Government_Responses_to_Questions_07JUL16.docx

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

W900KK-16-R-0005

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Government_Responses-to_Questions_28JUN16

Document Date: 28 June 2016 Reference Section/Paragraph: Answers on page 9, 10 and 12

Question/Comment:

Government responses to these questions indicate that detailed cost information must be provided for CLINs that are part of the Total Evaluated Price as well as for the NTE CLINs.

1. There is no scope or requirements defined for the NTE CLINs. Since the price has already been established for each NTE CLIN it is unclear what approach bidders should take in providing detailed cost information and Basis of Estimates for the NTE CLINs.

2. Since the cost portion of the NTE CLINs is not evaluated as part of the Total Evaluated Price it is not clear how the Government would use this information. Since there is no defined scope how does this affect cost realism?

3. Providing detailed pricing for the NTE CLINs will create a huge amount of pricing data. For example, our current Excel spreadsheet out of our pricing system produces approximately 1700 pages of 8 ½ x 11 pages if printed for just the priced CPFF CLINs. Adding detailed cost data for the NTE CLINs to this would result in over 10,000 pages in the Excel spreadsheet. How would the Government evaluate this amount of data?

4. The government has stated the following in the RFP:

a. M.3.5.1.1 CPFF CLIN Evaluation – The Government will evaluate the cost realism of each offeror’s proposed costs for all cost type CLINs in relation to the offeror’s specific technical approach.

How will the cost of the NTE CLINs be evaluated as the technical approach for these CLINs is TBD.

b. M.3.5.1.3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will consist of the sum of the proposed CPFF CLIN fees only for the CLINs that have a provided Not-To-Exceed, both cost and fee for all cost CLINs that do not have a NTE provided, and the proposed FFP CLIN prices.

How will the cost information for the NTE CLINs be used if not used in the Total Evaluated Price for contract award?

Response:

1. As mentioned in responses to previous questions, the type of work under a Development, Integration, and Test Customer Support CLIN with an NTE will be similar to the type of work under the core IEWTPT Development, Integration and Test CLINs, for which information is available that details the necessary support. The same is true for PDSS and Concurrency CLINs. The structure of support is sufficiently known and an NTE is provided; therefore, Basis of Estimates should align with these.

2. Although the CLINs with NTEs will not have their costs evaluated, cost realism analysis on the core IEWTPT CLINs will include information regarding those with NTEs – a simple example would be a consistency check on labor categories and rates for similar work.

3. Much of the cost realism analysis of these NTE CLINs will not require duplicate detailed analysis of the labor categories and rates as that will need to be conducted for the core IEWTPT CLINs regardless. Much of this effort will be consistency checks and an analysis of the labor hours proposed (including whether the proposed cost and fixed fee equal the provided NTE).

4. a. As stated above, a cost realism will be conducted but the cost for CLINs with NTEs provided will not be adjusted upward or downward for the purposes of evaluation.

b. The customer support CLINs will be priced options in the awarded contract. Cost information must be received and evaluated in order to price these options pre-award, otherwise each CLIN would need to be proposed against and evaluated prior to exercising the option. Due to the fast paced, reactionary nature of the work and the number of CLINs that may need to be exercised at a given time, it has been determined that in order to begin work as soon as possible after a need is identified these CLINs must be priced options.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Government_Responses-to_Questions_28JUN16

Document Date: 28 June 2016 Reference Section/Paragraph: Answers on page 11

The answer on this page indicates that the CLIN 0010 is only for the first year of Concurrency.

Should this state it is for the first 2 years of Concurrency?

Yes, the previous answer should have indicated that CLIN 0010 was the first CLIN for Concurrency, not the first year.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Attachment 9 WBS

Document Date: 5/16/16 Reference Section/Paragraph:

In Attachment 9 of the RFP, the government provided a WBS for the NTE CLINs. The WBS provided by the Government for these NTE CLINs are not set up to provide cost data for each individual NTE CLIN. For example, WBS 1.08A is for “ALL SOURCE Development, Integration & Test (CLINS 0013 – 0016, FYs 17 and 18)” – Is the contractor to provide cost data for all four of these CLINs in this one WBS number? If all four of these CLINs are to be summarized into a single WBS, how will the Government be able to identify the cost elements (labor category, hours, etc.) that make up each NTE CLIN (0013, 0014, 0015, 0016) to ensure it agrees with the Cost shown in Appendix A?

The same question applies to the remainder of WBS 1.08 - WBS 1.08C (CLINs 1013 – 1016, FY 19), WBS 1.08D (CLINs 2013 – 2016, FY 20), and WBS 1.08E (CLINs 3013 – 3016, FY 21) as well as for the remainder of the NTE CLINs:

· WBS 1.09A is for ALL SOURCE Post Deployment Software Support (CLINs 0017 – 0020, FYs 17 and 18), WBS 1.09C (CLINs 1017-1020, FY 19), WBS 1.09D (CLINs 2017 – 2020, FY20), WBS 1.09E (CLINs 3017 – 3020)

· WBS 1.10A is for ALL SOURCE Concurrency (CLINs -0021 – 0024, FY 17), WBS 1.10B (CLINs 0025 – 0028, FY18), WBS 1.10C (CLINs 1021 – 1024, FY 19), WBS 1.10D (CLINs 2021-2024), WBS 1.10E (CLINs 3021- 3021, FY 21)

· WBS 1.11A is for SIGINT Post Deployment Software Support (CLINs 0029 – 0032, FYs 17 and 18), WBS 1.11C (CLINs 1029 – 1032, FY19), WBS 1.11D (CLINs 2029 – 2032, FY20), WBS 1.11E (CLINs 3029 – 3032, FY 21)

· WBS 1.12A is for SIGINT Concurrency (CLINs 0033 – 0036, FY 17), WBS 1.12B (CLINs 0037 – 0040, FY 18), WBS 1.12C (CLINs 1033 – 1036, FY 19), WBS 1.12D (CLINs 2033 – 2036, FY 20), WBS 1.12E (CLINs 3033 – 3036, FY 21)

· WBS 1.13A is for GEOINT Post Deployment Software Support (CLINs 0041 – 0043, FYs 17 and 18), WBS 1.13C (CLINs 1041 – 1043, FY 19), WBS 1.13D (CLINs 2041 – 2043, FY 20), WBS 1.13E (CLINs 3041 – 3043, FY 21)

· WBS 1.14A is for GEOINT Concurrency (CLINs 0044-0046, FYs 17 and 18), WBS 1.14C (CLINs 1044 – 1046, FY19), WBS 1.14D (CLINs 2044 – 2046, FY 20), WBS 1.14E (CLINs 3044 – 3046, FY 21)

For evaluation purposes the CLINs must be separated out individually in the proposal, in accordance with the solicitation instructions. In the example, WBS 1.08A would be utilized four times, for CLINs 0013-0016. Post award for Earned Value purposes these CLINs may share WBS elements. It is at the Offeror’s discretion to separate these CLINs for post award Earned Value Management or to retain one Level 2 WBS element for each grouping.