W56KGY-17-R-0020_Government_Responses_16Aug17.pdf

W56KGY-17-R-0020

Government Responses to Industry Questions 16 August 2017

Question

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

1. N/A N/A

What is the Government’s deadline for the submission of questions?

Government Response: Questions can be submitted up to the proposal due date. Please note, however, that questions submitted close to the proposal due date may not be answered

2. RFP L-17 139

Reference Section L-17, page 139. The Government has included the ‘Notice of Earned Value Management

System (EVMS)’ clause in the RFP. EVMS compliance will impact Offeror’s cost, may present a challenge for some small businesses, and may not be appropriate for this type of contract opportunity. EVM is typically applied to contracts with heavy development or integration-type work. Some might assert that efforts that are service-oriented, sustainment, logistics consulting, or other work best characterized as ‘level of effort’ type of activity are not generally best serviced by EVM application.

Q: Will the Government consider removing or deviating from this clause for the EVMS requirement? If not, in what volume of our proposal should we include our documentation/written description related to EVMS?

Government Response: The Government does not plan on removing or deviating from this clause. As stated in

DFARS 234.201(1)(ii), “For cost or incentive contracts and subcontracts valued at $100,000,000 or more, the contractor shall have an earned value management system that has been determined by the cognizant Federal agency to be in compliance with the guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748.”

To meet DFARS 252.234-7001 – The Offeror shall provide documentation within the Miscellaneous Volume.

An amendment will be completed to the solicitation within Table 4 of Section L to make this clear.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

3. RFP L-18.5.a. 140-141

Reference Section L-18, 5, a., (i), page 140-141, relating to Volume I – Technical. The Government does not require offerors to provide a Technical Approach in response to each section of the Performance Work Statement

(PWS) that is included in the RFP.

Additionally, Section M.1, Basis for Award on page 150 states “Offerors shall provide technical solutions for the requirements included in the performance work statement (PWS)”; yet the “Factors to Be Evaluated” section (page

150) and specifically “Factor 1” (also on page 150) makes no reference to the PWS.

There appears to be a conflict here. While section L offers no instructions regarding inclusion of the PWS in our proposal, Section M “Basis” implies that offerors will be evaluated on this topic – but then fails to express HOW we will be evaluated in the “Factors to be Evaluated” portion of section M.

Q: Will the Government please de-conflict this requirement related to the inclusion (or not) of the PWS such that Section L provides clear instruction for the inclusion (or not) of a response to the PWS in our Technical

Volume. Also – will the Government please address this conflict in Section M and provide a clear description of the Government’s plan (to include both ‘Basis’ and ‘Factors’) for evaluation of offeror’s proposal as specifically related to the PWS?

Government Response: The Statement “Offerors shall provide technical solutions for the requirements included in the performance work statement (PWS)” was incorrectly included in the solicitation and will be removed in the next amendment.

4. RFP L-18.b.1.5. 142

Reference Section L-18, b, Volume II Past Performance, (i), 5 on page 142 which requests that “Government contract administration activity’s pre-award monitor’s name and…” for each past performance reference. We are unclear who this person is/has been as we have never seen the term “Government contract administration activity’s pre-award monitor” before.

Q: Will the Government clarify who the “pre-award monitor” is (COR, PCO, ACO, etc.), and/or provide guidance on how we might proceed to determine the identity of this individual, or if we do not know may this requirement be left blank?

Government’s Response: If the contractor is unaware of who the pre-award monitor is for a particular or all of the contracts being referenced, the contractor can leave this POC information blank or state “N/A.”

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

5.

RFP L-18.b.i.13.

and Attachment

0006 Section L

Tables

141-143

Reference Section L-18, b, Volume II Past Performance, (i), 13, on page 142 which states “The Offeror must provide the most up to date PWS/SOW with each reference. The Offeror/major subcontractor must cross reference the relevancy of the work they accomplish under the provided PWS/SOW to this contract PWS”.

Also reference attachment 6, Section L Tables which indicates that Volume II - Past Performance is limited to 50 pages.

It is noted that some of the required PWS/SOW documents can exceed 50 pages themselves.

Q: Will the Government exclude the PWS/SOW from the 50-page limit or otherwise provide guidance on how offerors are to include PWS/SOW under the page constraints provided? Will the Government consider dropping this requirement in its entirety?

Government Response: PWS/SOW for the contractor referenced contracts concerning past performance will not be included in the page count for this volume. An amendment will be completed to ensure clarity.

6. RFP L-18 140-148

Reference section L-18, pages 140-148. The Government provides no Section L guidance on what is to be included in Volume IV – Miscellaneous

Q: Will the Government provide guidance (in Section L) as to what specifically should be included in offeror’s

Volume IV as well as provide details (in Section M) as to how (or ‘if’) Volume IV will be evaluated?

Government Response: The above question mislabeled the miscellaneous volume. The miscellaneous volume is Volume V. In Attachment 0006, Table 4, 4th paragraph below the table states what should be included in this volume. This volume is for the purposes of providing the Government with various documents stated within the solicitation and will not be evaluated.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

7.

RFP L-18.2 and 4.

and Attachment

0006 Section L

Tables

Reference section L-18, 2, Proposal Submission Requirements, page 140. Also reference Attachment 0006, Section L Tables.

As part of the final proposal, each Offeror is required to submit (via e-mail) 12 separate files as instructed in the

RFP and Table 4 of attachment 0006. Previous experience has shown that Government email servers will not deliver email with attachments that exceed some maximum size (believed to be less than 10MB).

Q: Can the Government provide guidance on proposal delivery for proposal files (and aggregate of multiple files) that exceed the maximum file size permitted by Government email servers? Additionally:

Can the Government specify what the maximum file size that the Government mail servers can withstand?

Will it be acceptable to submit the proposal in multiple email submissions if necessary?

Will it be acceptable to submit the proposal via the Army AMRDEC SAFE

(https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/guide.aspx) utility?

Does the Government have specific guidance regarding file-naming for offeror’s submittals?

Does the Government have specific guidance regarding “Zipping” our 12 deliverable proposal files into a single zip-file?

Government Response:

1) The Government can receive emails sizes less than 25MB.

2) The Offeror can send multiple emails due to size constraints, if necessary.

3) The Government would accept AMRDEC Safe submittals due to possible proposal sizes. An amendment will be completed to make this clear.

4) Please see L-18.4 – File Packaging (Page 140 in the solicitation) for file-naming.

5) The Government cannot accept ZIP files from outside sources.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

8.

RFP Section H and FAR 52.219-

Reference section H, (middle of page), page 90. The RFP states: “For the purposes of FAR 52.219-159c) (i) ‘at least 50 percent of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.’”

Q: We have reviewed the Jan 2017 Limitations on Subcontracting FAR clause and are interested in the

Contracting Officer’s interpretation of whether or not all Small Business partners’ contract performance on the Prime Offeror’s team under NAICS code 541614 can also be included in the aggregate toward that 50 percent requirement or if the KO’s interpretation of this clause is that the Small Business Prime must perform

50% of the work (i.e.; not the aggregate if the small-businesses on the team)?

Government Response: The small business prime must perform 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel. The present version of FAR 52.219-14 is clear and unambiguous on its face that the prime must perform at least 50% of the services, so there is nothing to “interpret.” Until such time as the FAR

Council promulgates regulations implementing Section 1651 of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2013, FAR 52.219-14 remains the law.

9.

RFP I-151 Earned

Value

Management

System, L-17

Notice of Earned

Value

Management

System

103, Q. The PD Aerostats SETA contract will provide ongoing advisory and assistance services to PD Aerostats including POR requirements, engineering requirement development and implementation management, logistics/supply chain management, and budgetary planning and execution. As such, this is generally an LOE services contract that is non-schedule-based (i.e. it is not characterized by discrete development activities leading to tangible deliverable products, but rather, on-going O&M support and program management support activities). Imposition of EVMS on a program of this type will have minimal return on investment in terms of actionable performance measurements that cannot be achieved with standard performance monitoring. The requirement for EVMS compliance in accordance with ANSI/EIA-748 imposes significant costs on the program that can be expected to consume 3-5% of the budget, while generating very little value-add in terms of performance measurement. In addition, development of compliant EVMS systems requires significant investment by the Prime and subcontractors, which is a deterrent to competition for small businesses meeting the $15M NAICS standard. We request that in the best interest of the customer, the EVMS requirements are removed from the solicitation.

Government Response: See Question #2

10.

Section L, Provision 18, Instruction 5.a

140-141

Q. Provides the contractor with instructions on how to prepare Vol I of their proposal. When compared to the

PWS and Section M, Evaluation Factors, the instructions are unclear on how the customer would like the offeror to present a response to the PWS. Should the offer include a detailed response to the PWS requirements within Vol I of the proposal?

Government Response: See Question #3

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

11.

Section L, Provision 18, Instruction 5.b

Q. Provides the contractor with instructions on how to prepare Vol II of their proposal. Specifically, requirement i.13 states “The Offeror must provide the most up to date PWS/SOW with each reference…” The majority of the SOW potentially included will exceed 20 pages per past performance references. With respect to this requirement, will the customer consider removing the PWS/SOW from the 50 page restriction for Vol

II?

Government Response: See Question #5

12.

Section L, Provision 18, Instruction 5.c

Q. BOE indicates the potential for leased or purchased vehicles. We request that the customer provide a plug number or historical data regarding vehicle costs. If plug numbers are not provided, we request that the customer provide the location, quantity and type of vehicle for the current contract.

Government Response: The Government has provided plug numbers for material, travel, and ODC within

Attachment 0006. Any costs proposed above the provided plug numbers shall have BOE information associated with those costs. As for the number of vehicles, currently the Government has four (4) vehicles OCONUS and two (2) vehicles CONUS at Yuma Proving Grounds (YPG). An amendment will be forthcoming to ensure these numbers are within the solicitation.

13.

Section L, Provision 18, Instruction 3

Q. Provides instructions for the formatting of the assembled volumes. To adequately present graphics with diagrams, processes and workflows, we request a modification to these instructions allowing for a font size of

10-point minimum, Arial.

Government Response: The Government will not change the requirements within this section.

14.

Section L, Provision 18, Instruction 3

Q. Provides instructions for the formatting of the assembled volumes. To increase readability within tables, we request a modification to these instructions allowing for a font size of 10-point minimum, Arial.

15.

Section L, Provision 18, Instruction 3

Q. Provides instructions on the formatting of the assembled volumes, restricting page size to 8.5" x 11". On occasion, it might be necessary to provide the customer with detailed tables and illustrations that exceed this limitation. We request the ability to include 11” x 17” fold outs within the proposal volumes.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

16. Attachment 0012 -

Q. Within the WBS provided, WBS Nodes under 1.2.1.1.1.2 appear to be either incorrectly titled (column C) or incorrectly referenced to the WBS (column B). For example, WBS node 1.2.1.1.1.2.1 is currently referencing

PWS 3.2.1 but titled Systems Engineering, while the PWS (attachment 0001) 3.2.1 is titled Technical Analysis and Assessment. We request clarification from the customer.

Government Response: The Government will provide an amendment to correct Attachment 0012.

17. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Q. Theatre Operations states eight (8) OCONUS CMEs to support CENTCOM, where will these 8 CMEs be located?

Government Response: These CMEs have historically been located in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait.

Reference L-18.5.c “Pricing Assumptions”

18. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Q. Theatre Operations states two (2) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support DHS, where will these 2 CMEs be

Government Response: Reference L-18.5.c “Pricing Assumptions” for locations. A forthcoming amendment will be providing the city name along with the state that was already provided.

19. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Theatre Operations states two (2) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support EUCOM, where will these 2 CMEs be will be providing the city name along with the country that was already provided.

20. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Theatre Operations states two (2) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support NORTHCOM, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

21. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Theatre Operations states two (2) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support SOUTHCOM, where will these 2 CMEs

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

22. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Theatre Operations states two (2) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support PACOM, where will these 2 CMEs be

23. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Theatre Operations states two (2) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support AFRICOM, where will these 2 CMEs

24. Attachment 0009 3.1.1

Theatre Operations states four (4) OCONUS CMEs in CENTCOM, where will these 4 CMEs be located?

25. Attachment 0009 3.1.2 Site Support states seven (7) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs, where will these 7 CMEs be located?

Government Response: These CMEs have historically been located in Texas, Arizona, Iraq, and Afghanistan

26. Attachment 0009 3.1.2

Site Support states one (1) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support DHS, where will this 1 CME be located?

27. Attachment 0009 3.1.2 Site Support states one (1) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support EUCOM, where will this 1 CME be located?

Government Response: See question #19

28. Attachment 0009 3.1.2

Site Support states one (1) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support NORTHCOM, where will this 1 CME be

Government Response: See question #20

29. Attachment 0009 3.1.2

Site Support states one (1) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support SOUTHCOM, where will this 1 CME be

Government Response: See question #21

30. Attachment 0009 3.1.2

Site Support states one (1) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support PACOM, where will this 1 CME be located?

Government Response: See question #22

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

31. Attachment 0009 3.1.2 Site Support states one (1) CONUS/OCONUS CMEs to support AFRICOM, where will this 1 CME be located?

Government Response: See question #23

32. Attachment 0009 3.1.2 Site Support states two (2) OCONUS CMEs to support CENTCOM, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

Government Response: See question #24

33. Attachment 0009 3.1.3

Operational Analysis states three (3) CONUS CMEs, where will these 3 CMEs be located?

Government Response: As stated in Attachment 0003, “The primary place of performance for this contract shall be at PD Aerostats facility located in Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG)”

34. Attachment 0009 3.1.3

Operational Analysis states one (1) surge CONUS CME, where will this 1 CME be located?

Government Response: See question #33

35. Attachment 0009 3.1.4

Supply Management and Transportation states two (2) CONUS CMEs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

36. Attachment 0009 3.1.4 Supply Management and Transportation states one (1) surge CONUS CME, where will this 1 CME be located?

37. Attachment 0009 3.1.5

Lifecycle Sustainment Planning states three (3) CONUS CMEs, where will these 3 CMEs be located?

38. Attachment 0009 3.1.5

Lifecycle Sustainment Planning states two (2) surge CONUS CME, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

39. Attachment 0009 3.2.1

Technical Analysis and Assessment states four (4) CONUS CMEs, where will these 4 CMEs be located?

40. Attachment 0009 3.2.1 Technical Analysis and Assessment states one (1) surge CONUS CMEs, where will this 1 CME be located?

41. Attachment 0009 3.2.2

Integration Support states four (4) CONUS CMEs, where will these 4 CMEs be located?

Government Response: Three (3) CMEs will be located at APG with one (1) at YPG.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

42. Attachment 0009 3.2.3 Test and Evaluation Support states two (2) CONUS CEMs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

Government Response: One (1) CME will be located at APG and one (1) CME will be at YPG.

43. Attachment 0009 3.2.3 Test and Evaluation Support states one (1) surge CONUS CME, where will this 1 CME be located?

44. Attachment 0009 3.2.4

Configuration Management states two (2) CONUS CMEs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

45. Attachment 0009 3.2.5

Program Protection Support states one (1) CONUS CME, where will this 1 CME be located?

46. Attachment 0009 3.2.5 Program Protection Support states one (1) surge CONUS CME, where will this 1 CME be located?

47. Attachment 0009 3.2.6

Cyber Security Support states two (2) CONUS CMEs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

48. Attachment 0009 3.2.6

Cyber Security Support states two (2) surge CONUS CMEs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

49. Attachment 0009 3.3.1 Program Planning states six (6) CONUS CMEs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

50. Attachment 0009 3.3.1 Program Planning states two (2) surge CONUS CMEs, where will these 2 CMEs be located?

51. Attachment 0009 3.3.2

Contract Acquisition and Execution states five (5) CONUS CMEs, where will these 5 CMEs be located?

52. Attachment 0009 3.3.3

Cost Analysis & Estimating states two and a half (2.5) CONUS CMEs, where will these 2.5 CMEs be located?

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

53. Attachment 0009 3.3.3 Cost Analysis & Estimating states one (1) surge CONUS CMEs, where will this 1 CME be located?

54. Attachment 0009 3.3.4

Budget Planning, Execution & Reconciliation states four (4) CONUS CMEs, where will these 4 CMEs be

55. Attachment 0009 3.3.4

Budget Planning, Execution & Reconciliation states one (1) surge CONUS CME, where will these 1 CME be

56. Attachment 0009 3.3.5 Administrative Support states eight and a half (8.5) CONUS CMEs, where will these 8.5 CMEs be located?

57. Attachment 0009 3.3.5

Administrative Support states one (1) surge CONUS CMEs, where will this 1 CME be located?

58. Attachment 0009 3.3.6

Information Technology Support states one (1) CONUS CME, where will this 1 CME be located?

59. M-1 150

Q: Section M-1, p. 150, “Factor 1 Technical” references “Paragraph C in the section below” There is no

Paragraph C – can the Government please clarify?

Government Response: The reference to “Paragraph C” will be removed in an upcoming amendment.

60. L-18 (3.) 140

Q: Reference Section L-18(3.), p. 140, Format – Will the Government considering reducing font size to 10pt for headers/footers and tables and figures?

Government Response: See questions #13 and #14.

61. L-18(5.)(a.)(ii.) 141

Reference L-18(5.)(a.)(ii.), p. 141: In the sanitized volume, all personnel names shall be blacked out.

Q: Will the Government please clarify if Company Names and Logos should also be blocked out on Resumes?

Government Response: Yes, company names and logos should be blacked out. This will be clarified in the forthcoming amendment.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

62.

Table 7 of

Attachment 0006 and Attachment

0010.

Table 7 of Attachment 0006 – Section L Tables lists Travel, Material, ODC plug numbers for CLINS 0002AB, 0002AC, 0002AD, 1002AB, 1002AC, 1002AD, 2002AB, 2002AC, 2002AD, 3002AB, 3002AC, 3002AD, 4002AB, 4002AC, 4002AD. These CLINS do not exist according to the Anticipated CLIN Structure for Contract

Award (Attachment 0010).

Q: Will the Government clarify the CLIN structure and correct either Attachment 0006 or Attachment 0010 for consistency?

Government Response: Attachment 0006 has been updated to match the CLIN structure represented in

Attachment 0010.

63.

Attachment 0012 and Attachment

All of the Engineering (WBS 1.2.1.1.1.2) Surge Support PWS references in Attachment 0012 (3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, and 3.2.6) are mislabeled. They neither reflect the correct paragraphs of the PWS (Attachment 001) nor the anticipated Surge Support requirements of Attachment 0009.

Q: Will the Government please clarify and/or correct the WBS (Attachment 0012) for consistency?

Government Response: An updated Attachment 0012 will be posted with the forthcoming amendment.

64. L-18(5.)(c.) 144

Reference L-18(5.)(c.), Pricing Assumptions on p. 141: PD Aerostats support is required to support three (3) operational locations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Q: Will the Government require the awardee (Prime or Subcontractor) to have an Afghan Business License in order to support CENTCOM operations on Day 1 of contract award?

Government Response: No, however should be within 30 days of contract award. There will be a contract transition period to support this 30 calendar day gap w/o an Afghan Business License.

65. L-18(5.)(b.)(iii.) 142

Reference L-18(5.)(b.)(iii.), p. 141 states, ‘This section will further include written consent from of major subcontractors to allow disclosure of their subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors.’

Q: Will the Government allow the Prime offerors to combine the written Letters of Consent and Letters of

Commitment of the major subcontractors into one letter per major subcontractor?

Government Response: Yes

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

66. L-18(5.)(b.)(iii.) 142

Reference L-18(5.)(b.)(iii.), p. 141 states, ‘This section will further include written consent from major subcontractors to allow disclosure of their subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors.’

Q: Table 4 of Attachment 0006 does not indicate whether or not this requirement is included within the page count, will the Government please clarify whether or not they are included in the page count?

Government Response: Written letters of Consent and letters of commitment are not included in the past performance page count. This will be clarified in the forthcoming amendment.

67. L-18(4.) 140

Reference L-18(4.), p. 140: File Packaging. Proposal file names shall include the volume number and indicate whether the file is sanitized or unsanitized, e.g., VolumeI_Unsanitized.pdf, VolumeIII_Sanitized.xls, etc.

Q: When naming files should the offeror also provide company name within the file name?

Government Response: No.

68. L-18(5.)(b.)(v.) 143

Reference L-18(5.)(b.)(v.), p. 143: The Offeror shall e-mail to the Contract Specialists a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date.

Q: It is understood this POC list is to be submitted separately to the Contract Specialist by the proposal due date. Does the Government also require this list within Volume II Past Performance submission? If so is it part of the 50 page limit?

Government Response: The POC List does not apply to the page count. This will be clarified in the forthcoming amendment.

69.

Attachment 0006

Table 4 N/A

Reference Attachment 0006, Table 4: **The miscellaneous volume shall include non-disclosure agreements, data and software assertions, and representations and certifications, the organizational conflict of interest (OCI) mitigation plan, completed Sections B, H, and K, and Standard Forms 30 and 33.

Q: Are Representations and Certifications required for all proposed subcontractors?

Government Response: Representations and Certifications for the purposes of this section apply to only the

Prime Contractor.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

70.

Attachment 0006

Table 4 N/A

Reference Attachment 0006, Table 4: The company credentials, resumes, graphics, and conditional letters of offer and acceptance are not included in the page count.

Q: Can the Government define “The Company credentials” – Specifically which Volume and details regarding what the credentials are.

Government Response: This information is for Volume I – Technical and refers to business size standard, company’s facility clearance level, ISO certifications, CMMI, etc. A forthcoming amendment will clarify this information with Table 4 of Section L.

71.

Attachment 0006

Table 4 N/A

Reference Attachment 0006, Table 4: The company credentials, resumes, graphics, and conditional letters of offer and acceptance are not included in the page count.

Q. Can the Government clarify “graphics”- Do the graphics refer to all graphics provided in Volume I?

Government Response: Graphics only apply to company logos.

72. PWS Addendum N/A

Q. The requirement cited throughout the PWS Addendum that calls for 3-5 years of experience with any

AEROSTAT larger than 20 Meters in length appears to be unduly restrictive of competition and may result in a de facto sole source procurement. We assume that was not the intent of the requirement. The Competition in

Contract Act and the FAR mandate that agencies solicit their minimum needs in a fashion that ensures full and fair competition. With that in mind, we respectfully request that the agency amend the RFP to permit a broader range of aerostat related experience.

Government Response: No change will occur to the related experience. The engineering, operations, logistics are significantly less complex when the size of the aerostat is reduced below the 20M criteria. With PD

Aerostat's portfolio of systems, aerostats experience of anything below 20M criteria will not meet the majority of the requirements.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

73. PWS Addendum N/A

Q. In numerous areas within the PD Aerostats Performance Work Statement, a minimum greater than 20 meter aerostat requirement has been levied. Whereas it is understood that existing PD Aerostats aerostat systems, specifically, the PGGS is 22 meter system, the RAID 17 meter aerostat is a comparable system both operationally and from a maintainability perspective. The PGGS aerostat employs the TCOM 22 meter envelope, the RAID employs the TCOM 17 meter envelope. The PGGS has an 80 meter Tower included with the aerostat system, manufacturer by US Towers. The RAID aerostat employs a 107 meter Tower included with the aerostat system, manufactured by US Towers. Additionally, the inclusion of the Winch Aerostat Small Program (WASP), which has an approximate 7-8 meter envelope, is inconsistent with the scope’s minimum 20 meter requirement. Is it the intent of this solicitation that the RAID 17 meter aerostat experience and capability will not be credited for technical and past performance solicitation requirements?

Government Response: The PGGS stated above is the incorrect nomenclature for this system. The correct nomenclature for this system is now PSS-T Medium. Experience and capability for the RAID 17 meter aerostat and for other aerostats less than 20m will be reviewed as part of the Offeror’s approach in the management plan. While experience with aerostats greater than 20m is favorable, experience with aerostats smaller than

20m may also be relevant and Offerors should show how the experience is applicable to requirements stated within this solicitation. The Government will not change its personnel requirements where experience is required for aerostats larger than 20m (See question 72). As for past performance, the Government will accept all reference contracts to any work that is relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.

74.

Performance

Work Statement

The scope requirements indicate “other products/system as they are transitioned to be managed by the PD

Aerostats.” Does the government consider PGSS Tower operation and maintenance as a scope requirement under this clause?

Government Response: The Government does not anticipate the PGSS Tower operation and maintenance as a scope requirement.

75. PWS Addendum Page 8

Section 3.3 of the PD Aerostats Solicitation Addendum levies the following requirement: “The Contractor shall ensure program planning positions have 24 months experience in POR management, planning, preparation, and execution and are certified Program Management Professionals (PMPs).” Will the DOD Acquisition

Professional Certification “Program Management Level III” be accepted as meeting the PMP requirement?

Government Response: No, DoD Acquisition PM level III will not suffice for PMP certification. PM level III is primarily focused on DoD PM while PMP certification has both DoD/commercial world.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

76.

Solicitation L-

18.5.b.iii

The following section is an excerpt from the Section L requirements from the Past Performance volume. The section refers to Past Performance examples, yet this section, written in the present tense, seems to refer to a current effort and is therefore confusing. Can the government please clarify what is required to explain the past performance example?

(iii) Section 3 Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the Offeror's corporate entity and among the proposed Subcontractors. The

Offeror shall provide a percentage breakout (based on the total hours being proposed) for each PWS paragraph of the total level of effort (LOE) that is performed by the prime and what will be performed by the subcontractors with the major subcontractors explicitly broken out. The information provided for the prime Offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE code, DUNS number, and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS subparagraph number.

This section will further include written consent of major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of their subcontractor's past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors.

Government Response: This section shall outline the prime’s proposal for this solicitation concerning any/all major subcontractors for this effort.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

77. Attachment 0009 N/A

Question: Attachment 0009 provides the historical level of effort (LOE) as well as the estimated productive hours (1,920 CONUS and 3,744 OCONUS). Given the amount of potential surge listed in the LOE, will the government please mandate that contractors bid the complete LOE as provided with the estimated productive hours so that so that the government may perform an “apples to apples” price comparison for Volume III.

Recommendation: Require bidders to price 1920 hours for CONUS FTE and 3744 hours for OCONUS FTE for all labor categories (LCs) and require bidders to price the entire LOE table in Attachment 0009.

Rationale: Due to the large amount of surge FTE we believe it is important for the government to require companies to bid the entire LOE in order to effectively evaluate cost realism, best value to the government and prevent bidders from lowering their overall Total Evaluated Price (TEP) by reducing productive man/year hours and removing LOE from their bids. Bidders are aware that multiple surge locations currently do not have personnel or Aerostats there today, and therefore may not bid/price these surge requirements in order to effectively lower their TEP.

Government Response: This is a performance based requirement. Attachment 0009 is provided for historical references only and can be utilized by each Prime as they see fit within their particular approach to the requirements. The Government will not be requiring potential bidders to propose to the LOEs provided in this attachment. Offerors need to show that the assignment of functions, duties, and responsibilities are sufficient to perform all of the requirements.

78. Attachment 0002 N/A

Q. PD Aerostats has provided the required clearance level for a number of key positions. We respectfully request the required clearance level for the key Theater Logistics Lead.

Government Response: Top Secret

79. Attachment 0002 N/A

Q. PD Aerostats has provided the required clearance level for a number of key positions. We respectfully request the required clearance level for the key Lead Operations Analyst.

80. Attachment 0002 N/A

Q. PD Aerostats has provided the required clearance level for a number of key positions. We respectfully request the required clearance level for the key Lead Supply and Transportation Analyst.

Government Response: Secret

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

81. Attachment 0002 N/A

Q. PD Aerostats has provided the required clearance level for a number of key positions. We respectfully request the required clearance level for the key Lifecycle Support Specialist.

Government Response: Secret

82. Attachment 0002 N/A

Q. PD Aerostats has provided the required clearance level for a number of key positions. We respectfully request the required clearance level for the key Test Engineer.

83. N/A N/A

Q. We await the additional information about City Names (reference Questions 18 – 26 in “Government

Responses to Industry Questions”), as we cannot complete our cost volume without this information, and without knowing location, obtaining a Letter of Commitment from key staff members is problematic.

Additionally, the additional Key Personnel security clearance requirements (reference Questions 78 – 82 in

“Government Responses to Industry Questions”) require us to revise our staffing and recruitment plans.

Because of these factors, we respectfully request an extension to the proposal due date of at least one week following release of the Amendment containing City names.

Government Response: The Government will extend the proposal due date one (1) week from 16 August 2017 to 23 August 2017 based on the changes indicated within this question. An additional amendment will be forthcoming to appropriately reflect the change in proposal due date.

Please note: Amendment 0001 was posted 01 August 2017 to FBO which contains the city names as in Section

L’s “Pricing Assumptions”.

84.

Pricing

Worksheet N/A

Q. Currently the instructions are asking for a detail worksheet for each CLIN. There are 145 CLINs which would require 145 worksheets. Would you allow for multiple CLINs in the same worksheet?

Government Response: The Government will not allow for multiple CLINs in the same worksheet. For clarification purposes, there are currently only 120 CLINs within the solicitation.

85. N/A N/A

Q. Will the Department of the Army sponsor the required security clearance for the awarded company?

Government Response: No.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

86. Attachment 0006 N/A

Q. Found within Attachment 0006 both within the original solicitation and within Amendment 1, PD Aerostats has stated that Volume V – Miscellaneous, shall include non-disclosure agreements. We respectfully request clarification regarding the nature and intent with this requirement. Is PD Aerostats requesting signed non-disclosure agreements for all proposed key staff as defined in Attachment 0003, G. Organizational Conflict of

Interest Risk Management?

Government Response: Yes.

87.

Attachment 0006

Table 4 N/A

Reference Attachment 0006, Table 4: “****The miscellaneous volume shall include non-disclosure agreements, data and software assertions, representations and certifications, EVMS documentation, the organizational conflict of interest (OCI) mitigation plan, completed Sections B, H, and K, and Standard Forms 30 and 33. There shall be no terms and conditions proposed for the contract; however, pricing assumptions should be included in the cost volume BOE.”

Q: Will the Government accept Reps & Certs, NDAs, Sections B, H, K and Standard Forms 30 and 33 in their original formats or do these sections need to be reformatted to the Arial 12 Point font requirement?

Government Response: Yes, the Government will accept the documents listed in their original formats.

88.

Attachment 03, Section G;

Attachment 0006

Table 4

Reference Attachment 0003, Section G. Organizational Conflict of Interest: “The Contractor shall submit a Risk

Management Plan as part of its proposal….”

Q: Will the Government please confirm that offerors are required to submit a Risk Management Plan and include it in Volume V – Miscellaneous?

Government Response: The Risk Management Plan, CDRL B006, shall be submitted as part of Volume V –

Miscellaneous.

89.

Attachment 03, Section G;

Attachment 0006

Table 4

Q: Is the Risk Management Plan the same thing as the OCI Mitigation Plan referenced in Attachment 0006

Table 4 under the contents of the Miscellaneous volume?

Government Response: The Risk Management Plan, CDRL B006, is the same thing as the OCI Mitigation

Plan. It shall be completed and submitted in Volume V – Miscellaneous.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

90.

Attachment 03, Section G;

Reference Q&A #86 and Attachment 0003, Section G. Organizational Conflict of Interest: “The Contractor and its employees supporting this contract shall be required to sign non-disclosure agreements IAW DFARS 227.7103-

7.”

Q: Will the Government provide an NDA format for the proposed Key personnel to sign for submission with the proposal?

Government Response: The NDA format is provided in DFARS 227.7103-7

If not, the referenced DFARS 227.7103-7 (a) (2) (b) states that, “The requirement for use and non-disclosure agreements does not apply to Government contractors which require access to third party’s data or software for the performance of a Government contract that contains clause at 252.227-7205…”. The current solicitation contains this clause.

Q: Does the Government still want offerors to use the NDA format presented in 227.7103-7 (a)(2)(c) for Key

Personnel to sign?

Government Response: Yes

91.

Q&A #84, Pricing

Worksheet N/A

Q. Request clarification of the government’s response to this question—the response provided seems inconsistent with the language in Section L, which implies that there are to be only five tabs in the Excel workbook: “The Cost/Price volume submission shall consist of the following worksheets (interpreted to mean there will be five “tabs”): Summary, CLIN Level Cost Element Detail, Labor Rates, Indirect Rates, Materials, ODCs, and Travel.” Can you clarify whether you expect each CLIN detail to be presented as an individual spreadsheet at one Excel workbook tab or that each CLIN must be presented on a separate tab (120 separate tabs) within the Microsoft Excel workbook? Specifically, can offerors create separate CLIN pricing formats but present all of the CLIN pricing spreadsheet formats within a single tab of the workbook in a manner that each CLIN is clearly and individually priced?

Government Response: Please review the "Worksheet Requirements" section of the solicitation - pages 16 and

17 of Amendment 0001. This section references Attachment 0006 - Table 5 which is the Labor CLIN Worksheet

Sample. It clearly states each worksheet is to contain labor and overheads by Contractor Fiscal Year and CLIN number (CLIN 000X). Only one (1) CLIN per worksheet.

Section

/Attachment

Reference

Page # Question/Comment

92.

L-18(5.)(c.);

Attachment 006 –

Table 4

Reference: Section L refers to the Cost/Price Volume as “Volume III Cost/Price” Table 4 of Attachment 0006 refers to Cost/Price Volume as “IV-Cost Price”

Table 4 refers to Miscellaneous Volume as V-Miscellaneous Volume.

Q: Can the Government please clarify correct Volume Numbers for the Cost and Miscellaneous Volumes?

Government Response: Table 4 within Attachment 0006 should read “III – Cost Price Volume” and “IV –

Miscellaneous Volume”. Attachment 0006 has been updated and will be provided through FBO.

93.

L-18(5.)(b.)(i)(13

Reference: 13) The Offeror must provide the most up to date PWS/SOW with each reference.

Q: Section L and Attachment 0006 do not provide any guidance regarding submission format for the reference

PWS/SOWs. Is it acceptable to submit these as separate attachments or one separate attachment for Volume

II? Or would the Government prefer all PWS/SOW documents embedded within the Volume II past

Performance file?

Government Response: These can be submitted as one (1) separate attachment for Volume II or embedded at the end of Volume II.

94. Attachment 0006

Q. Attachment 0006 provides instructions on page count limitations for Volume 1. Excluded from page count are a number of items including the conditional letters of offer and acceptance, resumes, ISO certifications, etc. Following the instructions found in Section L, Part 3 (Proposal Files), Subpart a (Format), a table of contents should be created using the table of content feature in Microsoft Word.

Considering this requirement, would PD Aerostats please consider adding the table of contents to the list of excluded sections found in Attachment 0006?

Government Response: Attachment 0006 has been updated to reflect that the table of contents for Volume I and Volume II are not included in the page count. The updated Attachment 0006 has been provided through

FBO.