Solicitation_QA_2015OCT21.docx

PSS-T Solicitation Questions and Answers DISCLAIMER: The Government provides the following good faith answers to questions submitted for information and planning purposes. Be informed that the Government will NOT be in any way bound by these Answers. In the event of any conflict between these answers and the Solicitation, the Solicitation will solely control.

1) QUESTION: Is there an incumbent contractor for this requirement? If so, could you please provide the contractor name and the contract number that was awarded?

ANSWER: No, there is not an incumbent for the Persistent Surveillance Systems – Tethered requirement.

2) QUESTION: For pricing purposes, what projected contract start date should offerors use?

ANSWER: For pricing purposes, the offerors can use 27 May 2016 as the projected contract start date.

3) QUESTION: Will the storage of PSS-T tethers and associated hardware need to remain at Aberdeen or other current location) or may the awardee use storage at their facilities, provided they meet any Dept of Army requirements?

ANSWER: The PSS-T spare kits will be stored at Sierra Army Depot (SIAD). The PSS-T Contractor will receive excess hardware for the AN/DSY-1(V)1 and AN/DSY-2(V)1. The Contractor will be responsible for determining where it will make the most sense for them strategically to store this excess hardware. The hardware will not be stored at Aberdeen Proving Ground, but the Contractor may consider its own facilities, a partnership with Tobyhanna Army Depot (TYAD), or any other storage arrangement that enables the Contractor to meet the requirements outlined in the performance work statement (PWS).

4) QUESTION: Reference the Solicitation, page 20 and 21 (of 137), please clarify if the requirement is to price both Parts for the High Antennas for Radio Communication (HARC) which is currently presented as Part Number: 105000-003/105600-001. The numbers before and after the "/" are for two distinct Syntonics components.

ANSWER: The part numbers shall each be priced separately. The solicitation has been updated to incorporate sub-line item number (SLIN) 0003AL.

5) QUESTION: May offerors use a reduced font, not smaller than 8 point, for graphics, figures and tables?

ANSWER: No alternative font types or sizes may be used.

6) QUESTION: Reference Section L, Volume III - Cost/Price, part 12) BOE, item iv. The requirement to discuss using a reduced Hazard/Hardship rate and its impact on retention does not appear to be consistent with BOE elements. Is this requirement misplaced, and if so, where should this be addressed?

ANSWER: The requirement is not misplaced. Offerors are required to provide an explanation if their proposed estimate reflects rates less than the Department of State maximum allowable in an OCONUS location.

7) QUESTION: Reference Section L, Volume II - Past Performance, first paragraph. The requirement states: "...Relevant past performance must include experience with aerostats. However, it encompasses any attribute of an aerostat program with which an offeror may have had experience, such as providing management, crew members, materials, supplies, technical advice, and other services to an aerostat program." The PWS encompasses a broad scope and includes performance areas such as Program Management, Integration, Logistics, C4ISR sustainment, OCONUS staffing, Training, and others. Past performance credentials in any of these areas reduces risk that the contractor can successfully perform the requirements specified by the Solicitation. The aerostat requirement in the solicitation may exclude relevant information from the evaluators regarding a contractor's ability to perform the PSS-T Mission. We respectfully request that the government consider rewording the requirement to be less restrictive in order to increase the amount of competition.

ANSWER: The Government has taken this request in consideration; however, will not be rewording the requirement. The past performance concerns experience with aerostats. However, it encompasses any attribute of an aerostat program with which an offeror may have had experience, such as providing management, crew members, materials, supplies, technical advice, and other services to an aerostat program.

8) QUESTION: Reference Section L, Sub-section ii, paragraph 2 (p.129), items iii. and iv. which read as follows:

"iii. For safety purposes, a minimum of four (4) personnel are required for launch, recovery and during flight. A minimum of two (2) personnel are required when the system is moored.

iv. Test and training locations: One (1) of each (PSS-T medium and large) at each: Yuma Proving Ground (YPG), Arizona, and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (JB MDL), New Jersey. Eight (8) hours a day / five (5) days a week support."

Based on items iii and iv, it is unclear if personnel are required to support moored Aerostat systems at JB MDL and YPG outside of the specified "Eight (8) hours a day / five (5) days a week support."

Can you please confirm that moored aerostats at JB MDL and YPG do not require staffing beyond the specified Eight (8) hours a day / five (5) days a week?

ANSWER: Please see the updated solicitation instructions found in Section L.

9) QUESTION: The solicitation in section L.27, Sub para iii, Volume III Past performance, indicates that “Relevant Past Performance must include experience with Aerostats”. This seems unfairly restrictive given the objective of relevancy screening is only to remove from consideration those contract references that are clearly unrelated to the type of effort sought versus removing from consideration contract references that may have a great deal of relevance without being Aerostat specific efforts (the discussion of guidance on this as noted in the Office of the Under Secretary of defense for AT&L guidance published under “A Guide to Collection and use of Past Performance Information” (available at Caution-www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/PPI_Guide_2003_final.pdf). It is understood that the Government may wish to make a determination as to degree of relevancy which may include the extent to which the past performance information involves providing similar services on Aerostat programs. In which case, it is suggested that the government score a past performance example as highly relevant where it involves many of the types of performance required, is of similar scope and complexity AND involves integrated Aerostat systems performing similar missions. An effort that is similar in the technical, logistics and programmatic support provided may only be considered somewhat relevant and receive less weight in the evaluation process but should still be considered relevant (as it would not be clearly unrelated types of effort).

In addition expertise in just Aerostats without accounting for the particular requirements to support the operational mission which requires Aerostats outfitted with technology that supports panoramic day/night surveillance in challenging weather conditions, providing rapid identification/detection of threats over extended coverage areas with electronics, sensors, radars, and high end cameras integrated with control station capabilities is in itself not particularly relevant. Given this would the Government consider removing the restriction that relevancy be limited to only those Past Performance references demonstrating Aerostats experience and consider assessing a degree of relevance that takes into account various factors as noted above?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question seven (7).

10) QUESTION: Will the Government please consider removing “Solicitation Number” as a heading from the list of PPQ POCs, as Contract Number is already included as a heading.

ANSWER: The Government will remove “Solicitation Number” from the list of data required for PPQ POCs. The solicitation has been updated to incorporate this change.

11) QUESTION: To save page space, will the Government allow tables, graphics, headers, and footers to be presented in a font other than Arial and with no smaller than 10 point font?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question five (5).

12) QUESTION: In the Draft RFP Volume II Cost/Price Part 1, section iii. “CONUS fielded locations: Four (4) PSS-T medium systems in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas; two (2) PSS-T large in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas. 24 hours a day / seven (7) days a week support.” This section of the Draft RFP is missing from the Final RFP Volume III Cost/Price Part 1. Does the Government intend not to price the CONUS Fielded locations as previously stated in the Draft RFP? Or was it an oversite in the Final RFP?

ANSWER: The absence of the above verbiage from the formal solicitation is not an oversight. Please follow the information and instructions provided within the formal solicitation.

13) QUESTION: Is the offeror required to complete Section B pricing schedule with our submission?

ANSWER: No, this pricing shall be provided in the cost volume submissions.

14) QUESTION: Attachment 13 - FFP Price Template identifies weighting percentages in all four years. Some line items have the same percentages in all four years, some line items do not have the same percentages in all years. Rows (27, 28, 29), (59, 60, 61), (106,107,108) have different percentages in Year 1 that do not match years 2-4. Is this correct or should all four years match? Please clarify.

ANSWER: Yes, the percentages are correct. Some percentages are meant to vary across different years.

15) QUESTION: Attachment 13 - FFP Price Template. Rows 169, 170 and171 yellow highlighted cells require offerors to input information. These yellow cells are locked that will not allow us to enter data. Please correct.

ANSWER: Attachment 13 - FFP Price Template has been updated to allow Offerors to enter information.

16) QUESTION: Attachment 13 - FFP Price Template requires prices for four years. Task Order 0001 requires three years of pricing. Is this correct or should both portions of this solicitation have matching performance periods?

ANSWER: The information and instructions provided in the solicitation is correct. Please reference solicitation section M.1.B, Factor 3, "The total evaluated price is the result of adding the FFP price as calculated in the Government provided workbook to the probable cost for TO 0001."

17) QUESTION: Ref. RFP Section M: The technical factor evaluates the offeror's proposed technical approach for paragraphs 3.1.7, Demobilization, and 3.2.7, FMS, of the Base PWS and every paragraph of the TO PWS. However, Ref. Attachment 14 Table 12: identifies specific PWS's requiring an approach discussion, ie, not every paragraph of the PWS requires an approach.

Since Section M states every TO PWS paragraph approach is evaluated, and Attachment 14, (Table 12, Column "Proposal Submission Requirements") identifies only specified base/TO PWS paragraphs require an approach (versus those that only require acknowledgement of compliance), which instruction should the Offeror follow?

ANSWER: The technical factor will evaluate the offeror's proposed technical approach or acknowledgement of compliance (as required by Attachment 14, Table 12) for paragraphs 3.1.7, Demobilization, and 3.2.7, FMS, of the Base PWS and every paragraph of the TO PWS.

18) QUESTION: Will the Government require a Support Equipment Analysis?

ANSWER: No, the contract awardee will be expected to sustain support equipment data for LSA 009 and LSA 074 in PowerLog-J.

19) QUESTION: Is the Contractor creating a new LSA 036 or will an existing one be provided?

ANSWER: Existing LSA 036 will be provided; however, the contract awardee will be required to provide updates based on engineering changes, obsolescence, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Materiel Shortages (DMSMS), etc... PSS-T has (2) distinct Provisioning Contract Control Numbers (PCCN), one (1) for AN/DSY-1(V)1 and one for AN/DSY-2(V)1. LSA data and products to include LSA-036 will be provided as Government furnished information (GFI) in either GEIA-0007 or MIL-STD 1388-2B format as a product of US Army's PowerLog-J provisioning technical database.

20) QUESTION: In line with MAC and RPSTL, will the Contractor also use PowerLOG J to generate the LSA 004 Report (MAC) and the LSA 030 Report (RPSTL)?

ANSWER: Yes.

21) QUESTION: Will the Government also require a LSA 080 PBOM or a LSA 151 PPL Summary Index?

ANSWER: No.

22) QUESTION: Does the Government know to what indenture level they would like to provision?

ANSWER: Provisioning shall be required to be accomplished to support the Field level of maintenance. For evaluation purposes, Offerors shall assume PSS-T large has 650 field level maintenance parts and PSS-T medium has 500 field level maintenance parts.

23) QUESTION: Are these TM already authenticated, validated, and/or verified?

ANSWER: Yes; however, changes resulting from Government approved ECPs will require updates to the TMs.

24) QUESTION: Are these manuals xml coded or hard copy pdf?

ANSWER: The narrative TMs will be provided in their native file format (MSWord). Illustrations will be provided in their native file format and may be either Vector or Raster. RPSTL data is reposed in PowerLog-J provisioning technical database and will be provided as GFI.

25) QUESTION: Has there been a formal Level of Repair Analysis (LORA) completed, if not will the Government require the Contractor to complete it?

ANSWER: The Government will complete the LORA and provide as GFI. The contract awardee will be required to update based on approved ECPs, obsolescence, safety, etc.

26) QUESTION: Will Val/Ver be completed IAW AMC PAM 25-31?

ANSWER: Yes.

27) QUESTION: Attachment 0014; Table 12, Proposal Compliance Checklist and Cross Reference Table does not state any requirements for PWS 3.2.4 Configuration Management (CM).

Is the Offeror to provide our approach to this requirement or acknowledge compliance?

ANSWER: Yes, please see the updated Table 12 in Attachment 0014.

28) QUESTION: In the solicitation, Item 0003AC "Envelope, PSS-T Medium", refers to TCOM L.P. PN 4D04885G01. We have contacted the manufacturer and they have advised us that this PN is for a configuration that has not completed manufacturing and as such it is not deliverable. The previous PGSS solicitation referenced PN 4D04773G03 for the "Envelope, 22M+, DC".

Should this be the PN that is used?

ANSWER: The correct part number (PN) is 4D04773G09 "Aerostat Installation, 22M+ Aerostat, No Avionics, L/W Aerostat". This has been amended in the solicitation.

29) QUESTION: Section L states: "Font Size A standard 12-point minimum is required."

Does the font size and type apply to all graphics/illustrations, screen captures and tables? Does it additionally apply to the spreadsheets provided with the RFP, which are currently in Calibri, 10pt - 11pt font?

ANSWER: Yes, the font restriction applies to all graphics/illustrations, screen captures and tables. The Government-provided “fill-in-the-blank” documents, such as the provided spreadsheets, are not subject to the 12-point minimum, Arial font restriction. For those documents the Offerors shall retain the font and sizes as provided.

30) QUESTION: Since Windchill was removed from PWS 1.7 GFP list, and yet is required to perform 3.2.1 System Technical Support "PD Aerostats will utilize a PDM system (Windchill)," will the Contractor be expected to provide via CFP/ODC?

ANSWER: Yes.

31) QUESTION: RFP states that the compliance checklist is not included in the page count (page 126 b.); Attachment 14 states that the compliance checklist is included.

Which is correct?

ANSWER: The compliance checklist is not included in the technical volume page count. Please see the amended Attachment 0014.

32) QUESTION: PWS 3.4.1, Technical Manuals, states that eight (8) publications are to be developed.

Are these all to be developed during TO 0001 base period?

ANSWER: Please refer to the amended PWS within the solicitation.

33) QUESTION: Solicitation section I-194 states: "Contractors must purchase major helium requirements from Federal helium suppliers, to the extent that supplies are available." However, PWS section 1.7 states: The Government will furnish the Contractor with the following Government furnished information (GFI) and the following consumable materials:

e) Helium;

Is the Contractor expected to purchase helium or will it be provided by the Government?

ANSWER: The Government will provide the helium to the contract awardee via the Defense Logistics Agency-Energy (DLA-E). The contract awardee will be responsible for tracking of the operational inventory for status tracking and reorder points.

34) QUESTION: Solicitation section L. ii. 2. ix. states: All four (4) Training Classes are to be held at YPG. For planning purposes, assume two (2) training classes in the base period and one (1) training classes in each option period.

Is there a further definition as to which classes are medium or large classes?

ANSWER: The Government expects to require one (1) PSS-T medium and one (1) PSS-T large training class during the base period of task order (TO) 0001. For the first option period, the Government expects to require one (1) PSS-T medium class, and one (1) PSS-T large class for the second option period.

35) QUESTION: PWS section 1.7 states that the Government furnishes ASTS.

Is this the license, or only authorization to government information and the Contractor must to obtain the commercial licenses?

ANSWER: This is the license.

36) QUESTION: Task Order 01 PWS (Table 1) says for PSS-T large:

14 CENTCOM

2 NORTHCOM

However, Section L omits reference to NORTHCOM and states "CENTCOM sites: Assume 12 active PSS-T large operational sites...in Afghanistan. Assume two (2) active PSS-T large operational sites in Iraq."

Do the NORTHCOM systems need to be priced? If so, where are they located?

ANSWER: The two (2) systems listed in Table 1 of TO 0001, under the NORTHCOM AOR, are the two (2) training, testing, and experimentation sites.

37) QUESTION: 3.3.2.2 Inventory Control - These two statements are from the same section:

Inventory Control The Contractor shall maintain an inventory in ASTS of all repair parts and supplies by inventory warehouse … The Contractor shall use repair center and/or ASTS to maintain an inventory of parts under their control.

Is ASTS mandatory for the PSST Inventory, while the Contractor can use either Repair Center or ASTS for their own inventory control purposes?

ANSWER: Please see the amended PWS. Software licenses will be provided by the Government for the Government furnished inventory management system. The use of the Government furnished system for PSS-T inventory control is required; however, the Offerors may utilize whatever system they so please for their own inventory control purposes.

38) QUESTION: 3.3.3 Retrograde - At the end of the retrograde requirement the PWS states:

Upon the Government’s decision to initiate retrograde, the Government will provide a retrograde plan to the Contractor. Retrograde will be specified in additional TO/Dos.

Is the Contractor to outline our own process for how retrograde will be performed; and the retrograde plan provided by the Government is a system specific retrograde/reset plan for what/where/when this will occur?

ANSWER: Please see the updated instructions found in Volume I of Section L and the Base PWS.

39) QUESTION: In 3.3.7 RESET it states: The Contractor shall provide for the necessary capital equipment, personnel resources and physical facilities to reset systems.

Then 3.3.8 (P3 Partnership) states: The Contractor shall establish a formal P3 for system reset and LRU maintenance utilizing TYAD as a partner.

The TO states: "The Government does not anticipate having an established core requirement resultant to a core depot assessment at the time of award of this TO", yet goes on to state "The Contractor shall adhere to the requirements in the base PWS."

Can the customer please clarify the expectation as to the utilization of the designated P3 (TYAD) for use in Reset operations during the proposed Period of Performance?

ANSWER: The contract awardee shall be required to workload TYAD with no less than 60% of the total system reset and LRU maintenance actives.

40) QUESTION: The line item specifies L-3 WESCAM Part Number 42228-05. According to the manufacturer ‘PN 42228-05 has become obsolete and is only available for last time buy until the end of 2015. PN 42228-15 is the replacement part that supersedes 42228-05." Will the Government change the 0003AE part number from 42228-05 to 42228-15?

ANSWER: Yes; PN 42228-15 should be priced instead of PN 42228-05.

41) QUESTION: This CLIN (0003K) is for High Antennas for Radio Communication (HARC), PSS-T Large. The SLIN description refers to Part Number (P/N) 105000-0003 / 105600-0001. In discussions with the manufacturer during the draft solicitation period, the manufacturer stated the P/N should be 105600-0001 and not 105000-0003. Will the Government confirm that pricing for PN 105600-0001 is what is expected, and that offerors submitting such pricing will be compliant?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question four (4).

42) QUESTION: Will the Government please provide the applicable wage determinations as required to comply with FAR clauses 52.222-41 and 52.222-43?

ANSWER: Since the Service Contract Act is not applicable to this solicitation, these clauses have been removed.

43) QUESTION: Will the Government please remove DFARS clause 252.242-7005? This clause only applies to CAS covered contracts. As a small business set-aside, all offerors will be exempt from CAS and thus exempt from this clause.

ANSWER: This clause has been removed from the solicitation.

44) QUESTION: Will the Government please remove FAR clause 52.230-2 as this procurement and the subsequent contract award qualify for the small business exemption at 48 CFR 9903.201-1(3)?

ANSWER: This clause has been removed from the solicitation.

45) QUESTION: As this is a small business set-aside, the Government believes that at least 2 responsible small businesses will submit an offer. One of the exemptions to requesting certified cost or pricing data is adequate competition which is defined in part that there is an expectation of 2 or more offerors. It would appear that this solicitation meets the exemption requirement. FAR clause 52.215-20 is only to be included in solicitations if the Government “is reasonably certain that certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data will be required.” We believe the Government can support an exemption to certified cost or pricing data.

ANSWER: While competition is anticipated, the Government reserves the right to require certified cost or pricing data. The Government will not be removing this clause from the solicitation. Only other than certified cost or pricing data is being requested at this time.

46) QUESTION: Section L states “If the provision requires additional or unique information, then that information is provided immediately after the provision title.”

L-25 states “The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. Section L seems to conflict with Section L-25.

Does the Offeror need to verify every clause for “fill ins”, or is that not a requirement based on the statement on page 116?

ANSWER: Offerors should verify that any provision requiring “fill-in” information is filled in.

47) QUESTION: Please confirm that the Proposal Adequacy Checklist is to be included in the Pricing volume, or provide instructions in Section L regarding the Checklist’s intended placement in the proposal.

ANSWER: The Proposal Adequacy Checklist shall be included in the Cost/Price Volume.

48) QUESTION: DFARS clause 252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist is only to be included in solicitations when certified cost or pricing data is requested.

Since the Government has set aside the procurement and industry days support adequate competition and the ability to make an award at fair and reasonable prices, we respectfully request the removal of this clause as not being applicable.

ANSWER: The Government has reviewed this request; however, the clause will not be removed.

49) QUESTION: Section L, L-27, 2.b., para. 2 - “The miscellaneous volume shall include …data and software assertions…” Would the Government please clarify this requirement? Is the response required an assertion regarding GIDEP registration and/or something else?

ANSWER: This refers to any intellectual property rights being asserted under the DFARS 252.227 clauses listed in section I of the RFP.

50) QUESTION: Section L, L-27, 2.b., para. 2 - “The miscellaneous volume shall include ….representations and certifications…completed Sections…K…” Would the Government identify the representations and certifications required in addition to completed Section K?

ANSWER: There are no additional representation and certification requirements outside of Section K.

51) QUESTION: Format requires 12-point minimum Arial font. Would the Government please confirm that Government-provided documents (e.g. “fill in the blanks” clauses, RFP Section B, Proposal Adequacy Checklist, RFP Section K, etc.) are not subject to the font restriction, and may be completed and included in the proposal as provided in the RFP?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provide in question 29.

52) QUESTION: Format requires 12-point minimum Arial font. Will the Government please lower this minimum to 10-point for excel pricing files and tables embedded in Word documents?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question five (5).

53) QUESTION: Section L, L-27, 2.e.i., Volume I Technical - This section states “…Each paragraph within the technical volume shall identify the pertinent paragraph in the TO PWS Section (or base PWS paragraph and Section L of the solicitation, where there is not a pertinent TO PWS paragraph.”)…”

Some Section L instructions for narratives do not map directly to a TO PWS or Base PWS requirement. Recommend changing Section L from the above to “Each paragraph within the technical volume shall identify the pertinent paragraph in the TO PWS, (or base PWS where there is not a pertinent TO PWS section) and/or Section L of the solicitation.” This change will enable Offerors to explicitly address each Section L requirement for narratives.

ANSWER: The Government has reviewed this recommendation. This section has been amended within the solicitation to state, “Each paragraph within the technical volume shall identify the pertinent paragraph in the TO PWS, (or base PWS where there is not a pertinent TO PWS section) and Section L of the solicitation where applicable.”

54) QUESTION: Section L, L-27, 2.e.i., Volume I Technical - Technical Summary states, “It is noted in Table 12 where it is acceptable to acknowledge compliance; all other responses shall provide further detail..:” If column 2 for a PWS section only states “acknowledge compliance” and the Offeror checks “yes” in column 3, would the Government confirm that there is no further requirement to address that PWS section in the proposal?

ANSWER: If column 2 for a PWS section only states “acknowledge compliance” and the Offeror checks “yes” in column 3, there is no further requirement to address such PWS sections in the proposal. However, Offerors may provide further detail or information for these PWS sections in the proposal, at their discretion.

55) QUESTION: Section L, L-27, 2.e.i., Volume I Technical/Technical Summary - Would the Government please clarify the instruction regarding the technical volume organized “in the format outlined in Table 12” as it relates to the additional narrative instructions in L-27? Please provide further guidance regarding the inclusion and placement of narratives required on pp. 126 and 127 for Program Management and Operations Support, Engineering Support, and Logistics Support in relation to Table 12 format.

ANSWER: Table 12 is updated to include references for the narratives required on pp. 126 and 127.

56) QUESTION: Section L, L-27, 2.e.i. - Section Program Management and Operations Support states:

“Management of theater operations … movement in and around operational sites…” In asking offerors to describe operational personnel’s “movement in and around operational sites,” did the Government mean movement within an operational site, or between two or more operational sites, or both?

ANSWER: “Movement in and around operational sites” includes movement within an operational site, movement between two (2) or more operational sites, and movement between operational sites and hubs.

57) QUESTION: Section L, L-27, 2.e.i. - Section Program Management and Operations Support states:

“Management of theater operations … movement in and around operational sites…” In asking offerors to describe operational personnel’s “movement in and around operational sites,” did the Government mean only operational sites where aerostat system(s) are deployed or does that include movement between operational sites and regional hubs?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question 56.

58) QUESTION: Section L, L-27, 2.e.ii., Volume II Past Performance - This section states in part, “…Offerors shall submit all Government and /or commercial contracts….which are relevant…”

1) Section 1 - Contract Description provides required information.

2) Section 2 – Performance provides required information.

Listing “all contracts” and responding to Section 1 and Section 2 – Performance for a representative subset of contracts would permit offerors to substantiate relevance. This would facilitate evaluation. Would the Government please define the minimum subset of “all relevant contracts” for which Offeror’s must provide Contract Descriptions and Performance?

ANSWER: This is no minimum subset. Offerors should list all contracts that it determines to be relevant to the requirements stated under this solicitation.

59) QUESTION: There will be sites in Iraq for which offerors must propose appropriate uplifts. The Hardship Differential is not the same for all of Iraq per the Department of State rates effective 10/4/15. The rate may be 30% or 35% depending on location in Iraq. Would the Government provide more detailed information on the location of the work or inform offerors which rate to use for pricing purposes (30% or 35%)?

ANSWER: Please refer to the U.S. Department of State for maximum allowances. Since there is not an exact location for Iraq specified within the solicitation, Offerors may use the post name ‘Other’. Please keep in mind that these rates depict the maximum percentage and Offerors are allowed to propose at a lower rate.

60) QUESTION: Notes to Table 16 states that task order 001 shall be proposed per the “contract fiscal year.” In a response to a question posted on September 28, contractors were advised to use a start date of May 27, 2016 for pricing purposes. Will the Government please clarify the period of performance for T.O. 001? Should we assume the base year as May 27, 2016-January 26, 2017?

ANSWER: Yes; for proposal purposes, please assume that the base period of performance for TO: 0001 will be 27 May 2016 – 26 January 2017.

61) QUESTION: The pricing assumptions in the solicitation define that there will be 1 large system and 1 medium system in both AZ and NJ.

Will the Government clarify if both the large and medium systems will be in operation (flying) at the same time? Or will there be only one system at a time in operation at any given site?

ANSWER: For proposal purposes, assume that both the medium and large systems will be operational at the same times, at both of the test and training locations.

62) QUESTION: The solicitation states that if only (1) offer is received, the Government may request certified cost or pricing data. Will the Government confirm that at this time the solicitation is exempt from submission of certified cost or pricing as data as there is an expectation of 2 or more offerors?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question 45.

63) QUESTION: Section 1.6 Intellectual Property states in part, “…the Offeror’s proposal shall include all applicable commercial software license agreements related to commercial software deliverables…” Would the Government please confirm that the software licensing agreements, if applicable, may be included as appendices to the Technical Volume, and excluded from the page count limitation?

ANSWER: All applicable commercial software license agreements related to commercial software deliverables shall be submitted within Volume IV - Miscellaneous. See Attachment 0014, Table 11.

64) QUESTION: This PWS section states in part, “The Contractor shall operate and maintain the existing CONUS PSS-T trainer/test system(s)…” Item iv. Test and Training locations on page 129 of 137 states, “Test and training locations:...Eight hours a day/five days a week support.” Item iii. Says that “For safety purposes, a minimum of…two (2) personnel are required when the system is moored.” For the test and training locations, will the Government clarify if personnel should be on site when the system is moored? Should personnel be priced for the time that is other than the eight hours a day / five days a week that the systems must be supported per Item iv?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question eight (8).

65) QUESTION: 3.2.3 states “As part of its proposal, the Contractor shall submit a draft systems engineering plan (SEMP). The final SEMP shall be submitted for Government approval 15 days after the date of TO award, IAW CDRL L003, DI-SESS-81785, “Systems Engineering Management Plan.” The SEMP should address all items listed under program management and engineering services in this PWS. The SEMP should provide an explanation of how the Contractor will perform the services and interface with PD Aerostats.

Would the Government provide additional clarification on how offerors are to respond to the PWS versus the SEMP? Is the content for the SEMP intended to be redundant to other sections of the proposal? Or, are all elements of PM (PWS 3.1) and Engineering (PWS 3.2) to be addressed one time only, either in the technical volume text or in the SEMP?

Recommend considering permitting the SEMP to cross reference the other sections of the technical volume that address the PWS for PM and Engineering. The SEMP would then address the other required. If the SEMP is to include all of the elements in the PM and Engineering sections AND they are to be addressed in the order of Table 12 elsewhere in the volume, would the Government please provide additional page count for accommodating all of the required information in the standalone SEMP? This would be more consistent with the Government’s 77-page SEP example.

ANSWER: The Government has reviewed the question and recommendation. Cross-referencing is permitted; however, the page limit will not be increased. Please note that the final SEMP delivered after contract award must be a standalone document.

66) QUESTION: The instructions for Table 11 state that Section B is to be completed and included in the Miscellaneous volume. Since Section B is an output of the Pricing Volume, will the Government change the inclusion to being in Volume III Pricing Volume?

ANSWER: Please see the amended Table 11 within Attachment 0014.

67) QUESTION: The Government is requesting a completed Section B to be included with the proposal. Section B represents the CLIN structure for the base contract only (lacks CLINs for the option years in the T.O.). Is it the Government’s intent for offeror’s to only complete the FFP CLINs since those are the only Base contract CLINs priced?

ANSWER: Please see the amended Table 11 within Attachment 0014.

68) QUESTION: Table 11 only allows 25 pages for the Past Performance. Given the requirements of the past performance volume, and its importance in the overall evaluation, will the Government consider doubling the number of pages allowed for the Past Performance volume?

ANSWER: The Government has taken this into consideration; however, will not increase the page limit.

69) QUESTION: Table 12, Proposal Compliance Checklist and Cross Reference Table do not include PWS 3.2.4 Configuration Management. Would the Government please revise the Table to provide clarification regarding proposal requirements for Configuration Management?

ANSWER: The Government has updated Table 12 to provide clarification.

70) QUESTION: Would the Government confirm that not applicable (“n/a”) would be an acceptable entry in the last column when offerors are required to acknowledge compliance and not required to provide an approach?

ANSWER: Yes, this is acceptable.

71) QUESTION: Section L instructions for narrative responses are not always aligned with a specific PWS section. To accommodate this, would the Government allow Offerors to append additional rows in Attachment 0014 for Section L-27 narrative references and associated proposal paragraphs?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question 55.

72) QUESTION: Vendor information indicates that the Wescam Hand Controller in column three will no longer be available after 2015. Will the Government update the P/N of 42228-05 to the new part number of 42228-15 as this is the part that will be available in 2016?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question 40.

73) QUESTION: Will the Government provide information on its plans to cover non-DoD systems? Will the non-DoD systems be included in a future Task Order under this contract?

ANSWER: If requirements for non-DoD systems are validated and funded at a future time, they will be fulfilled under a separate TO or separate contract vehicle.

74) QUESTION: Solicitation number W56KGY-15-R-0016 contains DFAR clause 252.204-7012 SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE INFORMATION AND CYBER INCIDENT REPORTING AUG/2015. The DoD released this interim rule effective immediately imposing broader and more rigorous standards for cyber security system protection. This release was done without collaboration or industry engagement, as such these changes will have cost impacts at the prime and subcontractor level and the full extent of the impact will take significant time to be assessed and quantified. We request that the government amend the solicitation to remove this interim rule as PSS-T is essentially a continuation of legacy PTDS & PGSS engineering, logistics and operations support and adding this new requirement to a post-production program would drive unnecessary additional costs to the program. Alternatively, we would request the incorporation of the November 2013 version of DFARS 252.204-7012 until full adjudication, collaboration and impact analysis is complete for the new rules.

ANSWER: The Government has reviewed the request; however, will not be removing the clause.

75) QUESTION: In light of the delay in our team members obtaining the FOUO material, and in consideration of the outstanding questions, can the Government please extend the due date for the proposals by ten days?

ANSWER: The Government has reviewed the request and has determined that the presented situational reasons do not warrant an extension to the proposal due date.

76) QUESTION: Reference Attachment 14 - Section L Tables, Table 17 (page 15) and Table 19 (page 16). Do the NTE Direct costs for ODCs presented in Table 19 include the NTE cost for Travel? There are no separate not to exceed costs for travel presented. Can the Government please clarify how the Government desires we handle travel costs and what specific level of detail is required?

ANSWER: As stated in Section L, L-27 under the Cost Volume, notes to Table 19 - “For evaluation purposes only, all offerors shall assume the following direct costs (without applicable indirect loadings) for the following ODCs (exclusive of OCONUS Labor Uplifts and Travel).” The Government has not provided a not-to-exceed value for travel. The minimum required detail for travel costs has been outlined under L-27, 10. Travel Worksheet.

77) QUESTION: Reference Section L-27, 2.b.* which reads: “*Draft plans are included in the page count. The proposal compliance checklist will not be included in the page count;” and Attachment 14, Table 11., *, which reads: *Draft plans and proposal compliance checklist are included in the page count. Please clarify if the Proposal Compliance Checklist will or will not be included in the page count.

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question 31.

78) QUESTION: While not explicitly stated, it is assumed cover pages, Table of Contents, Acronym Lists and Compliance Matrices are not included in page count. Is this assumption correct, and if not, can the Government please clarify what is not included in the page count?

ANSWER: No; unless explicitly excluded, all documents submitted as part of Volumes I and II are included in the maximum page count listed in Table 11 of the Attachment 0014.

79) QUESTION: Reference Attachment 14, Table 11. Item 3.2.4, Configuration Management is missing from the Proposal Compliance Checklist and Cross Reference Table. We assume this was simply and oversight. It is also assumed the second column, Proposal Submission Requirements should read “Provide an approach to meet TO PWS requirements.” Can the Government please confirm this is assumption is correct, or advise otherwise?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question 27.

80) QUESTION: Reference the Base PWS, Section 3.2.1, paragraph 3, there is a reference to paragraph 3.2.6. Is this correct, or should the reference be to 3.2.4 or 3.2.5?

ANSWER: The reference in paragraph 3.2.1 should be paragraph 3.2.5 “Engineering Change Proposals (ECP)”. Paragraph 3.2.1 of the Base PWS has been amended to reflect this change.

81) QUESTION: Reference Task Order PWS, Section 1.12, paragraph f, there is a reference to section 1.14 paragraph b. It is assumed this should read 1.12, paragraph b. Is this the correct assumption?

ANSWER: Yes. 1.12, paragraph b is the correct reference. The TO PWS has been amended to reflect this information.

82) QUESTION: Section B requires a price for HAND CONTROLLER, PSS-T Medium for part number 42228-05. The manufacturer advises us that this part number has been replaced by part number 42228-15. Will the Government accept this part number price? If yes, will all solicitation documents referencing this part number be revised?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question 40.

83) QUESTION: Section B requires a price for ENVELOPE, PPS-T Medium for part number 4D04885G01. The manufacturer advises us that this part number is not yet manufactured. Since the new part number is not available would the Government accept the price of the existing part number 4D04773G03 or please provide different instructions? Will the Government revise the solicitation documents to reflect a new part number?

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question 28.

84) QUESTION: Section B requires pricing for HIGH ANTENNAS FOR RADIO COMMUNICATIONS (HARC), PPS-T Large, for part number 105000-0003/105600-0001. Does this part number represent one part number or two different part numbers? Please provide clarification of part number/s. If two different part numbers require pricing, please revise Section B accordingly.

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question four (4).

85) QUESTION: In the Task Order PWS paragraph 3.2.5.5 System Commonality. The Government requests as part of its draft plan, acquisition cost and sustainment cost be included. Is it the Government’s intent to include cost data in the technical response? Please clarify.

ANSWER: No cost data shall be included within the draft commonality plan. Please see the amended TO PWS.

86) QUESTION: TO PWS 1.6 states “The Contractor shall adhere to the requirements of the base PWS.”

The Base Contract PWS Section 1.6 references three DFARS clauses.

Section L Attachment 0014 Table 12 states, for PWS 1.6, “Submit data restrictions tables in accordance with DFARS ….”

Would the Government clarify whether the completed and signed clauses should be included as attachments to the Technical Volume or provide direction for their inclusion in the Miscellaneous Volume?

If the completed and signed clauses are to be included in the Technical Volume, please confirm that their inclusion as attachments is excluded from the Technical page count limit.

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question 63.

87) QUESTION: The PWS requires use of Tobyhanna Army Depot (TYAD) for certain depot level maintenance activities.

Is the Government’s intent that offerors include a proposal for TYAD in their bases of estimate and cost workbooks?

Or may offerors provide an approach to using TYAD without including pricing of such?

ANSWER: Offerors should approach the TYAD portion of the proposals in the same manner they would other teaming partners.

88) QUESTION: The PWS says that PSS-T systems will be transitioned from contractor operated to Government operated in accordance with Table 3: PSS-T Operator Support.

We presume that the transition from contractor operated to Government operated should be priced in accordance with Table 3.

Is our presumption correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

89) QUESTION: The PWS says that PSS-T systems will be transitioned from contractor operated to Government operated in accordance with Table 3: PSS-T Operator Support.

The note to Table 3 says that the transition applies only to “operator” positions and that the Contractor shall continue to perform all other activities outlined in the PWS.

Will the Government provide additional guidance on “all other activities outlined in the PWS”?

For example, does this include all Logistics responsibilities in PWS 3.3, including reporting of Ao and Am, providing spare and repair parts, and above user-level maintenance?

ANSWER: For evaluation purposes, operator positions are responsible for the tasks outlined in paragraph 3.6.2 of the TO PWS. The offeror will be required to perform all activities not included in paragraph 3.6.2.

90) QUESTION: SLIN 0003AK requires pricing for High Antennas for Radio Communication (HARC), PSS-T Large and references PNs 105000-0003 and 105600-0001. Part number 105000-0003 is for the Large PSS-T. Part number 105600-0001 is for the medium PSS-T.

If the Government’s intent is to only purchase for the large PSS-T, please clarify and if so, request the removal of the medium part number.

If the Government would like both parts, we request the addition of a SLIN to price the medium PSS-T part.

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question four (4).

91) QUESTION: We understand that the PEO has a salary cap policy for service providers.

Is the salary cap applicable to this solicitation? If so, can the Government provide a copy to enable pricing?

Does the cap escalate in the option years?

ANSWER: This assumption is not correct. A PEO salary cap policy for service providers does not exist.

92) QUESTION: Solicitation number W56KGY-15-R-0016 contains DFARS clause 252.204-7012 SAFEGUARDING COVERED DEFENSE INFORMATION AND CYBER INCIDENT REPORTING AUG/2015. The DoD released this interim rule effective immediately imposing broader and more rigorous standards for cyber security system protection. This release was done without collaboration or industry engagement, as such these changes will have cost impacts at the prime and subcontractor level and the full extent of the impact will take significant time to be assessed and quantified.

We request that the government amend the solicitation to remove this interim rule as PSS-T is essentially a continuation of legacy PTDS & PGSS engineering, logistics and operations support and adding this new requirement to a post-production program would drive unnecessary additional costs to the program. Alternatively, we would request the incorporation of the November 2013 version of DFARS 252.204-7012 until full adjudication, collaboration and impact analysis is complete for the new rules.

ANSWER: Please refer to the answer provided in question 74.

93) QUESTION: What assumption should be made regarding the duration of the test events?

ANSWER: Offerors should assume that test events will last for two (2) weeks and will require support 12 hours per day for seven (7) days per week.

94) QUESTION: What assumption should be made regarding the duration of the training classes?

ANSWER: For evaluation purposes, Offerors should assume that training a qualified aerostat operator for either system will require 240 hours of instruction using the Government provided program of instruction (POI).

95) QUESTION: Are the trainers assumed to be on per diem or in the same government provided lodging as the trainees?

ANSWER: Per diem for the trainers is dependent on the Offerors’ approach. The Government is only providing lodging for the trainees.

96) QUESTION: Should the contractor base training class duration on current PTDS and PGSS class lengths; or is the duration subject to the contractor’s proposed class length when developing one PSS-T training center?

ANSWER: The successful offeror will be provided the Government approved POI. Also, please refer to the answer provided in question 94.

97) QUESTION: Will the Government provide Government air flights to Afghanistan/ Iraq from CRC or is the contractor responsible for movement of personnel from CRC to Afghanistan? Should the CRC assumed to be Camp Atterbury?

ANSWER: Contractor personnel will be transported to theater via MILAIR from CRC. Offerors should assume CRC is located at Fort Bliss, Texas.

98) QUESTION: Kindly requesting clarification on the PAU part number (3830422-001-101) on CLIN 0003AG under the prime solicitation W56KGY-15-R-0016, we believe the part number should be 3830130-071-103 (similar to CLIN 0004AB under W15P7T-13-D-C111).

ANSWER: The PAU part number is 3830422-001-101. 3830130-071-103 is the upper level kit drawing for the PAU. Please provide pricing for part number 3830422-001-101.

99) QUESTION: The TO PWS states the operators shall be gradually transitioned to a Government operated system during the PoP of this TO.