QA_7April2016.pdf

Solicitation No. W56KGY-16-R-0004 Responses to Questions from Potential Offerors

(as of April 7, 2016) NOTICE: These answers are for informational purposes only.

In the case of any conflict between the answers and the Solicitation, the Solicitation controls.

1. The past performance questionnaires are to demonstrate the customer’s satisfaction with relevant contracts that demonstrate management, cost, and technical experience with systems engineering and logistics support to weapons systems radar technologies and platform integration.

Under the current Past Performance Questionnaire Part II Evaluation A: The Descriptions reads:

“Describe the requirements of the contract. Include in your description, if applicable, a summary of the contract efforts related to system design, development, integration, manufacturing, testing and production of GPS systems of similar technical complexity to a SAASM-based GPS receiver. Also include any participation in the development of program objectives, requirements analysis, strategies, schedules, program documentation, business case analysis, acquisition planning, policy implementation and achievement of milestone objectives for emerging PNT and Augmentation technologies.”

This appears to be inconsistent with the PWS for RFP No. W56KGY-16-0004. I wanted to bring this to your attention early due to the time constraints of getting past performance questionnaires filled out and returned to you.

Answer: The Past Performance Questionnaire Part II Evaluation A is in error, as it inadvertently refers to a different solicitation. Accordingly, the language of Past Performance Questionnaire Part II Evaluation A will be changed to read as follows:

“Describe the requirements of the contract. Include in your description, if applicable, a summary of the contract efforts related to system design, development, integration, manufacturing, testing and production of radar weapons systems. Also include any participation in the development of program objectives, requirements analysis, strategies, schedules, program documentation, business case analysis, acquisition planning, policy implementation and achievement of milestone objectives for emerging radars technologies.”

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to include a corrected Attachment 0004 reflecting the above.

2. Section L, Volume III, Past Performance references management, cost, and technical experience with systems engineering and logistics support to weapons systems and C4ISR systems, while the Past Performance Questionnaire requests evaluation of system design, development, integration, manufacturing, testing and production of GPS systems. Please clarify if the Government intended the Past Performance Questionnaire to address management, cost, and technical experience with systems engineering and logistics support to weapons systems

(as of April 7, 2016) and C4ISR systems during the analysis, development, production, deployment, and operations and support phases.

Answer: See answer to #1.

3. There appears to be an error in the schedules contained in Attachment 8. The Notional Fielding schedule for the TPQ-50 and 53 show no activity after this contract is expected to be awarded which is not consistent with the PWS.

Answer: Attachment 0008 will be modified to indicate that for evaluation purposes, offerors are to assume additional monthly fieldings beyond what is displayed on the notional fielding schedules through the evaluated period of performance of the contract, as follows: four AN/TPQ-53 systems per month and eight AN/TPQ-50 systems per month.

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to include a revised Attachment 0008 reflecting the above.

4. Request a 30 day extension for submission of the proposal in response to W56KGY-16-R- 0004:

1.) The extension is required to respond to changes in the PWS, there were significant changes from the draft PWS issued 24 December 2015 when compared to the PWS included with the

RFP

2.) Due to the elevated small business goals we will have to incorporate additional teaming requirements into our proposal to meet small business goals, this will require additional work to modify the BOE and pricing approach. There was no DRFP released to address this small business expectation in the original response approach.

Answer: The solicitation closing date of April 11, 2016 will not be extended at this time.

5. What Proposal Volume will include the data rights assertions associated and required in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7017?

Answer: Volume V. Reference RFP Subsection L-17, paragraph f, Volume V, Solicitation Documentation, at page 85 of the RFP, which states in part, "The Offerors Solicitation Documentation Proposal Volume shall include: . . . "Applicable Representations and Certifications per Section K of the Solicitation."

6. What Proposal Volume will include the Compensation Plan associated with and required as part of FAR 52.222-46?

(as of April 7, 2016)

Answer: Volume II. RFP Subsection L-17, paragraph c, Proposal Files, will be revised to add the following to Volume V: "FAR 52.222-46 Info; {Offeror Name}-CompPlan.pdf; No."

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect the above.

7. Section L-17 part (c), Proposal Files. The list of file names appears to be missing one of the Cost Files in between Cost/Price Prop and Pricing Method. Please clarify if there is a 5th file to be submitted?

Answer: The list of file names will be corrected to include "CostSanitized.xlsx" as the missing second file under "Cost/Price Prop."

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to correct this error.

8. Does the Questionnaire POC List count towards the 15 page Past Performance Volume page count?

Answer: No, POC list does not count, but only the list of POCs with linkage to specific questionnaires can be provided in the additional pages.

9. Volume V asks for “FAR 52.219-14 Info”. Does the Government intend to set-aside any portion of this RFP for Small Businesses? If not, can this instruction be removed from Volume V?

Answer: The language "FAR 52.219-14 Info {Offeror Name}-SB.docx" is not applicable to this solicitation.

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to correct this error.

10. Should FAR 52.222-2 be updated in section (a) to allow for OT premiums? OT premiums at a minimum would be required for staff mapped to non-exempt Service Contract Act Labor Categories.

Answer: No. See RFP Subsection L-17, paragraph f, Volume II, subparagraph A(1)c.i (Direct Labor Rate Worksheet), at page 80 of the RFP.

11. Page 81, Section D for Supporting Documents section (a) references the need to provide the Full FPRP to include 2 years of historical data. Section (d) requires 3 years of certified

(as of April 7, 2016) incurred cost submissions. Would the Government please clarify if both the 2 years of historical data and 3 years of incurred cost submissions would be required for justification of indirect rates?

Answer: RFP Subsection L-17, paragraph f, Volume II, subparagraph D(1)d, end of the first sentence will be changed to read, "along with the last two years certified incurred cost submissions."

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to effect this change.

12. In accordance with Section (e) on page 82 of the RFP, would the Government confirm if T&M and/or FFP Subcontractors will be required to provide additional pricing data beyond hours, labor categories and applicable rates? For example, will they be required to provide the back-up documentation for direct and indirect labor rates as required in Cost/Price Proposal Submission Instructions A through D?

Answer: Competitive firm-fixed-price (FFP) greater than $750K do not need to provide more than the minimum as long as the Prime offeror provides an adequate Cost and Price Analysis documenting the competition and its assessment of the subcontractor. Non-Competitive FFP or time-and-materials (T&M) offerors over $750K do need to support the cost build of the proposals. FFP and T&M subcontract costs below $750K may provide the minimum data of hours, rates and labor categories.

13. Would the Government clarify if clause I-139 is to be completed and submitted with the proposal? If so, in which volume should this clause be included?

Answer: The Small Business Program Representation set forth in clause I-139, FAR 52.219-28, is not required prior to award of the contract. However, see solicitation provision K-5, FAR 52.204-8, paragraph (ix), Small Business Program Representations, at page 67 of the RFP.

14. The instructions for Volume III – Past Performance require a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) past performance contract references shall be submitted, inclusive of at least one (1) reference for each major subcontractor. A Major Subcontractor can be defined as any subcontractor that is performing business support work or any subcontractor that is performing more than 20% of the total labor. Based on the broad definition of a major subcontractor, there could be more than 5 Major Subs on one proposal and if we must submit 1 reference for each Major Sub, then the maximum number of past performance references would need to be increased to allow the Prime Contractor to submit past performance references of the Prime Contractor.

(as of April 7, 2016)

Answer: The Government’s intent is that the minimum of 3 and maximum of 5 apply only to the proposed prime contractor. For purposes of clarification, the following changes to the RFP will be made:

a. RFP Subsection L-17, paragraph d, Page Limitations, Volume III, at page 78, item ii will be changed to read, “Prime contractor: minimum of 3 references and maximum of 5 references;

Major Subcontractor: minimum of 1 reference”

b. RFP Subsection L-17, paragraph f, Volume III, at pages 82-83, the next-to-last sentence of the first paragraph will be changed to read, “A minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) past performance contract references shall be submitted for the prime contractor, and at least one

(1) reference shall be submitted for each major subcontractor.”

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect the above.

15. Would the Government consider updating the PWS in Section 1.1.2 to allow for Contractor Site support? Contractor site support would, at a minimum, be required for Program Manager, Administrative, Financial type duties.

Answer: It is understood that certain "overhead" type labor will be used to prepare monthly reports, process invoices, manage the prime contract and subcontracts, purchase materials, oversee security requirements, etc., and that these functions will be performed at the contractor's "home office."

16. Attachment 0005 provided in the RFP represents the Government's estimated full time equivalent staffing and labor descriptions and qualifications based on the Government's historical experience and is provided for proposal information purposes only. Based on a review of all the labor categories, we did not find one labor category that had a minimum experience requirement of less than 3 years. Can Offerors interpret this as the Government’s estimation that experience of less than 3 years would present a performance risk to the Government’s mission and Offerors should not propose any Labor Category as part of their Labor Description Worksheet which has less than 3 years’ experience?

Answer: No minimum experience level is required. The labor descriptions and qualifications are not intended to express minimally acceptable experience levels. As stated in the Solicitation, Attachment 0005 is for informational purposes only and reflects the current workforce personnel structure. Offerors are to propose labor categories which they feel are appropriate for the scope and complexity of the efforts defined in the PWS. An offeror's

(as of April 7, 2016) performance risk to successful execution of the contract requirements will be evaluated in part based on the proposed staffing plan including personnel experience levels.

17. There is no transition plan required in this solicitation. What is the government’s plan to handle transition if the incumbent is not rewarded this effort?

Answer: See PWS paragraph 3.2.7.1.1, "The contractor shall be capable of fully supporting materiel fielding and NET requirements within 30 days of contract award."

See also Subsection M-2 paragraph b, at page 88 of the RFP, which states in part, "NOTE: In order to provide a level playing field for non-incumbent offerors, costs proposed for the first 30 days of performance (i.e., the transition or ramp-up period) will not be included in the total evaluated cost."

18. Can we provide a two-page Executive Summary exclusive of page count in Volume I?

Answer: No need for an executive summary. Please provide all relevant info in the main body of Volume I.

19. We respectfully ask for a one week extension to the proposal due date.

Answer: See answer to #4.

20. What start date should Offeror’s use for pricing purposes?

Answer: Offerors shall assume, for purposes of evaluation, a contract award date of October 31, 2016; see RFP Subsection L-17, paragraph f, Volume II, subparagraph E, Basis of Estimate, at page 82 of the RFP.

21. [Reference PWS section 3.2.7.9, Standard Processes, Page 18] Will the government provide the PdM Radars Systems Fielding Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)?

Answer: Yes.

22. [Reference Solicitation Section L-17 a, Page 77] This section states all information for this RFP will be posted on ASFI. We have been unable to access ASFI, is this information still accurate?

Answer: References to ASFI are obsolete and will be revised to refer to FedBizOpps.

(as of April 7, 2016)

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to correct this error.

23. [Reference Solicitation Section L-17 c, Page 77] This section states up to five (5) files can be uploaded to ASFI at one time. We have been unable to access ASFI. Please clarify the electronic submission instructions.

Answer: References to ASFI are obsolete and will be revised to refer to FedBizOpps.

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to correct this error.

As stated in RFP Subsection L-17, paragraph a, instructions on how to use FedBizOpps to include receiving notification, submitting and uploading proposals, formatting, and system requirements are provided at https://www.fbo.gov/downloads/FBO_Vendor_Guide.pdf.

24. [Reference Solicitation section L-17, e. Proposal Format, Page 78] Will the government accept graphics as JPEG image files inserted into the body text of MS Word?

Answer: Yes, but see answer to #53.

25. [Reference Solicitation section L-17, Volume I – Technical Factor Proposal Content, B.

Compliance matrix, Page 79] Will Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0007) be exclusive of the page count in Technical Proposal?

Answer: The compliance matrix is separate from the technical proposal volume, and does not count against its page count. Offerors are cautioned that the compliance matrix should not be used to include information not already included in the proposal as it will not be considered.

26. [Reference Solicitation section L-17, Volume I – Technical Factor Proposal Content, B.

Compliance matrix, Page 79] The Proposal Compliance Matrix identifies PWS areas marked as “Acknowledge Compliance”. For those areas is it the government’s expectation they are not be addressed in the proposal? If they are to be addressed in the proposal can we assume government expects a single sentence acknowledging we understand and will comply with the requirement?

Answer: It is the Government's expectation that PWS areas marked as "Acknowledge Compliance" in the Proposal Compliance Matrix do not need to be specifically addressed in the Technical Factor proposal Volume I.

https://www.fbo.gov/downloads/FBO_Vendor_Guide.pdf

(as of April 7, 2016)

27. [Reference Solicitation section L-17, Volume III – Past Performance Factor Proposal Content, B. Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires, Page 83] The government required the offeror to provide a list of all the POCS who were sent a questionnaire as part of Volume III submission. Is the list included in the 15 pages limit?

Answer: See answer to #8.

28. [Reference Solicitation Section L, Past Performance Factor Proposal Content, B. Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires, Page 83] The solicitation states that, “For all contracts referenced, Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted.” Some contracting agencies will not complete or provide survey or questionnaire data as a matter of command policy. Will the Government accept CPARS data as a substitute for Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires?

Answer: RFP Subsection M-2 paragraph states in part, In conducting the Past Performance Evaluation, the Government will consider the recentness, relevancy, and quality of performance for the proposed contract references, as well as additional recent, relevant efforts identified by the Government.

Information on such past performance efforts may be obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; through Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels; and/or through interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and/or other Government personnel.

The Solicitation is clear that the Questionnaires are the primary source of past performance information. While the Government may use PPIRS (which encapsulates CPARS data), the Government is not required to do so. Consequently, any offeror who intends to rely solely on CPARS data runs the risk of being given an “unknown confidence” rating.

29. [Reference Section L, page 79 sub paragraph (1)-(8)] The current allocated page count is 40 pages for the technical volume. Given the breadth and depth of content contained in the Performance Work Statement, the significant number of PWS areas for which a response is required based on the compliance matrix as well as the individual response requirements defined Section L, page 79 sub paragraph (1)-(8) it is anticipated that the response to all of these requirements cannot reasonably be completed in 40 pages. Respectfully request an increase in the allowable page count for the technical section from 40 pages to 60 pages.

(as of April 7, 2016)

Answer: The page limitation for Volume I will be changed from 40 pages to 60 pages, at RFP Subsection L-17, paragraphs c and d.

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to effect this change.

30. The Government identifies the current historical level of effort in Attachment 5 in terms of “Contractor Manpower Equivalents”. To ensure a consistent understanding of the historical level of effort and to avoid gaming or inconsistencies across offerors in their assumptions as to what number of labor hours constitutes 1 Contractor Manpower Equivalent (CME), can the Government please provide a standard assumption for the number of manhours per CME to be applied in estimating (e.g., 1920 hours or 1880 hours, etc.)

Answer: 1920 hours.

31. [Reference RFP Section A, paragraph 10, due date of Tuesday, April 11.] Will the Government please confirm the due date of Tuesday, April 12th.

Answer: The due date is Monday, April 11. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to correct RFP page 2, paragraph 10.

32. [Reference Section L, page 79 sub paragraph (7) (staffing plan) and Section M-2 paragraph a(ii) (feasibility of approach)] Would the Government permit the offeror to provide proposed hours and labor categories, as well as the allocation of the labor across the prime offeror and its teaming partners in an Appendix to Volume I and not included in the 40 page allocation? Or can we include a copy of our BOE as an Appendix to Volume I?

Answer: Proposed hours and labor categories, as well as the allocation of the labor across the prime offeror and its teaming partners, should be addressed in the Offeror's Basis of Estimate (BOE), which does not have a page limitation and which is part of Volume II. See RFP Subsection L-17 paragraph d, Page Limitations.

33. Page 82 of the RFP, Volume III Past Performance Proposal Content indicates that “Relevant contracts are those that demonstrate management, cost, and technical experience with systems engineering and logistics support to weapons systems radar technologies AND platform integration including Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems during the Material Solution Analysis, Technology Development, Production and Deployment and Operations and Support Phases of the Defense Acquisition System.”

(as of April 7, 2016)

Is the Government’s intent that a past performance reference is relevant ONLY if the offeror has weapons system radar technology experience given the “AND” statement (underlined above)? Or was the intent that an offeror’s past performance reference could be relevant if they had radars technology expertise OR platform integration expertise. Rationale: by requiring offerors to have BOTH radar technologies expertise AND platform integration expertise you would be significantly restricting competition and the ability to provide the minimum 3 past performance references. In addition, many of the requirements of the Radars PWS involve efforts that are independent of the specific product technology (e.g.

programmatics, scheduling, budget analysis/processes, logistics analysis, fielding, configuration management, reliability analysis, systems engineering in general, etc.). Suggest that the “AND” above be changed to an “OR” to expand the ability of offeror’s to respond with highly relevant past performance examples.

Answer: The referenced language will be changed to replace the subject "and" with "or." An amendment to the RFP will be issued to effect this change.

34. [Reference L-17.f.B, Compliance Matrix] For all entries in the compliance matrix that only require acknowledgement, and no narrative, is it sufficient for the offeror to only check the “yes” block in column 3 and not include any compliance statement in the body of the proposal?

Answer: Yes.

35. Section L, page 79, Volume 1, Sub Paragraph A indicates that the “Offeror’s proposal shall prove that they possess the ability and the capability to successfully perform the requirements defined in the PWS in support of the Product Manager Radars mission.” It goes on to discuss the requirements to fully address requirements, aligned with the Compliance Matrix requirements. The section then indicates “The Offeror must describe and demonstrate the following: and lists (8) sub bullets. The sub bullets cross multiple PWS areas. Does the Government expect that as part of addressing the applicable PWS requirements the offeror’s ensure that subbullet 1-8 are covered/demonstrated in the responses associated with the different PWS areas (e.g. core capabilities are clear, qualifications are clear, radar systems experience is clear, innovative approaches are proposed, etc.) OR is the Government anticipating that the offeror answer sub sections (1)-(8) distinctly/separately from the addressing each of the applicable PWS requirements to allow for ease of tracking of the (1)-(8) sub sections in the evaluation process?

Answer: The Government is not specifying the format for Offerors' proposals. Addressing the 8 "sub-bullets" may be done either as an integral part of addressing the PWS requirements or as a separate discussion. If the sub-bullets are not individually addressed, the proposal must

(as of April 7, 2016) clearly identify items which are intended to address the 8 sub-bullets by ensuring that wherever discussed, that the same terminology of the sub-bullets is utilized. Either structure for the proposal is equally acceptable.

36. Section L, page 83, Volume III - Past Performance Factor First Paragraph states, "Offerors shall provide information on previous United States Government contracts that are relevant to the effort required by this solicitation, to include major subcontractors defined as any subcontractor that is performing business support work or any subcontractor that is performing more than 20% of the total labor."

Will the Government please clarify the intent of the phrase “any subcontractor that is performing business support work?”

The term is not used in the RFP or the PWS. Some subcontractors are very small businesses that provide support to only financial, administrative, or scheduling functions, but may not provide even 5% of the work, and may not have broad capabilities crossing multiple functions listed as making a past performance being relevant.

Please define what the Government considers as “business support work.”

Answer: RFP Subsection L-17f, Volume III, first sentence will be changed to read, “Offerors shall provide information on previous United States Government contracts that are relevant to the effort required by this solicitation, to include major subcontractors defined as any subcontractor that is performing more than 20% of the total labor.” RFP Subsection M-2, paragraph c, third sentence will be changed to read, “A major subcontractor for past performance evaluation purposes is defined as any subcontractor that is performing more than 20% of the total labor.”

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to correct this error.

37. Section L, Page 82, Volume II, Subparagraph D (2) (Cost Proposal Supporting Documentation for S/IE efforts) states, "At a minimum all hours, labor categories and applicable rates shall be clearly identified for competitive FFP and T&M S/IE effort. S/IE effort shall be identified at all tiers.

“a. A Subcontractor proposal for a Cost Reimbursement type S/IE effort (competitive or non-competitive shall be proposed in the same level of detail as required of the prime contractor in accordance with the Cost/Price Proposal Submission Instructions A through D above."

(as of April 7, 2016)

Does the Government require subcontractors submitting proposals for a T&M or FFP effort to submit a cost breakout in the CLIN worksheets provided in RFP Attachment 0009 in their sealed package or can T&M and FFP subcontractors submit a standard rate build and allocate hours within the CLIN sheets to the fully burdened T&M or FFP bill rates in their sealed packages?

Answer: Competitive FFP greater than $750K do not need to provide more than the minimum as long as the Prime offeror provides an adequate Cost and Price Analysis documenting the competition and its assessment of the subcontractor. Non-Competitive FFP or T&M offerors over $750K do need to support the cost build of the proposals. FFP and T&M subcontract costs below $750K may provide the minimum data of hours, rates and labor categories.

38. Section L, Page 81, Volume II, Subparagraph C (4) states, "Offerors shall provide information to explain what makes up its cost rates and how the rates are applied (for example:

G&A is applied on a value added basis or total cost input basis, fringe includes sick leave, vacation, and annual leave, the X % of a salary survey is chosen based on\'85.).

Can the Government please state what is meant by the statement “X % of a salary survey is chosen based on\'85.”?

Answer: The language within the parenthesis will be corrected to read, "(for example: G&A is applied on a value added basis or total cost input basis, fringe includes sick leave, vacation, and annual leave, the X % of a salary survey is chosen based on….)."

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to correct this error.

39. Section L, Page 80, Volume II, Subparagraph A (1) (e) states, "The offerors shall submit a Labor Description Worksheet for the proposed Labor Categories proposed to support the requirements defined in the PWS. The Offeror shall provide the following information in regard to each proposed Labor Category: Position Title, Qualifications and Experience required for the position, Education required for the position, Expertise required for the position, Certifications (if any) required for the position."

To ensure a consistent understanding of the Historical Labor Categories and levels that are required to support PdM Radars and to avoid inconsistencies across offerors in their assumptions to the Years’ Experience, Education, and Qualifications needed to perform the work, will the Government consider making it a requirement for offerors to propose within the Labor Categories and descriptions provided in the Historical Level of Effort RFP Attachment 0005?

(as of April 7, 2016)

Answer: No, the information in Attachment 0005 is for informational purposes only and reflects current staffing.

40. Will the Government consider making it a requirement to propose all 81 FTEs listed in Attachment 0005? Allowing for deviations to the Government suggested LOE will substantially decrease the Government’s ability to compare price proposals based on elaborate Basis of Estimate (BOE) justification. Furthermore, this approach should not deter offerors from proposing technical innovations but rather allow the Government to control the application of these innovations (within an adequate contract ceiling) throughout the period of performance. The absence of this direction will most probably result in a shortened period of performance based on undesired; yet compliant innovative approaches that reduce the Historical LOE and overall ceiling that is needed to complete the mission.

Answer: No, the information in Attachment 0005 is for informational purposes only and merely reflects current staffing.

41. [Reference originally posted Attachment 0008 Slide 3, National Fielding Schedules for the AN/TPQ-50 & AN/TPQ53] Would government confirm “National” should be “notional”?

Answer: The originally posted Attachment 0008 was replaced with an updated Attachment 0008, which does not include the questioned slide.

42. Could government provide “notional” schedules for AN/TPQ-50 AND AN/TPQ-53 Maintenance Training Events? (Note: schedules for NET address workload to field, but there is no identification of workload for the maintenance training the NET/Fielding Team provides).

Answer: Maintenance training is one portion of the overall NET event that coincides with the fielding event. Maintenance training events mirror fielding and NET schedule, offerors should assume that maintenance training of unit's maintainers will be required as part of every NET event.

43. RFP page 2 - #10. All proposals shall be submitted electronically to the Federal Business Opportunities website (FedBizOpps), no later than 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Tuesday, 11 April 2016. Please confirm if the proposal due date is Monday, 11 April 2016.

Answer: The proposal due date is Monday, 11 April 2016. An amendment to the RFP will be issued to correct RFP page 2, paragraph 10.

(as of April 7, 2016)

44. [Reference RFP Page 80, Volume II, paragraph A(1)a, Summary Worksheet, and paragraph A(1)b, Detail Cost Worksheet for each CLIN] With regard to the Material, Travel, and ODC's plug figure being shown in the cost build up, is the government's intent to show a fully burdened buildup tracing cost from the unburdened amount to the fully burdened amount plug figure shown in the RFP instructions? If so is the government willing to shown a separate amount for Materials, Travel and Other Direct Costs. This would better allow us to show our burden calculations as we treat the 3 types differently.

Answer: The Government's "plug figures" are already fully burdened and "inclusive of indirect costs," as stated in RFP Subsection L-17.f, Volume II, paragraph A(1)a, Summary Worksheet.

Accordingly, these costs do not need to be included in the Detail Cost Worksheet, RFP Subsection L-17.f, Volume II, paragraph A(1)b. For clarification, the title of that paragraph will be changed to "Detail Cost Worksheet for each CLIN other than CLINs 1003/2003/3003."

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to effect this change.

45. [Reference RFP Page 80, Volume II, paragraph A(1)c, Direct Labor Rate Worksheet] With regard to the requested Labor Rate Worksheet, is the government looking for an unburdened or fully burdened labor rate per contractor fiscal year?

Answer: Unburdened.

46. It is our experience that unless the LOE and BOE are also included in the technical evaluation, the technical evaluators don't have visibility into the staffing levels of each offeror's proposed staffing plan (since the technical evaluators typically don't see the price volume). An offeror could bid 50% of the baseline staffing, but the technical evaluator may not understand this reduction without evaluating the specifics of the LOE and related BOE. Will the government consider requiring both the LOE and BOE detail be included in the Technical Evaluation to ensure that the government has the staffing detail to compare bids?

Answer: The Sanitized Summary Cost Proposal, referenced at RFP Subsection L-17 f, Volume II, paragraph B, at page 81 of the RFP, and submitted as part of the Cost/Price Volume, will be used for this purpose. See also answer to #7.

47. Regarding Past Performance - when does the Government anticipate issuing the amendment to include a corrected Attachment 0004?

Answer: The corrected attachment referenced in Q&A #1 was posted to FedBizOpps on March 23, 2016, but see Q&A #51.

(as of April 7, 2016)

48. Section L, Volume II, A, e “Labor Description Worksheet” includes a requirement to propose labor category descriptions, and Attachment 0005 provides Labor Category descriptions. Please clarify the requirement in Section L to provide labor category descriptions given that detailed descriptions are already provided by the Government in Attachment 0005.

Answer: This is addressed at RFP Subsection L-17.f, Volume I, subparagraph A(7), which reads in part, "RFP Attachment 0005 provides the Government's estimated full time equivalent staffing and labor descriptions and qualifications based on the Government's historical experience and is provided for proposal information purposes only."

49. In L.17.c, Page 78, indicates that FAR 52.219-14 Info is required in a file called SB.docx.

However, in L.17.f.A, Volume IV, page 85, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required for Large Businesses as part of the Small Business Participation Plan volume. Which volume does the Government want the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be included in?

Answer: Volume V. RFP Subsection L-17, paragraph c, Proposal Files, will be revised to add the following to Volume V: "Small Business Subcontracting Plan (large businesses only); {Offeror Name}-SBSP.docx; No."

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect the above.

50. Pertaining to Category numbers 20 and 21 found in the Labor Category tab in Attachment 0005_Historical Level of Effort Excel file; the Government lists Radar Engineer at the same skill level (senior) twice. Please confirm that both categories will be at the same skill level vs at two different skill levels (i.e. Senior and Journeyman).

Answer: Yes, these two lines represent two different radar engineering positions currently supporting PdM Radars. Offerors are reminded that these are not required levels of experience (see Q&A #16, which addresses this topic as well), but are provided to show representative staffing levels for the contract currently in place. The Government is not requiring that an offeror propose the same skill set mix or experience levels, but will be evaluated against the ability of their proposed approach to meet the PWS requirements.

51. QA_18March2016 document, Question and Answer #23 [renumbered as Q&A #1]: The Government indicates that it will change the narrative on Part II, block A of the Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire to the following: “Describe the requirements of the contract. Include in your description, if applicable, a summary of the contract efforts related to system design, development, integration, manufacturing, testing and production of radar

(as of April 7, 2016) weapons systems. Also include any participation in the development of program objectives, requirements analysis, strategies, schedules, program documentation, business case analysis, acquisition planning, policy implementation and achievement of milestone objectives for emerging radars technologies.”

The description is however not completely consistent with the narrative in Section L (Page 82 of the RFP), which appears to cover a slightly broader scope of systems and technologies (e.g. it includes C4ISR systems). Would the Government consider revising the Past Performance Questionnaire narrative to be consistent with the narrative in Section L?

Answer: Yes, for consistency with the referenced language in Section L of the RFP, the second sentence in this part of the Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire will be changed to read, "Include in your description, if applicable, a summary of the contract efforts related to system design, development, integration, manufacturing, testing and production of radar weapons systems or Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems."

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to include a revised Attachment 0004 reflecting the above.

52. For the Past Performance Volume, if the offeror has less than 5 contract references, is it permissible to use the 15 page limit for other text? For example, if 4 contract references, at 3 pages each, are used, can the remaining 3 pages be used for an Introduction and description of our teams past performance?

Answer: Yes.

53. Reference:

(1) Section L, paragraph d. Page Limitations, “Those pages that exceed the page counts for each volume will not be evaluated i.e. any text, sentence, figure, chart or illustration that exceeds the page limit will not be evaluated. If there are more than forty-five (45) lines of text on any page, the lines that exceed the line count will not be evaluated. The Cover Page, Table of Contents, and Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms will not be included in the page count for any of the volumes.” and

(2) Section L, paragraph e. Proposal Format, “Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables, charts, graphs and drawings may be used wherever practical and will be

(as of April 7, 2016) included in the page count. For tables, charts, graphs, and drawings, the file format shall be Word and the font size shall be no smaller than 8 point. Tables, figures, and drawings may be embedded in the text body. Scanned figures (e.g., photographs, drawings, etc.) provided as an embedded or standalone JPEG image files are acceptable provided that the image quality is sufficiently legible for evaluation.”

Question: The Government has included a requirement that there be no more than 45 lines per page. Do tables and graphics count against this 45 line requirement?

Answer: Yes. For example, if the size of the tables or graphics takes up the same amount of space as 10 lines of a 12-point font, then the table or graphic would count as 10 lines.

54. The Government is requesting submission of a Basis of Estimate (BOE) document to include descriptions and discussion of the basis/approach to estimating direct labor hours per PWS tasking and CLIN. Page 78 of the RFP requests this document be submitted as {Offeror Name} BOE.xlsx, as there is an entire narrative developed for the BOE would the Government please allow Offerors to submit the BOE in Word (.docx) or Adobe (.pdf) format?

Answer: The BOE file must be submitted in Excel (.xlsx) format.

55. Section L-17 e says " For tables, charts, graphs, and drawings, the file format shall be Word and the font size shall be no smaller than 8 point. The response to question 53 says that "For example, if the size of the tables or graphics takes up the same amount of space as 10 lines of a 12-point font, then the table or graphic would count as 10 lines". This is inconsistent with the 8 point font requirement and materially affects the formatting of our proposal.

Answer: The answer to #53 is clarified to read, "Yes. For example, if the size of the tables or graphics takes up the same amount of space as 10 lines of text with a 12-point font, then the table or graphic would count as 10 lines of text."

56. The government provided an amendment to the RFP to address the incorrect notional fielding schedules on April 1, 2016. The notional fielding schedules which are the basis for the proposal are still unclear and incomplete please provide specific fielding dates and locations

(CONUS /OCONUS).

Answer: Specific fielding dates are generally determined during the New Material In-Brief (NMIB) meeting which is typically held two months prior to the expected fielding. As indicated in the footnotes to the notional fielding schedules set forth in revised Attachment 008, which was issued on April 1, 2016 by RFP Amendment 0001, offerors should assume that AN/TPQ-50

(as of April 7, 2016) and Q-53 system fieldings will continue through the evaluated contract period of performance at the rates identified in the footnotes.

57. Amendment 1 Question: Based on the amended Attachment 0004 Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire issued on Friday, 4/1, we found that there’s no impact to the questionnaires we have already submitted to customers for completion. Given the time it takes to turn these forms around and the limited availability of our customers to fill out the contents and email them to the CO, will the Government accept the earlier version of the Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire issued prior to Amendment 1?

Answer: You may use the previously submitted questionnaires. However, the evaluation will be based on the revised criteria found in the Solicitation.

58. [Reference RFP Subsection L-17, paragraph f, Volume II, subparagraph D(1)d] For this requirement, would the Government accept a spreadsheet detailing the rates submitted with the last three years of certified cost submission data, including the expense pool (by expense account) and allocation base detail, as well as the signed letter submitted to DCAA with the certified incurred cost submission for each submitted year?

Answer: Yes.

59. [Reference RFP Subsection L-17, paragraph f, Volume II, subparagraph D(1)d] Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 incurred cost submissions have not yet been submitted by the majority of offerors, does the Government require offerors to submit certified incurred cost submission data for FY 2014, FY 2013, and FY 2012? Or will the Government accept DCAA approved rates from FY 2015 in which an incurred cost submission has not yet been submitted?

Answer: It is assumed the question is referring to DCAA approved Billing Rates for FY15. The FY15 billing rates along with the prior two years of certified incurred cost submissions is sufficient. If applicable, an offeror should indicate in its cost narrative that the Billing Rates are used for FY 15 when the FY15 certified incurred cost submission has not yet been submitted.

60. [Reference RFP Subsection L-17, paragraph f, Volume II, subparagraph D(1)d] Does the Government require this level of detail for T&M and FFP Subcontractor proposals?

Answer: See answers to #12 and #37.

61. On page 85 of 91 in Section L of the RFP dealing with the Small Business Participation Plan, Volume IV, the Government states, “Offerors shall provide detailed explanations/

(as of April 7, 2016) documentation supporting the proposed participation percentages, or lack thereof. Also, list the details of what conferences or trade shows will be attended and their relevance to this requirement.” Is the Government’s intent in the underlined section that the Offeror describe which future conferences and trade shows it will attend as a means of identifying additional potential small business partners to help address evolving or surge contract requirements?

Please clarify.

Answer: It is the Government's intent that the Offeror describes specific conference and trade shows it will attend as a means of identifying additional potential small business partners to fill gaps that may arise in achieving its technical performance, schedule, and cost objectives, and in fulfilling the small business participation requirements.

62. On page 86 of 91 in Section L of the RFP dealing with an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan, are offerors who do not have an identified OCI at time of proposal submission required to submit an OCI Mitigation Plan with their proposals?

Answer: Please refer to paragraph (d) of RFP provision L-9 (DFARS 252.209-7008), which states, "Request for an exception. If the offeror requests an exception to the prohibition of paragraph

(c) of this provision, then the offeror shall submit an Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan with its offer for evaluation."

63. In the Q&A released on March 31, 2016, the response to Question 6 asking which proposal volume will include the compensation plan states the following: “Answer: Volume II. RFP Subsection L-17, paragraph c, Proposal Files will be revised to add the following to Volume V.

FAR 52.222-46 Info; {Offeror Name}-CompPlan.pdf; No”. Please can you provide clarification as to whether the compensation plan should be included in Volume II or Volume V?

Answer: Volume II. No amendment to the solicitation is needed, as Amendment 0001 correctly indicates Volume II.

64. In the Q&A released on March 31, 2016, the response to Question 8 asking if the Questionnaire POC List is included in page count states “Answer: No, POC list does not count, but only the list of POCs with linkage to specific questionnaires can be provided in the additional pages.” However, in RFP Amendment 1. Section L-17, d. Page Limitations – Volume III, iii. Questionnaire POC List is shown in the list of items included in the 15 page limit. Will the Government please clarify if the POC List is included in the 15 page limit for Volume III?

Answer: For consistency with the answer to #8, RFP Subsection L-17d, Page Limitations, Volume III, item iii will be revised to read, “Questionnaire POC List (not subject to the page

(as of April 7, 2016) limitation for Volume III, but only the list of POCs with linkage to specific questionnaires can be provided in the additional pages)”.

An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect the above.