ACT_QuestionClarification_Log_10312016.pdf

ACT Question and Clarification Log 10/31/2016

Question # Relates To Question Government Response Associated Attachments

Requires RFP Amendment?

(Y/N) 1 LT2 Portal On the LT2 Portal we cannot tell if anything has changed. Did the Government post a completely new set of data on the portal with the final RFP release or is this data the same as was previously posted with the draft RFP?

The ACT draft RFP was provided for informational purposes only. It is the offeror's responsibility to review the final solicitation and account for any changes made.

N/A N

2 General Question Would the Government please explain the process it went through to obtain a waiver to remove the ACT contract from the 8(a) program?

The ACT recompete was removed from the 8(a) program pursuant to the Class Deviation 2014‐O0007 issued by Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) on March 14, 2014, which prohibits the use of the 8(a) Business Development Program for the Acquisition of Military Simulation and Military Simulation Training. The Class Deviation was issued as a result of the DynaLantic v. Department of Defense (No. 95‐2301) settlement agreement dated January 31, 2014.

Refer to the following two PDF files posted to FBO with this Question and Clarification Log:

1. Clarifications_Attch1_8aRemovalReq_and_Encls_10122016.pdf (9 Pages), includes:

a. Letter to Small Business Administration (SBA) requesting ACT's removal from 8(a), dtd February 4, 2015;

b. SBA historical approval of ACT's inclusion in the 8(a) program, dtd March 23, 2007;

c. DPAP Class Deviation 2014‐O0007, dtd March 14, 2014;

d. DynaLantic v. Department of Defense (No. 95‐2301) settlement, dtd January 31, 2014.

2. Clarifications_Attch2_8aSBA_Removal_Approval_10122016.pdf (2 Pages)

NOTE: The Government is aware that in Paragraph 1 of "Clarifications_Attch2_8aSBA_Removal_Approval_10122016.pdf" the SBA incorrectly identified the incumbent contractor for the current ACT contract as "Skillstorm, Inc." This administrative error did not affect the SBA's approval to remove the ACT recompete from the 8(a) program.

1. Clarifications_Attch1_8aRemovalReq_and_Encls_10122016.pdf (9 Pages)

2. Clarifications_Attch2_8aSBA_Removal_Approval_10122016.pdf (2 Pages)

N

3 Sections B & J

In the Draft RFP Questions and Answers, Revision 1, 16 Sep 2016, Q&A #6, you advise offerors that, “program management costs should be captured in the FFP LCCS CLINs for each TADSS category.” Many of the work breakdown activities required or implied by the PWS are not strictly “program management (PM)” activities. For example, non‐PM technical activities include all of the activities associated with PWS Section 3.8, Information and Data Management and 3.10, Contractor Performance; and the FFP activities of 3.9, Logistics. Is it the Government’s intent that offerors propose all FFP activities (not just PM), even broadly encompassing activities, such as PWS 3.3.2, Post‐Award Conference, or 3.10.10, TADSS Maintenance, according only to a single supported type of equipment (RT3, CFFT, & NBCRV CLINs) or group of equipment (ADFAC CLIN), and if so, how should offerors divide activities that encompass multiple systems among the FFP LCCS CLINs?

Yes, given the CLIN structure, it is the Government's intent that offerors should delineate proposed FFP activities (not just Program Management) to the best of their ability according to the specific systems supported (ADFAC, CFFT, RT3, and NBCRV). The Government is aware that there are elements of the effort that encompass multiple systems. It is the offeror's responsibility to determine a method for distributing these shared costs.

N/A N

4 L.2.f, page 104 Section L.2.f of the Instructions states that “Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion.” Please confirm that the Table of Contents and Summary Section do not count as part of the page limits for each volume (15 pages per factor for Volume II Technical, 20 pages for Volume III Past Performance, and 20 pages for Volume IV Price).

In accordance with Solicitation Amendment 0002, Section L, paragraph 2f "Content Requirement," Tables of Contents and Summary Sections are not included in the page counts for each volume. Note that in accordance with Amendment 0002, Summary Sections shall be limited to one page. Amendment 0002 also further clarifies which proposal sections are exempt from the page count. Refer to amended Section L, paragraph 2f, "Content Requirement" for full details.

1. Solicitation Amendment 0002 (9 Pages)

2. ACT Section L Tracked Changes (10192016) Amendment 0002 (9 Pages)

Y

5 L.3.b, pages 105‐06 Section L.3.b of the Instructions states that “while the Government will not evaluate every PWS requirement for the purposes of the source selection evaluation, the Awardee/Contractor will be required to comply with all PWS requirements during performance of the contract.” In Section M, Evaluation Criteria, the Government further narrows the evaluation criteria for Volume II Technical to the following PWS requirements:

• Factor 1 o ACT PWS paragraph 3.10.10 and all subparagraphs o ACT PWS paragraph 3.10.2 and all subparagraphs o ACT PWS paragraph 3.10.3 o ACT PWS paragraph 3.10.4

• Factor 2 o ACT PWS paragraph 3.8.1.1 and all subparagraphs

• Factor 3 o ACT PWS paragraph 3.9.5 and all subparagraphs

Will the Government please confirm that offerors limiting the content of the Narrative Discussion in Volume II Technical to the above PWS requirements will not render their proposals noncompliant?

The Government confirms that offerors proposals will not be deemed noncompliant if they limit the contents of the Narrative for Volume II, Technical, to the PWS requirements outlined in Section M, paragraph 3.

N/A N

6 L.2.a, page 103 Section L.2.a of the Instructions states that “Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size not less than 10‐point and may be landscape.” In addition, in the volume instructions, offerors are given the option in various paragraphs to “provide flow diagrams” of processes (i.e., Section L.5.a [2] and Section M.3.a). Please confirm that for tables and illustrations (including these flow diagrams), offerors may use 11x17 landscape format and that each 11x17 page be will counted as one page toward volume limitations.

11x17" landscape (also known as a "foldout") is added as a conforming format via Amendment 0002. Refer to amended Section L, paragraph 2f, "Format," for full details. A one‐sided foldout will be counted as two pages and a two‐sided foldout will be counted as four pages.

1. Solicitation Amendment 0002 (9 Pages)

2. ACT Section L Tracked Changes (10192016) Amendment 0002 (9 Pages)

Y

7 CLINs and Q&A No. 6. The four FFP LCCS CLINS apply to all of the anticipated supported equipment. In the DRAFT RFP Q&A, Rev. 1, 16 Sep 2016, Question 6, you instruct us to divide Program Management costs over these four FFP LCCS categories. A good number of PWS requirements, both program management and technical, apply to multiple types of equipment. Should we divide all such costs evenly across the FFP LCCS CLINS, or should offerors calculate how much of such all‐encompassing activities would apply to each type of equipment in the three individual equipment CLINs (RT3, CFFT, NBCRV) or the ADFAC collection of equipment types?

Refer to the answer to Question #3. N/A N

QUESTION AND CLARIFICATION LOG: SOLICITATION W900KK‐16‐R‐0069, ARTILLERY AND CHEMICAL TRAINING (ACT)

Question # Relates To Question Government Response Associated Attachments

Requires RFP Amendment?

(Y/N) 8 L.2.f, page 104 Please confirm that for ease of evaluation, in addition to the Table of Contents, the offeror may also include a Volume Cover, a

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations, and a Cross‐Reference Matrix (meaning a matrix that maps evaluation factors to proposal paragraphs) for each volume as part of the front matter and that these pages will not count toward the factor and volume page limitations.

Section L, paragraph 2f, "Content Requirement" has been amended via Amendment 0002 to address this question.

In accordance with Amendment 0002, offerors are now required to submit a Cover Page and a List of Acronyms and Abbreviations. These administrative items are not included in the page count.

Regarding submission of a Cross‐Reference Matrix (also known as an "Evaluation Compliance Matrix"), the Government neither desires nor requests that offerors include these types of matrixes in their proposal submission.

1. Solicitation Amendment 0002 (9 Pages)

2. ACT Section L Tracked Changes (10192016) Amendment 0002 (9 Pages)

Y

9 PWS Para. 3.10.2.2: Class “B” Mail‐In

CPF

Per the PWS, “The contractor shall record response times for each corrective maintenance action on a calendar month basis.

The contractor shall perform a special analysis in the event the response time is not attained to determine the cause and the corrective action required to prevent a recurrence.” What is the remediation and tracking tool currently being used to track and analyze events?

The remediation and tracking tool currently being used to track and analyze events is the Management Information System (MIS).

N/A N

10 PWS Para. 3.2.11: Personnel Training The section states the contractor has the responsibility for all personnel training requirements to include new personnel training requirements and on‐going proficiency training for the supported devices. Please provide in detail the personnel training and on‐going proficiency training requirements.

It is the responsibility of the offeror to determine the appropriate training required to meet the required CPF of the contract. PWS Para. 3.2.11 has been revised via Amendment 0003 to clarify that the contractor is only responsible for the training of their own personnel.

1. Solicitation Amendment 0003 (6 Pages)

2. ACT_PWS_V1 21 (10262016) Amendment 0003 (50 Pages)

Y

11 Appendix A, CPF A and CPF B The FINAL RFP, CPF A added a new Device # (44‐93/B) for the AT3. Device 44‐93/A has been specified as the student station.

Device 44‐93/B (new Device #) is specified as the instructor station. CPF B shows six 44‐93/A devices (student stations) for Pacific, and no 44‐93/B devices (instructor stations). Are there are any Class B instructor stations located in the Pacific to go along with the 6 specified student stations?

No, there are no 44‐93/B (Instructor Station) devices. N/A N

12 Appendix A, CPF A and CPF B PWS Appendix A CPF A, line 5 states that the CFFT MTT 06‐111/M is a variant composed of laptop computers that is “Scheduled to upgrade to CFFT III.” Can the Government clarify if this upgrade has been completed or provide a schedule for completion?

Also, does line 14, CFFT MTT with a TBD Device # represent the upgraded trainers?

Upgrades to the CFFT variants are on‐going and in‐progress. Devices are being fielded as the OEM makes them available. PEO STRI does not have access to the OEM schedule.

N/A N

13 Appendix A, CPF A, page 1‐2 Appendix A CPF A shows a quantity of six (6) AT3 student stations (device # 44‐93/A) and 7 Call For Fire Trainer (CFFT) increment II 1:12 (device # 06‐118/2) (lines 2 and 7) located at Korea. The total reflects only 7 of the 13 Class “A” trainers recorded for Korea. Can the Government please confirm the trainer quantities and totals?

A calculation error was found which resulted in faulty numbers for the "Total" row. This error has been fixed via Amendment 0003.

1. Solicitation Amendment 0003 (6 Pages)

2. ACT PWS Appendix A CPF A (10282016) Amendment 0003 (2 Pages)

Y

14 Appendix A, CPF A, page 1‐2 Appendix A CPF A shows a total of 13 Class “A” devices for Ft. Bliss while the information totals 35 devices.

Can the Government please confirm the quantities of each Class “A” device type located at Ft. Bliss as well as confirm the total number of Class “A” devices located at Ft. Bliss?

A calculation error was found which resulted in faulty numbers for the "Total" row. This error has been fixed via Amendment 0003.

1. Solicitation Amendment 0003 (6 Pages)

2. ACT PWS Appendix A CPF A (10282016) Amendment 0003 (2 Pages)

Y

15 Appendix A, CPF A, page 1‐2 Appendix A CPF A shows a total of 15 Class A devices for Ft. Bragg while the information totals 24 devices.

Can the Government please confirm the quantities of each Class “A” device type located at Ft. Bragg as well as confirm the total number of Class “A” devices located at Ft. Bragg?

A calculation error was found which resulted in faulty numbers for the "Total" row. This error has been fixed via Amendment 0003.

1. Solicitation Amendment 0003 (6 Pages)

2. ACT PWS Appendix A CPF A (10282016) Amendment 0003 (2 Pages)

Y

Question # Relates To Question Government Response Associated Attachments

Requires RFP Amendment?

(Y/N) 16 Appendix A, CPF A, page 1‐2 Appendix A CPF A has a total of 371 Class A devices for Ft. Sill while the information totals 392 devices.

Can the Government please confirm the quantities of each Class “A” device type located at Ft. Sill as well as confirm the total number of Class “A” devices located at Ft. Sill?

A calculation error was found which resulted in faulty numbers for the "Total" row. This error has been fixed via Amendment 0003.

1. Solicitation Amendment 0003 (6 Pages)

2. ACT PWS Appendix A CPF A (10282016) Amendment 0003 (2 Pages)

Y

17 Appendix A, CPF B, page 1 Appendix A CPF B states that Ft. Leonard Wood is currently the maintenance service center for CONUS Stryker Nuclear Biological Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) Virtual Crew Trainers (VCT) (device # 03‐23). Are OCONUS (Quantity of one in Europe and Quantity of seven in Pacific) currently supported by Ft Leonard Wood or are they supported from a different location? If these are supported from a different location, what is that location?

The Class B devices marked "Pacific" are serviced in Korea. All other Class B devices are serviced at Fort Leonard Wood. PWS Appendix A CPF B has been updated to reflect this.

1. Solicitation Amendment 0003 (6 Pages)

2. ACT PWS Appendix A CPF B (10282016) Amendment 0003 (2 Pages)

Y

18 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data

The Government provided maintenance data for devices with Device #s that are not included in PWS Appendix A & Site locations not listed in PWS Appendix A.

The system names do not always match the stated system name in PWS Appendix A, so we want to ensure that this data is not relevant to this procurement. There are multiple uses of TEST as the system name, what is the meaning behind this when included in maintenance data for a relevant device?

All maintenance data has been provided for informational use only and it is not the Government’s intent to include it as an attachment to the awarded contract. This data is historical in nature and the Government cannot guarantee its accuracy. Via Amendment 0003, a note has been added to the narrative associated with Attachment 1 in Section J of the RFP to clarify this fact. Appendix A, CPF A, B and C represent the current state of devices in the field. The Government is in an ongoing process of upgrading, decommissioning and retiring equipment from service. If a device was in the field at the start of the current contract but is no longer in the field today, maintenance records may be present for historical purposes.

Regarding referenced device 03‐12, this device has been decommissioned. Maintenance records for this device can be disregarded.

1. Solicitation Amendment 0003 (6 Pages) Y

19 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data

Can the government provide the maintenance data for the devices stated in PWS Appendix A that they haven’t already provided data for? Of 36 devices, we are missing data for the following 10 devices:

Please reference the answer to Question #18. Ref. Question #18 Y

20 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data; File Name: "ACT Maint Data by Hours‐44‐52‐A‐B‐C"

This file provides maintenance data on the 44‐52/A Stinger Troop Proficiency Trainer (STPT) variant which is included in PWS Appendix A. This file however does not provide data on the 44‐52 STPT variant which is also included in PWS Appendix A. In addition, this file provides maintenance data on 44‐52 variants that are not present in PWS Appendix A:

Are the additional variants (/B, /B‐I, /B‐S, /C, /C‐I, /C‐S) part of the ACT effort?

Can the Government please provide the maintenance data specific to all STPT variants on the ACT Program?

Please reference the answer to Question #18. Ref. Question #18 Y

Question # Relates To Question Government Response Associated Attachments

Requires RFP Amendment?

(Y/N) 21 Appendix A, CPF B and CPF C, page 1 Can the Government please confirm for the CFFT II JFO device (device # 06‐118/1A) that both B & C classes have the exact same number of devices in the exact same stated locations?

The appearance of device #06‐118/1A in PWS Appendix C documents was a typographical error. There is no such trainer with this device number. This entry has been amended via Amendment 0003 to read "06‐118/4."

1. Solicitation Amendment 0003 (6 Pages)

2. ACT PWS Appendix A CPF C (10282016) Amendment 0003 (1 Page)

Y

22 Appendix A, CPF A, CPF B and CPF C, Appendix A CPF A, B, & C documents have a CFFT II, JFO with the identical name but different device numbers.

Class A has Device # 06‐118/4 Class B & C has Device # 06‐118/1A Other than Class, are these trainers different? If so, can the Government clarify the difference?

Please reference the answer to Question #21. Ref. Question #21 Y

23 Appendix A, CPF C, page 1 Appendix A CPF C states that Ft. Sill is currently the maintenance service center for CONUS Fire Support Combined Arms Tactical Trainers (FSCATT), M109A6. What location currently supports the Pacific device?

Korea is the service center that currently supports the Pacific device. PWS Appendix A, CPF C has been updated to reflect this fact.

1. Solicitation Amendment 0003 (6 Pages)

2. ACT PWS Appendix A CPF C (10282016) Amendment 0003 (1 Page)

Y

24 Appendix A, CPF B and CPF C, page 1 From the maintenance data for Class B & C devices, we believe that “Pacific” currently includes only Korea. Can the Government please confirm?

The manned site is in Korea, however, the devices are located in sites both in Korea and other Pacific countries. N/A N

25 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data

Can the Government please confirm that the maintenance data includes maintenance activities from the beginning of the incumbent contract to the date of release of the data? If not, can the Government define the applicable date range for the maintenance data?

Can the Government confirm that the data within the files covers all maintenance activities accomplished?

Please reference the answer to Question #18. Ref. Question #18 Y

26 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data; File Name: "ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐68G.xls"

PWS Appendix A states that there are 9 total FSCATTs on this contract. Five devices are Class A devices (1 at Ft. Bliss & 4 at Ft.

Sill). The remaining devices are Class C devices (3 CONUS & 1 Pacific).

Attachment 1 PWS, Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐68G.xls FSCATT shows Class A maintenance taking place at both Ft. Sill and Ft. Bliss. It also shows Class C maintenance taking place at Ft. Sill.

This matches Appendix A information.

The maintenance data also shows 6 hours of scheduled maintenance taking place over 2 months in Korea on a Class B device.

Can the Government please clarify? Is the Class B indication a “typo”?

This was not a typo, the Class B FSCATTs were removed from service in the Pacific. N/A N

27 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data; File Name: "ACT Maint Data by Hours‐03‐23.xls"

PWS Appendix A states there are a total of 100 NBCRV VCTs (Device # 03‐23). The nine Class A devices are located at Ft. Leonard Wood. The 91 Class B devices are located CONUS (83), Europe (1) and Pacific (7).

1. The Maintenance Data shows a total of 2.5 unscheduled maintenance hours in 1 month in Korea for Class B devices. Can the Government confirm that all 7 Class B devices marked “Pacific” are being serviced out of Korea?

2. The Maintenance Data also shows that Class B devices are being serviced out of Ft. Bliss. Can the Government confirm that Ft. Bliss is currently the depot repair location for the 84 remaining CONUS and Europe Class B devices?

3. The Maintenance Data indicates that Korea and Ft. Bliss are the only locations servicing Class B Devices. Considering there appears to be between a quantity of 84‐91 total Class B devices being serviced out of Ft. Bliss, can the Government confirm that the total of 170 maintenance hours over 44 months reflects all maintenance actions over all devices being serviced out of Ft.

Bliss?

1. & 2. Reference the answer to Question #17

3. Reference the answer to Question #18.

Ref. Questions #17 and #18 Y

28 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data; File Name: "ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐111A.xls"

PWS Appendix A states there are a total of 4 Class A CFFT JFOs located at Ft. Sill with no other Class A locations nor any Class B or Class C devices.

Attachment 1 PWS, Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐111A.xls CFFT JFO shows maintenance actions taking place on a Class A device located at Ft. Bliss and shows Class B maintenance actions taking place at Ft. Sill.

Can the Government confirm there are no Class B 06‐111A devices?

Can the Government confirm there are no Class A 06‐111A devices located at Ft. Bliss?

Please reference the answer to Question #18. Ref. Question #18 Y

29 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data; File Name: "ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐111M.xls"

PWS Appendix A states there are a total of 14 Class A CFFT MTTs located at Ft. Sill with no Class B or Class C devices at any location. The Maintenance Data in Appendix B has no maintenance data for any Class A devices.

1. Can the Government provide maintenance data for the 14 Class A 06‐111M devices located at Ft. Sill?

2. Attachment 1 PWS, Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐111M.xls CFFT MTT shows two lines for a total of 0.5 hours on a Class B device located in Europe. Can the Government confirm there are no Class B 06‐111M device variations and that there are no 06‐111M devices located in Europe?

1. Please reference the answer to Question #18.

2. There are no 06‐111/M devices for Class B or Class C in Europe at this time.

Ref. Question #18 Y

Question # Relates To Question Government Response Associated Attachments

Requires RFP Amendment?

(Y/N) 30 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data; File Name: "ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐118‐1.xls"

PWS Appendix A states there are 10 total Class A devices (2 Ft. Bliss, 1 Ft. Bragg, 7 Ft. Sill) and 60 Class B CONUS devices.

1. Attachment 1 PWS, Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, Device # 06‐118/1 CFFT II 1:4 shows maintenance actions being performed on a Class C device at Ft. Sill. The action description for the 3 lines of Class C data says in succession “wasn’t properly created”, “good to go”, and “closed” with 0.1 hours of scheduled maintenance for each of the 3 lines. Can the Government confirm that there are no Class C devices?

2. The Maintenance Data in Appendix B shows no scheduled maintenance for the Class A device located at Ft. Bragg. Can the Government confirm that there is no scheduled maintenance required for this device?

1. Currently, there are no device #06‐118/1 CFFT 1:4 at Fort Sill.

2. Please reference the answer to Question #18.

Ref. Question #18 Y

31 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data; File Name: "ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐118‐2.xls"

PWS Appendix A states that there are 31 Class A devices total (8 Ft. Bliss, 11 Ft. Bragg, 5 Ft. Sill, 7 Korea) and 171 Class B devices total (154 CONUS, 10 Europe, 7 Pacific).

1. Attachment 1 PWS, Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, Device # 06‐118/2 CFFT II 1:12 shows a Class A device location at Ft. Polk. Can the Government confirm whether this device remains Class A and has been moved or if this device has changed to Class B or Class C?

2. If it is a Class A device that has been moved, can the Government state to which manned location it has been moved?

3. The Maintenance data in Appendix B does not show any maintenance action on any Class A devices in Korea. Can the Government confirm there have there been no maintenance actions on Class A devices in Korea?

4. Appendix A states there are 11 Class A devices at Ft. Bragg however the Maintenance Data in Appendix B shows no scheduled maintenance activities on these devices at Ft. Bragg. Can the Government confirm that the 11 Class A devices located at Ft. Bragg have had no scheduled maintenance?

Please reference the answer to Question #18. Ref. Question #18 Y

32 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data; File Name: "ACT Maint Data by Hours‐09‐146.xls"

PWS Appendix A CPF A states that the device 09‐146 has 3 Class A devices located at Ft. Lee with no notes on any changes made to the device identification number.

PWS Appendix B Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐09‐146.xls has maintenance data for a Class A device with a device identification number of 06‐112.

Device 06‐112 is not in PWS Appendix A.

Can the Government clarify the discrepancy between the data for device 06‐112 being in the file identified as device 09‐146 and confirm the correct maintenance data for device 09‐146 has been provided to bidders?

Device #06‐112 was moved from the Field Artillery series to the Ordinance series under #09‐146 in DA PAM 350‐9.

Although the designation of this device has changed, the maintenance data for the device is valid.

N/A N

33 General Question During the DRFP Q&A phase, the Government’s response to several questions was that the contractor could gather the requested information during the Phase‐in Period. While we understand that there is much data and clarification gathered during the Phase‐in Period, the questions posed to the Government were requesting data which is typically available to contractors for bidding services type contracts. The data requested, especially in light of the fact that the Government has chosen not to conduct site visits during the procurement phase, would allow contractors to validate staffing requirements and plans. There is always some risk to contractors bidding programs where they are not the incumbent, but this type of risk can be accommodated based on experience gained through performance on numerous similar contracts. In this case, we believe the Government is taking on significant risk.

The Government has provided maintenance data for the devices to be supported. Based on experience, we believe this data to be somewhat incomplete. Much of the data requested during the DRFP phase would allow contractors to cross‐check between data sources. For example, the maintenance data provided appears to not accurately reflect all required preventive maintenance activities. Monthly reports and PMCS data would allow contractors to validate required activities and what is currently being/not being performed. The maintenance data provided reflects staffing requirements we believe may be understated while evaluation of the requested data may show additional staffing is required. The Government has not identified a minimum staffing requirement and has not identified staffing as an evaluation factor, so there is no “Technical Acceptability” aspect for program staffing.

As another example, simply knowing device locations on a single base can impact staffing decisions. All devices being located in a single facility, versus devices in several disperse locations could impact the ability to achieve the required device availability for Class A devices.

We again request that the Government provide contractors access to the sites (specifically Ft. Lee, Ft. Sill and Ft. Leonard Wood) and provide an additional data available in support of the current program.

It is the offeror's responsibility to develop a response to the RFP. The Government believes that all information required to adequately propose to the RFP can be derived from the Attachments to the RFP and the historical maintenance data provided in the Bidder's Library.

Regarding the maintenance data, reference the answer to Question #18.

This is a performance based contract and the Government does not dictate minimum staffing levels. The Government is seeking a performance based proposal based upon industry best practices.

The Government's position is that a site visit is not required.

Ref. Question #18 Y

34 General Question Who is the incumbent on the current ACT contract? Was it an award through Warfighter FOCUS, or another vehicle? The current incumbent is Katmai Government Solutions. The award was not through Warfighter FOCUS, it was a separate contract: W900KK‐12‐C‐0028.

N/A N

35 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐44‐72A.xls

44‐72/A

PWS Appendix A states there are only Class A devices for the ICOFT and no Class B or Class C devices.

PWS Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐44‐72A.xls records 291 hours of unscheduled maintenance for Class C devices located at Ft. Sill.

Can the Government clarify this data? Are these hours now associated with a Class A device?

The Government can confirm that the referenced device has changed from CPF C to A. Please reference the answer to Question #18.

Question # Relates To Question Government Response Associated Attachments

Requires RFP Amendment?

(Y/N) 36 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐44‐93A.xls

44‐93/A AT3

PWS Appendix A states there are 54 Class A devices (20 Ft. Bliss, 8 Ft. Bragg, 20 Ft. Sill, 6 Korea) and 6 Class B devices located in “Pacific.”

PWS Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐44‐93A.xls has no maintenance data for the 6 Class A devices located in Korea.

In order to fully understand the Class A support requirement for these devices located in Korea and thus provide adequate manning support, can the Government please provide the maintenance data for the Class A devices located in Korea?

Please reference the answer to Question #18. Ref. Question #18 Y

37 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐09‐153.xls

09‐153 MLRS DT or 06‐74 “Test”

PWS Appendix A states that there are 2 Class A Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Diagnostic Trainers (DT) (Device # 09‐

153) located at Ft. Lee.

PWS Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐09‐153.xls has maintenance data for a device with the identification number as 06‐74 and under the “system” column it names the system as “Test”

PWS Appendix A does not have any device with the identification number 06‐74.

Can the Government please clarify the discrepancy between the name of the Excel spreadsheet and the maintenance data contained within with reference to the MLRS DT device in Appendix A?

Please reference the answer to Question #18. Ref. Question #18 Y

38 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐09‐152.xls

09‐152 M270A1 MLRS Mockup or 06‐73 “Test”

PWS Appendix A states there are a quantity of four (4) Class A M270A1 MLRS Mockup trainers (device # 09‐152) located at Ft.

Lee.

PWS Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐09‐152.xls shows maintenance data for a trainer with the identification number of 06‐73 and named “Test” under the “System” column.

PWS Appendix A does not have a device with the identification number of 06‐73.

Can the Government please clarify the discrepancy between the name of the Excel spreadsheet and the maintenance data contained within with respect to the devices contained within PWS Appendix A?

Please reference the answer to Question #18. Ref. Question #18 Y

39 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐124‐3.xls

06‐124/3 CFFT III 1:30

PWS Appendix A states there are a total of 6 Class A devices (1 Ft. Bliss, 1 Ft. Bragg, 1 Ft. Leonard Wood, 3 Ft. Sill).

PWS Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐124‐3.xls shows maintenance actions and hours charged only at Ft. Sill.

Can the Government please provide the maintenance data on the Class A devices located at Ft. Bliss, Ft. Bragg, and Ft. Leonard Wood?

These devices are new and are currently being fielded, therefore, no maintenance data exists. N/A N

40 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐124‐3‐1.xls

06‐124/3/1 CFFT III 1:30 Enhanced

PWS Appendix A shows Class A devices (1 Ft. Bragg, 1 Ft. Sill) only with no Class B or C devices.

PWS Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐124‐3‐1.xls records maintenance and hours charged on Class C devices either located at or supported by Ft. Sill.

Can the Government please clarify the data related to Class C devices?

Please reference the answer to Question #18.

Devices numbered 06‐124‐3‐1 indicate a CFFT II upgraded to CFFT III. Maintenance records for newly upgraded systems do not exist.

Ref. Question #18 Y

41 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐09‐147.xls

09‐147 HIMARS Mockup or 06‐113 HIMARS AMT

PWS Appendix A shows device # 09‐147 as the HIMARS Mockup Trainer.

PWS Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐09‐147.xls contains data for a device with the identification number of 06‐113 and HIMARS AMT under the “System” column.

PWS Appendix A does not include a device 06‐113 HIMARS AMT.

Can the Government clarify the difference between the name of the Excel spreadsheet and the maintenance data contained within which has a different device identification number?

There are also two lines with blanks in the device class column, can the Government provide the device class for these lines?

Device #06‐113 was moved from the Field Artillery series to the Ordinance series under #09‐147 in DA PAM 350‐9.

Regarding the blank lines in the "Device Class" refer to the answer to Question #18.

Ref. Question #18 Y

42 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐118‐4.xls

06‐118/4 CFFT JFO

PWS Appendix A states that there are only 3 Class A devices located at Ft. Sill with no other Class A devices at any other location and no Class B or Class C devices.

PWS Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐118‐4.xls has maintenance data for Class B devices located in Germany and an Unknown Class of device located at Ft. Bragg as well as “no_records_found” for Class located in Germany.

1. Can the Government please clarify the hours associated with other classes and locations of devices that aren’t correlated with PWS Appendix A?

2. The Maintenance Data for the 3 Class A devices located at Ft. Sill shows no scheduled maintenance actions. The data provided covers roughly a 9 month period with only 6 lines of data for these 06‐118/4 devices. There is a total of 11.2 hours of unscheduled maintenance. Can the Government confirm this data is complete or provide the additional data?

Offerors are advised to propose to the requirements listed in PWS Appendix A.

Regarding Appendix B, please refer to the answer to Question #18.

Question # Relates To Question Government Response Associated Attachments

Requires RFP Amendment?

(Y/N) 43 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐124‐1.xls

06‐124/1 CFFT 1:4

PWS Appendix A shows 5 Class B CONUS devices.

PWS Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐124‐1.xls provides no maintenance data for the 5 CONUS Class B devices.

Can the Government provide maintenance data for the CONUS Class B devices?

Please refer to the answer to Question #18. Ref. Question #18 Y

44 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐124‐2.xls

06‐124/2 CFFT 1:12

PWS Appendix A states that there are 5 total devices, 1 Class A device located at Ft. Bliss and 4 Class B CONUS devices.

PWS Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐124‐2.xls provides Class A maintenance data for devices located at Ft. Bragg.

Can the Government please clarify the Class A data provided at Ft. Bragg?

PWS Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐124‐2.xls has maintenance data for a device located at Ft. Bliss where the device class column has “no_records_found”.

Can the Government confirm this is one of the CONUS Class B devices or provide clarification of the data?

Offerors are advised to propose to the requirements listed in PWS Appendix A.

Regarding Appendix B, please refer to the answer to Question #18.

Ref. Question #18 Y

45 Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐118‐3.xls

06‐118/3 CFFT II 1:30

PWS Appendix A states that there are 8 Class A devices (1 Ft. Bragg, 1 Ft. Lee, 6 Ft. Sill), 26 Class B CONUS devices, and 9 Class C CONUS devices.

PWS Appendix B, Technical Documentation, Maintenance Data, ACT Maint Data by Hours‐06‐118‐3.xls shows:

‐ Maintenance performed on Class A and Class C devices but no Class B device maintenance ‐ Class A maintenance actions being performed on devices located at Ft. Bragg, Ft. Leonard Wood, Ft. Polk, and Ft. Sill, but no Class A maintenance performed on devices at Ft. Lee ‐ No scheduled maintenance performed on the device at Ft. Bragg

Can the Government provide the maintenance data for the 26 Class B CONUS devices?

Can the Government provide maintenance data for the Class A device located at Ft. Lee?

Can the Government clarify the maintenance data for Class A devices at Ft. Polk, and Ft. Leonard Wood?

Was there any scheduled maintenance performed on this device during the current contract and if so, can the Government provide this data?

Offerors are advised to propose to the requirements listed in PWS Appendix A.

Regarding Appendix B, please refer to the answer to Question #18.

Ref. Question #18 Y

46 PWS 3.2.2 Program Management, pg.

Does the Government have a preferred or required location for the contractor PMO? No, the Government does not have a preferred or required location for the contractor PMO. N/A N

47 PWS 3.2.4 Telephone, Cell Phone and Internet Access, pg. 13

Where are the locations where the Government is not providing internet/phone that the contractor must provide? PWS 3.2.4., "Telephone, Cell Phone and Internet Access" states the following:

"The Government will provide basic local telephone land[sic] line services at all manned site loca ons. Internet access will be provided via the NIPR network where available and in accordance with the local command authority at manned site loca ons. The Contractor shall bear the cost of all commercial internet service requirements, all long distance telephone land line and cellular phone services."

N/A N

48 PWS 3.8.2 information Assurance (IA)/Cyber Security, pg. 23

PWS 3.8.2 states “The contractor shall have the correct certification requirements to perform system administrative duties as required by DoD Manual 8570.01‐M, Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program, 20 April 2010 and DFARS Clause 252.239‐7001.” The DoD 8570.01‐M states for contractor categories: the level and certification requirements should be specified in the contract. Would the Government please specify at which level the contractors IA personnel must be certified at?

PWS 3.8.2.1., "IA/Cyber Security Training" states the following:

"In addition, per DoD Directive 8570.01‐M, DFARS 252.239.7001, and AR 25‐2, any contractor employees supporting any privileged IT functions shall be appropriately certified prior being granted unsupervised, privileged access. The baseline certification as stipulated in DoD Directive 8570.01‐M must be completed before access will be granted.

Per DoD 8570.01‐M all privileged IT functions are identified as an Cyber Security Technician (IAT) level 1‐3 and must be appointed based on functions performed and certification attained."

It is the offeror's responsibility to determine the appropriate level of certification required for IA personnel.

N/A N

49 PWS 3.8.1.1 Management Information System (MIS), pg. 20

Per PWS paragraph 3.8.1.1. Management Information System (MIS), “The databases within the MIS shall be updated at the close of each business day to provide real‐time visibility.”

Is this requirement meant to indicate that manual database entries must be completed daily and hence the database is “updated daily” (preferred), OR is it meant to indicate that all (automatic and manual) data entry items be held till the end of the day and then “released” to update the database. With today’s systems, real‐time update (instantaneous) is the norm, and so holding entries until the end of the day will only allow the database to be accurate once per day (not real‐time).

It is the offeror's responsibility to develop a response to the RFP to meet the Government's requirement. N/A N

50 PWS 3.8.1.1.1 MIS Data Requirements,

pg. 21

Per PWS paragraph 3.8.1.1.1. MIS Data Requirements, “The MIS shall contain, but is not limited to, the following types of information: …”

The term “not limited to” does not bound the requirement to allow for proper estimation of costs associated with implementation. Is the term “not limited to” intended to describe other data the Government wants in the database OR other data the Contractor has in the database. If it is Government required data, please expand the term “not limited to” to accurately describe the required data (e.g., specifically state, 100 manually entered items, 20 calculated items using the following equations, 3 processes of x scope etc.)?

The RFP has specified the Government's minimum requirement regarding MIS data. Should the offeror desire to include data above the minimum requirement they are able to do so. Because this award will be made on a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) basis, no trade‐off will be made for above threshold performance.

N/A N

Question # Relates To Question Government Response Associated Attachments

Requires RFP Amendment?

(Y/N) 51 PWS 3.8.1.1.4 Work

Orders/Maintenance Requests PWS 3.8.1.1.4. Work Orders/Maintenance Requests states, “The contractor shall ensure that all maintenance requests are stored in the MIS with detailed description of the problem and accurate.”

Please complete “… and accurate” to include what is meant to be accurate.

This is a typographical mistake, the word "information" was omitted from the end of the sentence. This sentence in PWS Para. 3.8.1.1.4 was updated via Amendment 0003 to clarify.

1. Solicitation Amendment 0003 (6 Pages)

2. ACT_PWS_V1 21 (10262016) Amendment 0003 (50 Pages)

Y

52 PWS Appendix A Can the Government specify the difference between the Call For Fire Trainers marked “PLUS”, “JFO”, “MTT” and “Enhanced”? Offerors should refer to the DA PAM 350‐9 series provided in the Bidder's Library on the LT2 Portal for device descriptions and terminology.

N/A N