SOFAST-E_Consolidated_RFP_Q A.pdf

The following represents the Government’s response to questions/comments provided in relation to the recent Request for Proposal (RFP) for solicitation W900KK-13-R-0002. These responses address ONLY those questions submitted after the RFP release on 31 October 2012 and are in accordance with Section L.1.16 of the solicitation.

** Signifies a question/comment that has been previously addressed via Amendment 0001 to the subject RFP.

**Question 1: Is it correct to assume that CLIN 0015 is an option since CLIN 0007 covers the training for the base contract?

**Answer 1: Yes, that is correct. This CLINs OPTION annotation was mistakenly removed. It has been corrected under Amendment 0001.

Question 2: As currently specified, the projector native resolution shall be 1900 x 1200. Is it acceptable for an Offeror to propose a projector with a higher native resolution (while also meeting the other projector requirements)?

Answer 2: Offerors should develop their solution in order to meet the SOW/Spec base/visual requirements. The Government has identified in Attachment 3b – Visual Specifications, that the, “…projector solution shall meet the direct view requirements for all 160 th combat mission simulators.” Offerors should propose a solution accordingly.

**Question 3: Item b) specifies a date of 14 December as opposed to 11 December specified elsewhere. Please clarify.

**Answer 3: Referenced date should reflect 11 December 2012, not 14 December. This was corrected under Amendment 0001.

**Question 4: Paragraph 3.1.3.1 states, “See Basic SOW paragraph 3.1.4.5.1 for reference.”

Paragraph 3.1.4.5.1 does not exist in the Basic SOW, please clarify.

**Answer 4: DO 0001 SOW reference 3.1.3.1 should reference Basic SOW paragraph

3.1.4.4.1. This has been corrected under Amendment 0001.

Question 5: Solicitation Instructions L.9.3 currently indicates “All Offeror’s shall submit a mitigation plan even if they do not perceive themselves to have an OCI….”

Would the Government consider deleting this requirement for Offerors who do not have or anticipate having an OCI concern?

Answer 5: The entire statement reads, “All Offerors shall submit a mitigation plan even if they do not perceive themselves to have an OCI. If there is no current OCI, provide information with how you would deal with an OCI if one should appear.”

The Mitigation Plan is required to satisfy the Government’s concern that the Offeror has contemplated the OCI possibility and that they have a strategy in place if one should arise over the 5 year performance period.

Question 6: Section M.4.3.4 states “The Government will evaluate the capability of the design and approach to modify, replace, gain access to, interface and/or integrate with CMS existing proprietary software, hardware and technical data that meet the requirements of DO 0001, to include written binding agreements if the Offeror’s solution requires access to CMS proprietary software and/or technical data.”

Please clarify what is meant by “access to”? (Does it mean if the Offeror’s solution calls/invokes a CMS proprietary software module for reuse, with no modifications to the software module? Or does it mean if the Offer’s solution modifies the CMS proprietary software module?

Answer 6: The statement, “access to” means; if an Offeror requires access to another contractor’s proprietary HW/SW information currently utilized in the subject CMS, for the purpose of developing its solution, then the Government requires the Offeror to have an agreement with that contractor.

Question 7: The current CLIN structure in Attachment 8 divides DO 0001 base and DO 0001

Option components across multiple CLINs. This makes it virtually impossible to organize Basis of Estimates and Project Management costs correctly. For instance, does the cost for PDR for

DO 0001 Option go against CLIN #8 and CLIN #9? This cost cannot be split between optional

CLINs in case an option CLIN is not awarded. Recommend combining all components of DO

0001 Base into a single CLIN, and DO 0001 Option (all components) against another single

CLIN. This approach is further supported by the interrelated nature of the option tasks that must be performed by bringing the simulator “down”. Performing these tasks separately would be very expensive and time-consuming and not in the Government’s best interest.

Answer 7: Recommendation noted. Government will retain Section B as is. It is up to each

Offeror to provide the supporting allocation documentation (labor hours/costs) by CLIN, based upon its solution.

Question 8: Given the six (6) program Past Performance submission constraint, does the

Government desire to see Past Performance submissions for firms providing designated common visual and/or other solutions (e.g., SOFTAC)?

Answer 8: The stipulated requirement is to provide three submissions from the Prime and three from its “major subcontractors”. It is up to the individual Offerors to provide this information based upon the information provided in Section L.7.1.

Question 9: Section L defines a Major Subcontractor as: “A major subcontractor is defined as one whose subcontract is proposed as a significant portion (10% or more) of the total effort (DO

0001) either through price or task content.” Section M defines a Major Subcontractor as: “A major subcontractor is defined as one whose subcontractor is for more than 10% of the proposed price.” Will the government reconcile the difference for clarification purposes?

Answer 9: The Government has amended Section L.7.1 and M.4.5 of the solicitation as follows:

“A major subcontractor is defined as one whose subcontract is proposed as a significant portion

(10% or more) of the total contract (DO 0001) performance.”

Question 10: With respect to the determination as to a “significant portion of the total effort”, does the differentiation with respect to vendor versus major subcontractor reside with the Offeror or does the Government desire to provide a definition?

Answer 10: Offeror shall provide its response based upon its interpretation of the requested data. Section L.7.1 states, “A major subcontractor is defined as one whose subcontract is proposed as a significant portion (10% or more) of the total contract (DO 0001) performance.”

Question 11: The Government's personnel qualification descriptions indicate that a bachelor's degree is the minimum education required or recommended for a management position in

SOFAST-E, and that additional education can reduce the amount of experience required. Will the Government also acknowledge that significant (greater than 15 years) successful aviation or simulation program management experience can serve to reduce the amount of formal education required? Can we assume that a total assessment of the individual's education and experience will be considered in assessing an individual who may match labor category qualifications within our company but does not specifically match the qualifications prescribed in Attachment 15?

Answer 11: The stipulations for key personnel are identified in Attachment 15 and the experiential/educational requirements do not identify any trade-offs other than those based upon higher educational levels.

Question 12: Will the government consider extending the proposal due date to December 14 due to Thanksgiving and ITSEC both falling during this time period? The additional three days extension would actually provide contractors an extra week of proposal preparation time given shipping suspense.

Answer 12: At this time, there will be no extension to the proposal submission date.

The Draft RFP was provided to Industry to review and submit comments from August 17 to

October 30, 2012 (75 days). The Government released the Official RFP on October 31, 2012 with proposal submissions due on December 11, 2012. This gives Industry 41 days for proposal development. The Government, taking into account the Thanksgiving Holiday, has provided a timeframe that is more than the average proposal preparation allowance (30 days).

Question 13: The RFP indicates the Government seeks a prime that has technical competence across the scope of the SOW rather than a narrow set of experiences and competencies. Will the

Government allow the Prime to submit more than 3 past performance citations within the 6 total citations allowed?

Answer 13: The Government will not evaluate past performance submissions beyond the number requested. The Government will also be utilizing the questionnaires (Attachment 13) as an additional evaluation element and reserves the right to employ the other methodologies identified in M.4.5.

Question 14: The referenced SOW and Spec paragraphs could be interpreted to mean either:

1. Only the computers related to CAAS functionality must be recapitalized, or

2. ALL computers in the MH-47 CMS must be recapitalized.

Could you please clarify which sets of computers must be recapitalized?

Answer 14: Question refers to DO 0001 SOW paragraph 3.2.1.6.1 and DO 0001 Spec paragraph 3.1.3.5. The Offeror’s design solution will determine whether some or all computational systems will be recapitalized. The Government will not dictate the Offeror’s solutions.