Draft_RFP_Round_2_Questions_05APR16.docx

Attachment 4: Question and Comment Form Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Tactical Proficiency Trainer -

W900KK-16-R-0005

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Draft Solicitation W900KK-16-R-0005

Document Date:

Reference Section/Paragraph: L5, Proposal Volumes

Question/Comment:

Background: Table 2 provides proposal instructions that we “may include up to (8) 11x17 inch fold out pages for schedule.”

Question: Are fold out pages in the Management Volume restricted to only showing our proposed schedule? Or may we also use fold pages for other purposes consistent with the restrictions for Technical Volume fold outs (i.e. “for drawings, diagrams or spreadsheets”)?

Response:

Table 2 will be updated to allow the use of fold out pages for schedule, diagrams, or spreadsheets.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Draft Solicitation W900KK-16-R-0005 Document Date:

Reference Section/Paragraph: DRFP Section L.5, PROPOSAL VOLUMES, DRFP Section L.6.2 VOLUME II – MANAGEMENT, and DRFP Section M.3.2.1 Management Structure Question/Comment:

Background: Section L.5,Table 2 provides proposal instructions that we “may include up to (8) 11x17 inch fold out pages for schedule.”

However, in L.6.2 there are no instructions for providing proposed schedule information; and M.3.2.1 contains no criteria for evaluating proposed schedules.

Question: What does the Government desire in the way of a proposed schedule from offerors?

Schedules may be provided within the proposal at the Offeror’s discretion to support the proposed approach regarding Management Structure, Risk Management, and Supportability as detailed in Sections L and M of the draft solicitation.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Draft Solicitation W900KK-16-R-0005

Reference Section/Paragraph: M.2.2 Relative Order of Importance

Question/Comment:

Section M.2.2 states “Evaluation Factor I, Technical, and Evaluation Factor II, Program Management, are further subdivided into sub-factors. The sub-factors will be evaluated with the following order of importance under the overarching evaluation factor. For Factor I, Technical, all sub-factors are of equal importance. For Factor II, Program Management, all sub-factors are of equal importance”.

While recognizing the importance of the bidder’s Cybersecurity approach, it would seem that the overall Technical Approach to the SOW and SSS would be more important for the technical evaluation than the Cybersecurity approach.

Recommend changing the statement above M.2.2 to:

“Evaluation Factor I, Technical, and Evaluation Factor II, Program Management, are further subdivided into sub-factors. The sub-factors will be evaluated with the following order of importance under the overarching evaluation factor. For Factor I, Technical Approach is significantly more important than Cybersecurity. For Factor II, Program Management, all sub-factors are of equal importance”.

Response: The Government does not concur. The Cybersecurity and Technical Approach sub-factors remain equal in relative weighting.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: W900KK-16-R-0005_Draft_Solicitation_10FEB16.doc, IEWTPT_PSC_13JAN16.pdf

Document Date: February 10, 2016, January 13, 2016

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.2 SCHEDULE, N/A

Question/Comment: The Government has indicated that a full technical data package (SSDD, SDD, SRS, etc.) will be provided either before or along with final RFP release. In order to develop a technically informed and cost-competitive solution, non-incumbent vendors require access to such documentation as well as adequate time to review the documentation prior to proposal development. Please clarify the Government’s timeline for the anticipated release of the technical data package as it relates to the release of the final RFP.

Response: The anticipated release of the full Technical Data Package as it relates to the release of the final solicitation is not currently known. Should the full Technical Data Package (TDP) be unavailable until release of the final solicitation, the Government will take that into account when determining the period of time between release of the solicitation and the deadline for submission of proposals. Portions of the TDP are being released as they become available in finalized form.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.:

W900KK-16-R-0005_Draft_Solicitation_10FEB16.doc Attachment_1_SOW_03FEB16.docx

Document Date: 2/10/2016 and 2/3/2016

Reference Section/Paragraph:

Solicitation L.6.1.2

SOW 3.2.6.2

Question/Comment:

In SOW paragraph 3.2.6.2, the requirement to document STIG and IAVA compliances as required was removed. In L.6.1.2 in states, “The Offeror shall describe their approach to cybersecurity to address configuration management, STIG and IAVA compliance, continuous monitoring of assets, and updating of IEWTPT systems and services in order to improve the operational security and increase efficiency of Cybersecurity/RMF implementation.” Are the STIG and IAVA requirements to be addressed in our response to sub-factor 1.2 Cybersecurity still applicable given the change in the SOW?

The Statement of Work (paragraph 3.2.6.2) has been updated for consistency with L.6.1.2. The STIG and IAVA requirements are still applicable after updating the SOW.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: SOW_03FEB16.docx

Document Date: 03FEB16

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.2.3.2 - 3.2.3.4

Question/Comment:

These three sections should be under the Software Engineering section, 3.2.2 instead of the Hardware Engineering section 3.2.3

The government agrees and the proper document (SOW) adjustments have been made to reflect these changes.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: SOW_03FEB16.docx

Document Date: 03FEB16.docx

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.2.3.1 Product Definition Data (PDD) / Paragraph 1

Question/Comment: The description of the PDD in paragraph one of section 3.2.3.1 of the SOW indicates that it “is the technical description of items adequate for informing an acquisition strategy, supporting production, engineering, cybersecurity, and all life-cycle needs.” It is assumed that there exists a PDD describing the current system that will be made available at least at contract award. This document, as well as others described in the SOW and SSS, is critical to the successful transition to the winner of the contract. There is no written requirement indicating a transition time period, how long the incumbent must be available, and even what is required of the incumbent. What transition requirements does the government expect and will incorporate in the SOW to mitigate risk and ensure the IEWTPT system continues smoothly?

The extent of Product Definition Data (PDD) on the existing contract is comprised of Product Drawings Models and Associated List CDRL C00C (DI-SESS-81000E). The Statement of Work (SOW) has been modified to show that future PDD information consists of this CDRL. Offerors will have all existing PDD information as part of the RFP TDP. SOW 3.3.7 (Contract Transition) does include a 90 day, phased in transition period from incumbent to follow-on contractor. The awardee is required to have facilities and personnel available to accommodate transition. The relevant section of the SOW (3.3.7) outlines transition support: "Support shall include services required to ensure effective, efficient transfer of responsibility, technical data, tools, test equipment, repair and spare parts, in sufficient detail and coverage to enable other personnel with comparable skills to maintain the system. The transition effort shall include an analysis of all failures and maintenance actions undertaken during the interim support and revising technical publications subject to Government approval to reflect actual fielded experience. The support transfer shall include 100 percent of provisioned GFE and GFI items."

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: SOW

Document Date: 19 Nov 15

Reference Section/Paragraph:

Question/Comment:

· There are two sets of directions for conducting PMRs that conflict:

· Paragraph 3.1.10: “Contractor shall conduct an initial program review within 90 days after contract award, and an additional program review three months prior to the base contract and each option year end dates”.

· Paragraph 3.1.10.2: “Contractor shall conduct PMRs at its facility on a monthly basis”

· Paragraph 3.1.3 states: “The Contractor shall extend the Government-provided Program Work Breakdown Structure to lower levels in the Contractor’s CWBS that define the lower level components of what is to be procured and includes all the product elements (hardware, software, data, or services), which are defined by the Contractor and the Contractor’s responsibility. The extended CWBS shall serve as the framework for contract planning, budgeting, and reporting of cost and schedule status.”

· The Government-provided CWBS is not aligned by CLIN structure and does not provide a reasonable framework for “contract planning, budgeting, and reporting of cost and schedule status”. Recommend government provide CWBS aligned with CLINs or remove requirement to use their WBS.

· Paragraph 3.3.2: Training CDRLs C00X are not in 1423’s.

· Paragraph 3.3.2.1: Operator IETM C00X not in 1423’s.

· Paragraph 3.3.2.2: Maintenance IETM C00X not in 1423’s.

Response: The “X” notation was meant as a place holder while the Government’s internal CDRL database was updated to include 1423’s associated with the CDRL’s mentioned on the question. The CDRL references in the SOW have been updated. The Government provided WBS has been updated to align with the CLIN structure.

Document Name/ Number/ Revision No.: 1423’s

Reference Section/ Paragraph: Question/Comment:

· A001 (SRS): States first submission and subsequent submissions via TDO. No concept of TDOs for IEWTPT V2, should be tied to an event.

· A002 (SPS): States first submission 30 days ACA and subsequent submissions as needed.

· A004 (SDD): States first submission and subsequent submissions via TDO. No concept of TDOs for IEWTPT V2, should be tied to an event.

· A005 (SAR): States first submission 60 days prior to TRR. TRR for what event? TRR as significant event is not defined in SOW. These are normally only due 30 days prior to a fielding, but they could mean TRR for GAT.

· A006 (OCD): States first submission and subsequent submissions via TDO. No concept of TDOs for IEWTPT V2.

· A008 (SSDD): States due quarterly, must be a mistake. Should be tied to an event.

· A00A (IDD): States first submission and subsequent submissions via TDO. No concept of TDOs for IEWTPT V2, should be tied to an event.

· B005 (IMS): Block “A” states per TDO. Should be deleted, already part of B002, Integrated Program Management Report.

· B007 (SRDR, Final Report): NOT IN SOW

· B008 (SRDR, Initial Report): NOT IN SOW

· C005 (Training Materials): NOT IN SOW, should be deleted, duplicate of C00A TCSD

· C00A (TCSD): NOT IN SOW, states deliver per TDO

· C00C (drawings): States first submission shall be due 60 days prior to scheduled DD250. What DD250 is being referenced? Tied to Fielding?

· Comment: There are no CDRLs for Test Procedures or Test Reports. Usually part of Fielding has Test Report and associated procedures to define sell off criteria. Also, GAT should have procedure and Report for successfully completion.

Response:

SRS A001 updated to:

3. BLOCK 12: 10 MONTHS AFTER CONTRACT AWARD.

4. BLOCK 13: SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSIONS SHALL BE DUE 60 DAYS FOLLOWING A NEW SOFTWARE RELEASE.

SPS A002 changed to A003. Updated to:

BLOCK 12: 10 MONTHS AFTER CONTRACT AWARD.

BLOCK 13: SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSIONS SHALL BE DUE 60 DAYS FOLLOWING A NEW SOFTWARE RELEASE. REVISIONS SHALL INCLUDE CHANGES THROUGHOUT GOVERNMENT ACCEPTANCE TEST.

SDD A004 updated to:

BLOCK 12: 10 MONTHS AFTER CONTRACT AWARD.

BLOCK 13: SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSIONS SHALL BE DUE 60 DAYS FOLLOWING A NEW SOFTWARE RELEASE.

Regarding SAR A005 – CDRL has been revised and is associated with site surveys. Test Readiness Review (TRR) is associated with SOW section 3.2.2.4, Software Test; 3.4.1, Integration Events; and 3.4.2, Government Acceptance Testing (GAT). Regarding OCD A006 - CDRL has been deleted. Combat Developer is responsible for the document.

SSDD A008 changed to A006. Updated to:

2. BLOCK 12: SHALL BE DUE 6 MONTHS AFER CONTRACT AWARD.

3. BLOCK 13: SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSIONS SHALL BE DUE 60 DAYS AFTER

SYSTEM UPGRADE OR RECONFIGURATION, OR AS REQUESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Regarding IDD A00A - CDRL deleted. Relevant content contained in SDD A004.

Regarding IMS B005 – Concur, CDRL deleted.

Regarding SRDR Initial and Final Reports B007 and B008 Changed and combined into B001 Technical Report-Study/Services – Software Maintenance Data Collection added to SOW section 3.2.2.

Regarding Training Materials C005 changed to C00G –.Non concur with it is a duplication with Training Conduct Support Document (TCSD) and should be deleted. Training Materials authority is DI-ILSS-80872 and TCSD authority is DI-PSSS-81523C and only allows a % update of materials. C00G added to SOW section 3.3.2

Regarding TCSD C00A – Changed to C00F and added to SOW section 3.3.2.

Drawings C00C has been changed to C005. Updated to:

BLOCK 12: DRAFT SHALL BE DUE 180 DAYS AFTER CONTRACT AWARD. BLOCK 13: SUBSEQUENTSUBMISSIONS SHALL BE DUE AS REQUIRED THROUGH PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT TO REFLECT SYSTEM UPDATES/CHANGES IN CONFIGURATIONS OR AS REQUIED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Regarding general comment – Additional 1423s have been incorporated. Test Procedures, Test/Inspection Report, SW Test Plan, and SW Test Report are now required.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.:

W900KK-16-R-0005_Draft_Solicitation_10FEB16.doc

Document Date: 2/10/2016 Reference Section/Paragraph: Solicitation Section L.6.6.1.2 Accounting System

Question/Comment:

Draft RFP Section L6.6.1.2 states “IAW FAR 44.305-1 (a), the Contractor must have an approved purchasing system in order to determine that the Contractor’s purchasing policies and practices are efficient and provide adequate protection of the Government’s assets.”

It is unclear after a review of FAR 44.305-1(a) that a contractor must have an approved purchasing system or the Government cannot make a determination as to the existence of efficient procurement processes or adequate protection to the Government – efficient procurement processes and adequate protection to the Government have been proven to exist in an Advance Notification & Consent purchasing environment. Please provide clarification as to whether contractors are required to have an approved Purchasing System to prime this effort, or if the reasonable protections of mature purchasing processes operating within an Advance Notification & Consent environment are acceptable.

Response: Advance Notification and Consent is used for subcontracting and is not relevant to a requirement for an approved purchasing system. The requirement remains unchanged.

Document Date: 2/10/2016 Reference Section/Paragraph: Solicitation Section L.6.5.3.14 Cost Rates

Question/Comment:

Draft RFP Section L.6.5.3.14 Cost Rates states “Direct labor rates: Offeror will submit the most recent actual average rate for each and every proposed category. Offeror will submit the actual average rate, as of the end of each of the last two completed fiscal years, for each and every proposed category. The "as of" date must be shown for each calculation. For each category and each year, the offeror will identify the number of employees in each calculation. The timing of wage/salary increases will be identified in the offeror's proposal (i.e., employee's anniversary date, yearly during [month], or other [with explanation]). The direct labor rate information will be submitted for both the offeror and all subcontractors.”

Can the Government elaborate on the requirement for the historical actual direct labor rates?

Response: The referenced section is required should an FPRA or FPRR not be available. Actual direct labor rates will be utilized by the Government when performing the cost realism analysis.

Document Date: 2/10/2016 Reference Section/Paragraph: Solicitation Section L.6.5.3.14 Cost Rates

Question/Comment:

Draft RFP Section L.6.5.3.14 Cost Rates states “Direct labor rates: Offeror will submit the most recent actual average rate for each and every proposed category. Offeror will submit the actual average rate, as of the end of each of the last two completed fiscal years, for each and every proposed category. The "as of" date must be shown for each calculation. For each category and each year, the offeror will identify the number of employees in each calculation. The timing of wage/salary increases will be identified in the offeror's proposal (i.e., employee's anniversary date, yearly during [month], or other [with explanation]). The direct labor rate information will be submitted for both the offeror and all subcontractors.”

Can offers bid methods for the development of direct labor rates by supporting proposed direct labor rates from alternative sources such as a forward pricing rate proposal and/or market salary surveys?

Response: FPRAs and FPRRs are acceptable support for direct labor rates as stated in L.6.5.3.14, on the condition that the paragraph found at L.6.5.3.14 is followed. Section L will be updated to allow alternative sources should none of the requested support sources for direct labor rates be available.