W900KK-16-R-0003_Draft_RFP_Q_A_20_Dec_16_PCO_review_final_011317.docx

W900KK-17-R-0003 Nuclear Effects Test Capabilities Modernization (NETCM) Prompt Gamma Simulator (PGS).

DRAFT RFP QUESTIONS: Dates 01 Dec 2016 to 22 Dec 2016

1. Document Name/Number/Revision No.: PEO-STRI-15-W001 W900KK-17-R-0003 Document Date: 17 November 2016 Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.2.6.2 Start of Work Meeting, b.

Question/ Comment: Does the government expect to have a functional data acquisition system in place at WSMR in time for the PGS SAT (Site Acceptance Test)?

Response: The Government does expect to have a functional data acquisition system in place at WSMR in time for the PGS Government Site Acceptance Test. Revised Statement of Work, PEO-STRI-15-W001, dated 11 January 2017, in Section 3.3 Building Facility Infrastructure and Data Acquisition System: Added Section 3.3.2 Data Acquisition System.

Relates to:

Revised Statement of Work, PEO-STRI-15-W001, dated 11 January 2017, in Section 3.3 Building Facility Infrastructure and Data Acquisition System: Added Section 3.3.2 Data Acquisition System, provided as an attachment to the updated W900KK-17-R-0003 Solicitation, dated 13 January 2017

2. Document Name/Number/Revision No.: PEO-STRI-15-W001 W900KK-17-R-0003 Document Date: 17 November 2016 Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.3 Government Furnished Property (GFP), Government Furnished Services (GFS).

Question/ Comment: The prospective contractor assumes that the government will provide a DAS (Data- Acquisition System) at WSMR for monitoring the performance of the PGS. The contractor also assumes that specialized transient recording equipment will need to be supplied by the contractor for the purpose of check-out and FAT at the contractor’s facility. Are these assumptions correct?

Response: Your first assumption is correct that the Government will provide a Data Acquisition System (DAS) at WSMR for monitoring the performance of the PGS. The second assumption is correct that the contractor will need to supply equipment for the purpose of check-out and Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) at the contractor’s facility.

Relates to: Revised Statement of Work, PEO-STRI-15-W001, dated 11 January 2017, in Section 3.3.2 Data Acquisition System and in section 3.7.2 Integration Readiness Review (IRR), Subparagraph E, provided as an attachment to the updated W900KK-17-R-0003 Solicitation, dated 13 January 2017.

3. Document Name/Number/Revision No.: PRF-PT-00659 V1.1

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.1 Performance Requirements, KPP, Items 1) and 3) Pulse

Question/ Comment: Will the government supply the necessary radiation diagnostics to support both the FAT and SAT tests? If not, then please specify what types of radiation diagnostics are to be provided by the contractor to demonstrate radiation pulse width, dose, dose-rate and spectrum.

Response: No, the Government will not provide radiation diagnostics to support the Factory Acceptance Test (FAT). Full-up electron beam/radiation-producing operation and demonstration is not a requirement as part of FAT.

For Contractor Site Acceptance Testing, it is the contractor’s responsibility to provide the necessary equipment to demonstrate performance requirements. In addition, the Government will conduct independent measurements using government instrumentation to satisfy government acceptance testing requirements.

Relates to: Revised Statement of Work, PEO-STRI-15-W001, dated 11 January 2017, in Section 3.3.2 Data Acquisition System and in Section 3.7.2 Integration Readiness Review (IRR), Subparagraph E, provided as an attachment to the updated W900KK-17-R-0003 Solicitation, dated 13 January 2017.

4. Document Name/Number/Revision No.: PRF-PT-00659 V1.1

Reference Section/Paragraph: 3.2 Environmental Conditions

Question/ Comment: The temperature range specified appears to represent something applicable more to system storage, than operating temperature range. What is the temperature range for operation of the PGS?

Response: The System Performance Specification, PRF-PT-00659 V1.2, dated 20 December 2016, Section 3.2 Environmental Conditions: Temperature: is revised from 40oF - 95oF to 70oF - 75oF.

Relates to: System Performance Specification, PRF-PT-00659 V1.2, dated 20 December 2016, Section 3.2 Environmental Conditions, provided as an attachment to the updated W900KK-17-R-0003 Solicitation, dated 13 January 2017.

5. Document Name/Number/Revision No. W900KK-17-R-0003 Draft Solicitation, Reference: F.1 Delivery, Delivery Information

Question/Comment: The contractor is accustomed to having the cost of CDRL’s included in the total price for the effort. Is it the intent of the government that each CDRL and its associated CLIN (9 total) be separately priced?

The intent of the Government is to have each CLIN separately priced. The CLIN structure has been changed from nine (9) CLINs to four (4) CLINs as indicated on page 2 of updated W900KK-17-R-0003 Solicitation Page 2 now reflects a total of four (4) CLINs. CLIN 0002 NETCM PGS CDRLs should be separately priced.

Relates to: Section B, Supplies or Services and Price, Page 2, updated W900KK-17-R-0003 Solicitation dated, 13 January 2017.

6. Document Name/Number/Revision No. W900KK-17-R-0003 Draft Solicitation, Reference: L.3.0, Program Structure and Objectives Key Dates

Question/Comment: The contractor believes that a response to this solicitation is best served with a 60 day turn-around time. Can the solicitation closing date be extended to allow for this?

Response: The solicitation closing date has been revised from 30 days turn-around time to 50 days as indicated in updated W900KK-17-R-0003 Solicitation dated, 13 January 2017., Page 70, Solicitation Closing Date is: 1200 EST, 3 March 2017.

7. Document Name/Number/Revision No. W900KK-17-R-0003 Draft Solicitation, Reference: F.1 Delivery, Delivery Information

Question/Comment: Is there any flexibility in the POP’s for each of the 9 (nine) CLIN’s? And, is it permissible for a prospective contractor to propose a total contract POP that is different from the 36 months shown in the draft RFQ, and still be compliant with the solicitation?

Response: As indicated in W900KK-17-R-0003 Draft Solicitation Section F, Deliveries of Performance, page 8; and in FAR Clause 52.217-9, on page 24 the period of performance term of the contract is 36 months. Offeror’s have the flexibility to propose less than 36 months period of performance), but cannot exceed the 36 months period of performance.

8. Document Name/Number/Revision No. W900KK-17-R-0003 Draft Solicitation, Reference: Page 17

Question/Comment: There appeared to be an inconsistency on Page 17 of the solicitation. On that page, after the “Availability of Data Item Descriptions (DIDs)” paragraph, an out of context excerpt from page 13 (related to travel reimbursement) is included. Can you please confirm if any solicitation language is missing or if that is just a duplicative error that can be ignored?

Response: Yes, the language that appears after the “Availability of Data Item Descriptions (DIDs)” paragraph, on page 17 is in error and has been deleted. The errors noted have been corrected in the updated W900KK-17-R-0003 Solicitation dated, 13 January 2017 .

9. Document Name/Number/Revision No. W900KK-17-R-0003 Draft Solicitation, No. 2 Reference: Page 55

Question/Comment: On Page 55, the solicitation asks under the "Organizational Conflicts of Interest Representation (Services)" paragraph that a box be checked for either "No Conflict of Interest" or "Information concerning a conflict of interest, as identified in Section H, is provided." We were unable to locate the Conflict of Interest identification language in Section H of the solicitation.

Response: "Organizational Conflicts of Interest Representation (Services)" clause was in error and has been deleted from page 55 in updated W900KK-17-R-0003 Solicitation dated, 13 January 2017.

10. Document Name/Number/Revision No. W900KK-17-R-0003 Scope of Work, Section 3.7.2 Integration Readiness Review.

Question/Comment: The required radiation shielding for full-up (electron beam/radiation-producing) operation/demonstration of the PGS machine will be quite extensive and costly.

Is it acceptable to propose surrogate demonstration(s) of critical electrical parameters, in place of radiation-producing demonstration(s), for factory acceptance testing (FAT)?

Response: Yes, for Factory Acceptance Testing, it is acceptable to propose surrogate demonstration(s) of critical electrical parameters, in place of radiation-producing demonstration(s).

Relates to: Revised Statement of Work, PEO-STRI-15-W001, dated 11 January 2017, in Section 3.7.2 Integration Readiness Review (IRR), Subparagraph E, provided as an attachment to the updated W900KK-17-R-0003 Solicitation, dated 13 January 2017.