Attachment0014RFPQuestionsAndResponses09Oct2015.pdf

Reference Question Response Section A

With respect to CLIN 0003 Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL) on page 5 of the RFP, it is acknowledged that while this CLIN is not separately priced, Offerors shall fill in Blocks 17 and 18 of each individual DD-1423-1 (Exhibit A); Where there are Block 17 and Block 18 boxes added to the particular CRDLs in Exhibit A, Block 17 is left blank, but Block 18 has been completed with "Insert in Section B."

Please clarify what "Insert in Sect B" means. And please clarify how the Army would like the potential Offerors to present this information to be compliant.

The Government anticipates that the statement in CLIN 0003 “While this CLIN is not separately priced, offerors shall fill in Blocks 17 and 18 of each individual DD1423-1 (Exhibit A)" will be removed via Amendment to the RFP. Concurrently, Block 18 of all CDRLs (except A019, EMD proposal) would be changed from “Insert in Sect. B” to “NSP in Sect. B”.

Although CLIN 0003 is defined as not separately priced, the RFP on page 5 states "While this CLIN (0003) is not separately priced offerors shall fill in Block 17 ["Price Group"] & 18 ["Estimated Total Price"] of each individual DD1423-1 (Exhibit A)." Please clarify the requirement to complete Blocks 17 and 18, as it conflicts with the pricing instructions that this CLIN is not separately priced. Should the "Estimated Total Price" for each data item in Block 18 be zero? If not, will the "Estimated Total Prices" for the data items be factored into the cost evaluation at all?

See answer above

Although CLIN 0002, EMD Proposal Preparation Costs, is Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), potential Offerors have limited knowledge of what that Proposal will entail on which to base a FFP offer. Could the Army provide the anticipated Sections L and M of the EMD draft Request for Proposal (RFP) in order to provide potential Offerors a better understanding of the requirement of the EMD proposal? Alternately, would a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate for this CLIN be more appropriate at this time if sections L and M are not presently available?

The EMD draft PWS and CDRLs were provided to inform the offerors of the scope of the EMD proposal in order to propose the cost of preparing the EMD proposal. At this time, the Army does not have the anticipated Sections L and M or an EMD draft Request for Proposal (RFP) . A ROM is not acceptable as the CLIN requires Offerors to propose a firm-fixed-price which will be evaluated, analyzed and negotiated prior to award.

Solicitation W58RGZ-15-R-0070 Questions from Industry with Government Response

Section B

Section C

Section E

Section I -104, paragraph [c]: The RFP includes FAR Clause 52.217-

9. Subpart [c] states total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options, will not exceed one year. This appears to be a type. What is the intended term limit for that clause?

It is the Government's anticipation that the total duration of contract, including exercise of any options, will not exceed 36 months. FAR Clause 52.217-9 would be revised accordingly via Amendment to the

RFP.

The RFP includes DFARS Clause 252.209-7009, Organizational Conflicts of Interest - Major Defense Acquisition Program (and the accompanying notice in provision 252.209-7008). The clause applies to contracts "for the performance of systems engineering and technical assistance for a major defense acquisition program or a pre-major defense acquisition program." But this is a design/development effort for the new engines, not SETA work as it is defined in FAR 9.505-1 and DFARS 209.571-1. Notably, DFARS 209.571-1 states SETA work "does not include design and development work of design and development contractors, in accordance with FAR 9.505-2(a)(3) or FAR 9.505-2(b)(3), and the guidance at PGI 209.571-7." Will this clause be removed or replaced with a more applicable clause?

If DFARS Clause 252.209-7009 is not deleted from the RFP, will the Army clarify that the clause does not supersede the guidance in FAR 9.505-2 that "Development Contractors" are not prohibited from competing or participating in future design, development or production work and that awardees will not be foreclosed from competing for follow-on work related to the engine awardees will develop under the contract.

The RFP has the Notice of Progress Payments provision, 52.232-13, but none of the Progress Payment clauses are included in the RFP.

Does the Army intend to include a Progress Payment clause in the RFP and resulting contract?

The Government anticipates inserting FAR clause 52.232-16, Progress Payments, into the RFP via an Amendment.

Section G

Section H

Section I

Section F

The Government anticipates removing DFARS clauses 252.209-7009 and 252.209-7008 via Amendment to the RFP.

The RFP includes several clauses which, by their prescriptive language, are only applicable to service contracts (including but not limited to FAR 52.217-8 (Option to Extend Services), FAR 52.222-41 (Service Contract Labor Standards), FAR 52.222-44 (Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards - Price Adjustment) and FAR 52.222-46 (Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees). These clauses create an unnecessary burden to the Company and carry a cost to the government. Can these clauses be deleted from this RFP?

No, these clauses can not be deleted from the RFP. The Preliminary Design Review (PDR) effort is a research and development service.

FAR Part 37 defines a service contract as "a contract that directly engages the time and effort of a contractor whose primary purpose is to perform an identifiable task rather than to furnish an end item of supply." The Government will not receive an end item of supply as a result of the PDR contract.

Although section H-1 on Organizational Conflict of Interest from the Draft RFP was deleted, DFARS 252.209-7009, Organizational Conflict of Interest – Major Defense Acquisition Program, was included in the RFP. The regulatory framework, FAR 9.505-2(b) and DFARS 209.571-1, permits a contractor to provide goods and systems on which the contractor has participated in the development and design work with the Government. See, for example, FAR 9.505- 2(b)(3)(“For the reasons given in 9.505-2(a)(3), no prohibitions are imposed on development and design contractors.”) and DFARS 209.571-1 (defining “systems engineering and technical assistance” to exclude “design and development work” in accordance with FAR 9.505-2). Given this regulatory framework, and the follow-on EMD work that is contemplated by the RFP, we request that the Army consider removing clause DFARS 252.209-7009 from the RFP.

The Government anticipates removing DFARS clauses 252.209-7009 and 252.209-7008 from the RFP via an Amendment.

The PWS Appendix C, Attachment G: Column C (a hidden column) CDRL List, included 6 CDRLS that appears to be required to be submitted with the proposal. Please verify if potential Offerors were not intended to be provided this information, or if these CDRLS are not intended to be submitted with the proposal, since as CDRLs, they would more typically be delivered during contract performance.

It appears that Column C was inadvertently hidden. The Government plans to pursue a corrected Appendix C, Attachment G and provide it within a revised PWS via an Amendment to the RFP.

Section J

Request clarification of SDD paragraph 3.1.5.1.1, defines the Maintenance Ratio requirements as "The engine shall have a MRField of less than or equal to 0.121 MMH/EOH and shall have a MRDepot of less than or equal to 0.176 MMH/EOH". SDD paragraph 3.1.5.3, the Direct Maintenance Man Hour per Engine Operating Hour (DMMH/EOH) requirement is stated as "The engine shall have a DMMH/EOP of less than .03". Definitions available in DA PAM700- 127 (2014) and the Joint Service MOA on Operational Suitability Terminology and Definitions (2005) suggest that the DMMH/EOH value should be equal to the sum of MRField and MRDepot. Adding MRField and MRDepot equals 0.297 MMH/EOH which is significantly greater than the .03 MMH/EOH. Should the DMMH/EOP requirement be "less than 0.30"?

The Government expects that SDD Paragraph 3.1.5.3 Direct Maintenance Man Hour per Engine Operating Hour (DMMH/EOH) will be removed and a revised document will be provided via an Amendment to the RFP. Also, SDD paragraph 3.1.5.1.1 would be renumbered to 3.1.5.1 to correct a numbering error.

CDRL C004 , “PDR Summary Report,” provided at p. 69 of Exhibit A, instructs that "The Contractor shall deliver a list of long lead items NLT 30 days prior to the engine system PDR". This appears to conflict with CDRL C005, “Long Lead Items Report”. Please clarify the submittal timing requirements for CDRL C004.

It appears that CDRL C004 Block 16 note for Blocks 10, 12, and 13 is incorrect. Delivery for CDRL C004 should be 30 days after completion of the PDR. As stated in PWS 3.3.6, the Long Lead Items List included in C004 would be the final list following completion of the PDR (compared to the preliminary list provided by C005). It is likely that CDRL C004 Block 16 will be revised to read "Blocks 10, 12 & 13:

Contractor shall deliver report NLT 30 days after completion of the engine system PDR" and a revised Exhibit A provided via an Amendment to the RFP.

The PWS requirements on page 35 in paragraph 3.4.5 and on page 49 in paragraph 3.7.2 appear to cover the same system-level FHA requirement, yet each provides different references and is associated with different CDRLs, E012 and I002. If the intent is to produce two separate FHA deliverables, please clarify the subject matter to be assessed under each requirement.

PWS paragraph 3.4.5 addresses the engine control system, a subsystem of the engine system. PWS paragraph 3.7.2 addresses the engine system, which includes all of the modules, subsystems, LRUs, including the engine control system.

Section K

Section L

In Section L, 1.1.7.2, Volume II Technical, paragraph (e)(1), the second sentence, does the word "proposed" apply to only the IMS, or all of the subsequent items listed, including the Associated Contractor Agreements (ACAs)? Is a description of a plan and approach to ACAs sufficient for the PD proposal, or does this require a "proposed" draft of ACAs?

"Proposed" refers to IMS and all subsequent items listed. In accordance with Section L, Offeror submissions shall describe the approach and include proposed ACAs.

Please clarify the scope of the Section L requirement and the Section M evaluation standard regarding Cybersecurity. Section L appears to focus on cybersecurity only for "the engine and engine control system." Section M, on the other hand appears to focus on whether the Offeror has "a NIST compliant system," which we would typically read to mean the contractor's own information systems IAW DFARS 252.204-7012, not an engine or engine control system deliverable.

To which system is this evaluation intended to apply?

Pending the appropriate approvals and formal issuance of an Amendment to the RFP, the Government anticipates that Sections L

1.1.7.2 e 6 and M 1.1.1.4 6 will be revised to remove the reference to the engine and engine control system.

Section M 1.1 (3) Reliability: The Objective and Threshold values for reliability are cited for 11 hours of operation. We interpret this as aircraft operation (flight time) and therefore must be converted to engine hours. Is this correct?

Pending the appropriate approvals and formal issuance of an Amendment to the RFP, the Government anticipates that the Reliability portion of M 1.1 (3) will be revised.

From: "The engine shall have a 97% probability of completing 11 hours of operation without experiencing an Essential Function Failure (EFF)" To: "The engine Mean Time Between Essential Function Failure (MTBEFF) shall be greater than or equal to 453 Engine Operating Hours (EOH)."

Section M, 1.1, Basis of Award, subpart (3) states " To receive consideration for award, the Offerors proposal must demonstrate that its proposed engine design will meet the following Key Requirements.

These Key Requirements below are a subset of the performance requirements described in Table 1 of the Improved Turbine Engine (ITE) System Requirements Document (SRD)." However, the Third Key Requirement about "Reliability" is not listed any longer in the SRD (it was in the draft RFP). Should that Requirement also be listed in the SRD?

See answer above

General

Section M

The RFP did not include an estimated program schedule. Does the Army have any guidance to provide on when they expect the EMD proposal to be due? Especially compared with when PDR would occur under the contract?

A Pre-decisional Program Schedule will most likely be added as an attachment to the RFP via an Amendment.