarify.

A24. Section 3.2.8 does exist. Section 3.4.1.2.3.7 will be removed from Section 3.4.1.7.2 of the SOW.

Q25. SOW Section 3.4.3 states that for estimating purposed the Contractor shall assume that each year testing or demonstrations or the development of technologies shall occur. The section also states that the Government will generate specific SOW language and that the KO will request a technical and cost proposal for the work. Is the Government requesting a cost proposal for this SOW item in the current proposal? If so, please provide a level of effort to complete this work.

A25. This section states that the Government "may determine to pursue additional phases or additional evaluation...". If the Government decides to do this, a SOW will be generated. This is intended to let the offeror know that there is a possibility of additional work being requested. The Government is not requesting a cost proposal for this SOW item.

Q26. SOW Section 3.5 allocates 800 hours for conducting Special Studies. Is this 800 hours per year for the base contract and each of

5 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

the option years?

A26. This 800 hours is for the base contract only. If the option is awarded the Special Studies (Section 3.5 will be negotiated).

Q27. In SOW Sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 the SOW directs us to assume 100 hours/year each for the NIA/Surface Cleaning Advancements and

Advancements in Treatment and Waste Management Technologies whitepapers. If the whitepaper is due 140 DAA is there a need for additional hours in the second year if the whitepapers are delivered within the first year?

A27. There is not a need for additional hours in the second year since the whitepapers are delivered within the first year. Sections

3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of the SOW will be changed.

Q28. Solicitation Section L Section 3. Test Plans (Subfactor). The fifth paragraph in this section asks the Offeror to describe the most simulant or chemical agent to non-intrusively asses. Please clarify.

A28. This should read: "The Offeror shall describe the most difficult simulant or chemical agent to non-intrusively assess."

Q29. Refer to page 54 of the RFP, Section L.1.5: Is there a page count limit for Volume IV?

A29. There is no page count limit for Volume IV.

Q30. Refer to page 49 item L.1.1 Proposal Submission, items f. Within which volume does the government want us to place these items in the proposal submission?

A30. The Proposal Submission, item f should be separate from Volumes I through IV.

Q31. RFP Sections L.1.5, M.3.3.1 - Small Business Participation Requirement - Will the Northrop Grumman subcontract be excluded in the evaluation of the small business factor? They are a specifically named subcontractor. Based on the current solicitation language we are not to price the Northrop work until after a successful contract award. The expectation is that the Northrop Grumman subcontract will be more than 50% of the final total contract value. The small business requirements become very difficult to achieve with the inclusion of a non-competed subcontractor. It is recommended that small business percentages be based on the total contract value minus the value of the Northrup Grumman subcontract value. Please clarify what total contract value we should use to assess small business participation.

A31. The Northrup Grumman subcontract will be included in the evaluation of the small business factor. As stated in other answers to questions, the Northrup Grumman subcontract costs will be priced within your proposal. The government realizes that it may be very difficult to achieve the small business percentages, but all offerors will have the same problem.

3. Section L paragraph L.1.2. Test Plans (subfactor) is updated in Section L.

4. The SOW has been updated based on the questions above and text changes are in bold text and is included as attachment 0006. This

SOW replaces attachment 0001 of the solicitation.

5. All other terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0002 ***

6 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

List of Number List of Number

Addenda Title Date of Pages Transmitted By Addenda Title Date of Pages Transmitted By________________ ____________________________________________________________ _______________ ____________ _______________________________ ____________________________________________________________ _______________ ____________ _______________

Attachment 0006 UPDATED STATEMENT OF WORK 21-APR-2016 060 DATA

7 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

3. Test Plans (Subfactor)

The Offeror shall describe their approach to develop a study and test plan to demonstrate the effectiveness to assess an RCWM site using an NIA System. This can also include discussion of existing data from other tests or operations that support the test requirements and construct.

The Offeror shall describe any laboratory or bench scale testing in their plan.

The Offeror shall describe their approach to perform the demonstration tests to include the simulant, chemical agent and RCWM. The

Offeror shall also discuss the appropriate test which presents the best "worst case" material, if possible.

The Offeror shall describe their proposed Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) to include: samples, analytical procedures, data quality, and process data acquisition.

The Offeror shall describe the most difficult simulant or chemical agent to non-intrusively assess.

The Offeror shall describe, in detail, any permit history for the NIA equipment and proposed permitting plan. NIA Systems that have been operated in the field will be evaluated preferentially.

The Offeror shall provide technical discussion of their capability for recording operating parameters (Volume I).

*** END OF NARRATIVE L0002 ***

8 8