A13_Industry_Quest_Answer_23July2018V.1.pdf

Attachment 13- SOF TEAMS III W900KK-18-R-0033 FINAL RFP QUESTIONS Omitted Questions from 18 July 2018 Amendment 01 posting.

Posted date 23 July 2018

1. L.6.2.2.1 states that provisional billing rates are not acceptable for substantiation of indirect rates. Since the DCAA performs an annual review of our company’s historical data as part of their analysis and approval process of our provisional billing rates, we are unsure why Government-approved billing rates would be an unacceptable substantiation. Please describe the analysis PEO-STRI will perform on the requested three years of historical data, pointing out specifically how the analysis differs from the DCAA provisional rate process that is performed annually, so that we may ensure we provide the proper supporting data. Alternatively, respectfully suggest modifying L.6.2.2.1 to allow DCAA-approved provisional billing rates.

Response:

The standard language in a provisional billing rate memo from DCAA states, in part, “The established rates are for billing purposes only and you should not use these rates for other applications such as cost proposals or forward pricing rates.”

Please see additional information on provisional billing rates on the DCAA public website DCAA.mil, Guidance, Audit Process Overview – Information for Contractors, Provisional Billing Rates or at the following link:

http://www.dcaa.mil/Content/Documents/smallbusiness/Provisional_Billing_Rates .pdf

The Government will not modify the language at L.6.2.2.1. The Government will conduct our evaluation of Factor 3 in accordance with sections L.6.0 and M.4.0 of the solicitation.

2. The PWS states: “A requirement of this contract is to maintain stability of personnel proposed in order to provide quality services. The contractor agrees to assign only those key personnel whose resumes were submitted and approved, and who are necessary to fulfill the requirements of the effort.”

Question: With no requirement to submit resumes with the proposal, how will the government meet its requirement to pre-approve proposed key personnel?

Response: No resumes will be required for initial evaluation. Paragraph 3.2.7 remains in the PWS and Attachment 15 - Key Personnel has been added to the RFP. Resumes will be provided during contract performance to ensure addition or substitution of Key Personnel meet requirements outlined in Key Personnel attachment.

3. According to M.2.1, “The Government will evaluate the organizational structure (inclusive of subcontractors) to ensure that the Offeror has an understanding of the labor resources required to effectively handle technical requirements, contract management, administrative responsibilities and scope of the contract.”

Current Installation and Regiment safety policy adheres to Army Technical Bulletin TB- 385-4 paragraph 3.4.2, Required Personnel, which states that “At least two technicians must be in the immediate area at all times when work is being performed on exposed live circuits carrying 30 volts or more. Each technician must be able to see and hear the other technician.”

Question: Will the Government add Army Technical Bulletin TB-385-4 as a requirement of the RFP? We are concerned that if TB-385-4 is not included in the RFP and referenced in the PWS, an offeror could achieve a competitive advantage by proposing a manning level below that required by TB-385-4 (two-person safety requirement when troubleshooting/maintaining energized training devices) and then requesting an ECP after award to adjust the manning level to meet Army TB-385-4.

Response: No Army Technical Bulletin will be added to RFP. The Government will evaluate the Offeror “understanding of the labor resources required to effectively handle technical requirements.” Expectation is that Offeror understands technical bulletins, safety standards, and other regulations that drive resources to meet technical requirements.

4. The first and second sentences of Section L.5.2 appear to be redundant with respect to describing the approach to meet contracted availability and mission requirements as noted in bold font below:

L.5.2 SUBFACTOR 2.2 – OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT

“The Offeror shall describe their proposed approach to efficiently operate, sustain, and maintain the TADSS to meet contracted availability and mission requirements.

The Offeror shall describe their proposed approach to meet the TADSS availability and contracted mission requirements. The Offeror’s shall describe their approach to provide effective system level hardware and software maintenance as well as supply support for TADSS sustainment.”

Question: Can the Government please state if this is an oversight, or if there’s something missing from the second paragraph? It would appear that the intent is for the offerors to provide an approach, but as it is currently worded, it is asking for essentially the same information twice. Please advise.

Response: The first paragraph under L.5.2 Subfactor is looking at the Offeror's ability to “efficiently operate, sustain, and maintain TADSS. The second paragraph looks at “effective system level hardware and software maintenance as well as supply support” to meet the availability and contract mission requirements.

5. While the SOF TEAMS III RFP is listed on FedBizOps as a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Set Aside under NAICS Code 541330, there is no mention of a Set Aside in the RFP. Specifically:

Section I does not incorporate Clause 52.219-6 by Reference (Notice Of Total Small Business Set-Aside), and there is nothing in the RFP to indicate this is a SDVOSB Set Aside.

The NAICS Code in Clause 52.219-28 (Post Award Small Business Program Representation) on pages 72 & 73 is blank; this is the only reference to the NAICS Code or Size Standard in the RFP.

Question: Should Clause 52.219-6 be incorporated by Reference? Will the RFP be amended to specify that this opportunity is a SDVOSB Set Aside under NAICS Code 541330 ($38.5M Size Standard)?

Response: Yes, Clause 52.219-6 has been incorporated by Reference. No, Clause 52.219-28 specifically states, "Contractor to sign and date and insert authorized signer's name and title."The Government is not required to complete this clause.

6. As a Tiered Unit, the mission of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) (SOAR(A)) is of paramount importance to the National Security of the United States. However, the SOF TEAMS III Final RFP does not require the offerors to specify Key Personnel as a means of validating that the winning offeror can meet the demands of the Operational Tempo of the 160th or the 95% TADSS Availability requirements of the solicitation. However, the GAO has recently upheld that the Government has the right to ask for Key Personnel in the RFP (GAO case B-412468, February 16th 2016, DataSource, Inc. https://www.gao.gov/products/D12677#mt=summary) to ensure the offerors can meet the demands of the contract. In this particular case, in response to the objection in that requiring a “Contingent Hire Letter” favored the incumbent contractor, the RFP advised offerors that “[l]etters of intent shall be provided for all key personnel not currently employed by the prime or proposed subcontractor, demonstrating their agreed upon start date in accordance with the requirements in Attachment 07 in the key personnel sheet”. Likewise, the solicitation also stated that:

“For any key personnel that is not a current employee of the offeror or one of its subcontractors, a letter of intent or contingent hire letter as required under Section L https://www.gao.gov/products/D12677#mt=summary

Paragraph 4.1.3.1 will be sufficient so long as it includes the key personnel’s agreed upon salary and direct-labor hourly rate”.

The GAO denied this protest, in part referencing the agency’s response to the objection that requiring a “Contingent Hire Letter” favored the incumbent contractor, where the agency responded that:

“The Government will not remove this requirement. Letters of intent are required for key personnel not currently employed by the prime offeror or proposed subcontractor(s). The Government does not agree that this creates an unfair advantage to the team that contains the incumbent large businesses because the key personnel requirements are role specific rather than system or application specific and can be met by nonincumbents.”

In response to Draft RFP questions ascertaining that the inclusion of an evaluation subfactor for Key Personnel would give an unfair advantage to the incumbent, the Government removed the Key Personnel requirement from the Final RFP. According to the above referenced GAO case, that is an invalid claim and this ruling would also apply to the SOF TEAMS III proposal since it also requires role-specific vs application-specific personnel requirements.

Questions: As the SOF TEAMS III contract also requires role-specific rather that application-specific personnel requirements for the US Army’s Tiered Aviation Unit, respectfully request reinstatement of the Key Personnel evaluation subfactor as an integral part of the source selection process to adequately ensure the current evaluation criteria allows the Government to select an offeror that can meet the demands of the Operational Tempo requirements of the 160th SOAR(A) and 95% TADSS Availability requirements of the SOF TEAMS III solicitation.

Response: The Solicitation will remain the same and the Key Personnel Evaluation subfactor will not be included. The Government approval of additions/or substitutions of Key Personnel is later during the performance of the contract and is unrelated to the evaluation process.

7. Attachment 7 (A7_Cost_Price_Worksheet.xlxs) has links to an external file that is not provided with the RFP. On tabs “Attachment 7c” and “Attachment 7d” in cell B1, there is a link to ‘I:\A_Dir\KOV Files\STS\SOF RAPTOR III\B5 – RFP Package\[Att7- PricingWorkbook-SR3-Amd4.xls]INSTRUCTIONS’!c3. Please advise.

Response: Attachment 7c and Attachment 7d in cell “B1” are updated.

8. The pricing instructions in Section L do not address subcontractor pricing. However, checklist items #15-17 in the PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST clause references subcontractor proposals.

Question: Is the required information to be filled in on the referenced pricing spreadsheet tabs (7c & 7d) required for both the prime contractor and for subcontractors? Are separate subcontractor pricing proposals/spreadsheets required?

Response: Separate subcontractor proposals/spreadsheets are not required.

However the Offer must comply with section L.6.2.2 which states, “The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support the reasonableness of their proposed direct labor rates and indirect rates as well as any proposed escalation to be used under the SOF TEAMS III contract.” If subcontractors are providing any of the labor categories proposed, it is up to the prime to demonstrate the reasonableness of those proposed subcontractor rates.

9. The RFP Section L references to the pricing worksheet tabs in A7_Cost_Price_Worksheet.xlsx do not match the tabs in the excel file.

In A7_Cost_Price_Worksheet.xlsx, the tabs are labeled:

Attachment 7a – Section B Pricing Template Attachment 7b – Pricing Workbook (TEP) Attachment 7c – Labor Rates Attachment 7d – Indirect Rates Attachment 7e – Labor Traceability Matrix

The references in the RFP Section L to A7_Cost_Price_Worksheet.xlxs are as follows:

L.6.2.1 references “Attachment 7(a)” as the “Total Evaluated Price (TEP)”. Should this reference be to tab “Attachment 7b”?

L.6.2.2 references “Attachment 7(b)” as the “Direct Labor Rates” and “Attachment 7c” as the “Indirect Rates”. Should these references be to tab “Attachment 7c” and “Attachment 7d?

L.6.2.2.1 references “Attachment 7(c)” as the “Indirect Expense Rates”. Should this reference be to tab “Attachment 7d”?

There is no reference in the RFP Section L to the A7_Cost_Price_Worksheet.xlsx tab labeled “Section B Pricing Template”. Please advise if this Tab is to be filled in.

Response: L.6.2.1 has been updated to reflect tab Attachment 7(b) as the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). L.6.2.2 has been updated to reflect tab Attachment 7(c) as the Direct Labor Rates and Attachment 7(d) as the Indirect Expense Rates.

L.6.2.2.1 has been updated to reflect Attachment 7(d) as the Indirect Expense Rates.

10. Tab “Attachment 7a” of RFP Attachment A7_Cost_Price_Worksheet.xlsx does not identify the quantities in column “E” for each of the CLINs. Please provide the required quantities.

Response: The Quantity has been incorporated within Attachment 7_ Cost_Price_ Worksheet.

11. Tab “Attachment 7a” of RFP Attachment A7_Cost_Price_Worksheet.xlsx has the following calculation issues:

1 – The formulas in cells “B23”, “D23”, “F23”, “H23”, and “J23” do not correctly total the prices for the CLINs.

2 – There is no formula to calculate the Subtotal in cell “K34”.

3 – There is no formula to calculate the Base Year Total in cell “K35”.

4 – The formula in cell “K36” does not correctly calculate the Total Evaluated Price.

Response: The formulas in cell “B23”, “D23”, “F23”, “H23”, and “J23” for Attachment A7_Cost_Price_Worksheet have been updated.

12. Please confirm that Industry Question-Answers #12, #13, and #29 are still valid and that offerors can assume all 160th TADSS will have a Risk Management Framework (RMF) / Authority to Operate (ATO) at the time of Contract Award. Are we correct in assuming that the required Cybersecurity effort for this program will be maintaining the ATO as opposed to implementing RMF activity for the purpose of attaining ATOs for the

TADSS?

Response: Risk Management Framework (RMF) will be complete by contract award. RMF activity will be to maintain ATO for TADSS.

Attachment 13- SOF TEAMS III W900KK-18-R-0033 FINAL RFP QUESTIONS Posted 18 July 2018

1. PWS: 3.3.1 c) Provide an experienced and highly competent technical staff to perform all functions identified within the scope of this PWS, where experience is defined under Key Personnel attachment of the contract.

Question: Will the Government provide a Key Personnel Attachment?

Response: The Key Personnel Attachment 15 is added to the RFP.

2. PWS: 3.1.3.4.1 SOF TEAMS III Website

The SOF TEAMS III website shall satisfy the requirements listed below:

i. All CDRLs (native format).

Question: What is meant by Native Format

Response: Per the DD Form 1423, native format is the file structure of an electronic document as defined by the original creating application. For example, if a spreadsheet was created using Microsoft Excel, then the native format of the spreadsheet would be its original Microsoft Excel format.

3. PWS: 3.1.4 Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Management:

The contractor shall be responsible for inventorying, handling, packaging, and storing

HAZMAT.

Question: Are current HAZMAT materials being handled, packaged, and stored IAW this PWS? Will the Government provide storage facilities and containers if needed?

Response: Yes, all HAZMAT materials are currently being handled, packaged, and stored in accordance with the PWS. Yes, storage facilities and containers are provided by the Government.

4. PWS: 3.1.5 Government Furnished Information (GFI)

All GFI will be provided in an as is condition.

Question: Will the Vendor have the opportunity to review the GFI with the Government to document what the “As Is Condition” is?

Response: Yes, the contractor will have the opportunity to review the GFI with the Government during the transition period.

5. PWS: 3.1.8.1 AT Level 1 Training

All Contractor employees, to include Subcontractor employees, requiring access to Army installations, facilities and controlled access areas shall complete AT Level I awareness training in accordance with AR381-12 within thirty (30) calendar days after contract start date or effective date of incorporation of this requirement into the contract, whichever is applicable.

Question: If the AT Level I training was completed for other contracts, and within the calendar year, will that certification meet this requirement?

Response: Yes, the contractor may present existing valid certifications to meet this requirement. The contractor shall maintain certification of all assigned personnel in accordance with applicable regulations.

6. PWS: 3.1.9 Cybersecurity Measures

All contractor employees’ supporting RMF/IT functions shall be appropriately certified upon contract award and maintained through the lifetime of contract.

Question: What is this Certification? Can we use a corporate qualified person until onsite person completes qualification requirement?

Response: Certification will be in accordance with PWS paragraph 3.1.9.1 and the Cyber Security Personnel Requirements section of the Key Personnel Attachment. Yes, the contractor may use a ‘corporate qualified person’ as long as that person meets all RMF/IT certification criteria and can be on-site as the situation requires.

7. PWS: 3.1.9.3 Authority To Operate (ATO)

The Contractor shall complete the required assessments and analysis necessary to maintain an ATO. The contractor shall document the security posture of the system in the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) based RMF toolset.

The Contractor shall use the systems engineering process to incorporate the applicable security controls into the requirements, design, and integration and testing processes for all modifications/changes to all devices.

Question: How long will the contractor have?

Response: Due to complexities and variables associated with the RMF process the Government and Contractor will collaborate to determine the duration and milestones associated with RMF activities.

8. PWS: 3.1.9.5 Baseline Documentation

The contractor shall complete a system baseline documentation that provides a snapshot upon which the Security Controls Assessor (SCA) and AO base their risk assessment decisions.

Question: Will the outgoing contractor provide documentation of the present state / baseline of equipment?

Response: No, the outgoing contractor will not provide documentation of the present state/baseline of equipment during the transition period.

9. 3.2.1.1 General Administration

c) Provide all administrative services, office supplies, and all other supplies required for the performance of this PWS to include but not limited to computer paper, software media, paper products, ink, etc.

Question: Will any SOF Team’s III personnel be required to be on a Govt. Network?

Can we use contractor computers? Wil government provide computers?

Response: Yes, SOFTEAMS III personnel will need to use the Government network for government emails, SharePoint access etc. Government computers will be provided and life cycled thru the contract as required. Contractor computers may be permitted on a case-by-case basis determined by local Government authority.

10. PWS: 3.3.1 Systems Maintenance

The contractor shall provide all TADSS hardware, software and network systems maintenance (TADSS listed in Attachment 6).

Question: Final PWS shows the TADSS list as Attachment 4. Is this the correct TADSS list?

Response: PWS Appendix A contains the correct TADSS list. PWS paragraph

3.3.1 is updated to reflect Appendix A. Attachment 4, is removed to eliminate redundancy.

11. PWS: 3.3.1.2 Software Maintenance

The contractor shall provide the following software support for the TADSS listed in Appendix A of this PWS and associated equipment utilized for TADSS support:

e) Maintain tracking of software licenses expiration and renewal

Question: Will contractor be required to purchase SW licenses under this contract?

Response: Yes, the contractor will be required to purchase SW licenses under this contract to sustain system operation. The SW licenses will be purchased thru the CPFF CLIN.

12. PWS: 3.4.5 Support Equipment

The contractor shall sign for all support equipment on the GFP list found in Attachment 5 and shall return serviceable and calibrated support equipment at the end of the contract. The contractor shall be responsible for facilitating the calibration with the Government designated facility. The contractor shall provide any additional or replacement support equipment required.

Question: Can the contractor expect to receive all equipment in a serviceable and calibrated state?

Response: Yes, the incoming contractor can expect to receive all GFP in a serviceable and calibrated state. Any discrepancies will be noted and resolved during the transition period.

13. PWS: 3.5.1.2 Contracted Training Time – Ft. Campbell, KY

The contractor shall perform logistic, maintenance and specified operational support on systems and equipment to support site requirements. UMS CTT is ten (10) hours per day (2x UMS) or twenty (20) hours per day (1x UMS), five (5) days per week M-F.

Question: All other training devices (TD’s) have training hours listed (0600 – 2200).

What are the times or 2xUMS? And times for 1xUMS?

Response: Available training hours for scheduling purposes are; 2xUMS (0700- 1700), 1xUMS (0600-0200). Contracted Training Time may be altered due to customer requests. PWS paragraph 3.5.1.2 is revised to reflect the Contracted Training Time.

14. PWS: 3.5.1.2 Contracted Training Time – Ft. Campbell, KY

The contractor shall perform logistic, maintenance and specified operational support on systems and equipment to support site requirements.

Question: Is the contractor to assume that this should be accomplished on a Non- Interference basis?

Response: Yes, all operational system logistics, support, and maintenance shall be on a Non-Interference basis during Contracted Training Time.

15. PWS 6.1.1 DTT/CAPT Purpose/Description

The CAAS DTT is a software-based tool intended for classroom training and integration into the 160th SOAR(A) designated mission planners via CD or DVD. The DTT provides system familiarization of version 7.5 CAAS Software to 160th SOAR(A) pilots.

Question: Will future CAAS upgrades be a part of this CLS contract?

Response: No, future CAAS upgrades and subsequent changes to the CAAS DTT will not be a part of the SOFTEAMS III contract. Support and sustainment of any upgrades does fall under the scope of the SOFTEAMS III contract.

16. PWS 6.1.1 DTT/CAPT Purpose/Description

The CAAS DTT is a software-based tool intended for classroom training and integration into the 160th SOAR(A) designated mission planners via CD or DVD. The DTT provides system familiarization of version 7.5 CAAS Software to 160th SOAR(A) pilots.

Question: Will the Govt. provide SME support to complete testing efforts?

Response: Yes, the Government will provide SME support to complete testing efforts.

17. PWS 3.1.9.3 Authority To Operate (ATO) The Contractor shall complete the required assessments and analysis necessary to maintain an ATO. The contractor shall document the security posture of the system in the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) based RMF toolset.

Question: Does the program have a current ATO and what is the expiration date?

Response: The UMS has an ATO maintained by PM UAS. None of the other TADSS systems within this effort have current ATOs. The Government is in the process of obtaining ATOs for the systems. Currently, Government and Contractor personnel are collaborating to collect data, input required information, and manage the RMF process with a goal of obtaining ATOs by the end of calendar year 2018.

18. 3.1.9.3 Authority To Operate (ATO) The Contractor shall complete the required assessments and analysis necessary to maintain an ATO. The contractor shall document the security posture of the system in the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) based RMF toolset.

Question: What is the progress of the current ATO towards obtaining full RMF compliance?

Response: Currently, Government and Contractor personnel are collaborating to collect data, input required information, and manage the RMF process with a goal of obtaining ATOs by the end of calendar year 2018.

19. W900KK-18-R-0033 - Section L.4.0 Factor 1 Text states “the Offeror shall consider the three sub-factors below when responding to the Program Management factor.”

However, there are only two sub-factors shown (L.4.1 and L.4.2) in this version of the RFP. (Key Personnel sub-factor consideration was removed.)

Response: This is an error. The sentence should read “the Offeror shall consider the two sub-factors below when responding to the Program Management factor.”

Section L.4.0 is revised per Amendment 0001.

20. PWS: We have a question on a Key Personnel References in the PWS.

Paragraph 3.1.1c on page 5 of the PWS states: “c) Provide an experienced and highly competent technical staff to perform all functions identified within the scope of this PWS, where experience is defined under Key Personnel attachment of the contract.”.

However, there is no longer a Key Personnel attachment. Should this paragraph have been deleted also, should we use the now deleted Key Personnel definitions, or should we come up with what we think the requirements for the Key Personnel should be.

21. W900KK-18-R-0033:

Section M.2.0 Factor 1 Header refers to Program Management as being in Vol 1 instead of Vol 2

Section M.3.0 Factor 2 Header refers to Technical, Ops, and Conf Mgt as being in Vol 2 instead of 3

Response: Program Management is Vol 2 and Technical, Ops, and Conf Mgt is Vol 3. Sections M.2.0 and M.3.0 are revised in the per Amendment 0001.

22. PWS: We have a second question on a Key Personnel References in the PWS.

Paragraph 3.2.7 on page 29 of the PWS refers to the addition or substitution of Key Personnel. It states: “a) A requirement of this contract is to maintain stability of personnel proposed in order to provide quality services. The contractor agrees to assign only those key personnel whose resumes were submitted and approved, and who are necessary to fulfill the requirements of the effort.”. However, there is no longer a Key Personnel attachment or Key Personnel references in the RFP. There is also no requirement for Key Personnel resumes to be submitted initially. So, should this paragraph have been deleted also? Or is there still a requirement for Key personnel resumes to have been submitted initially?

Response: No resumes will be required for initial evaluation. Paragraph 3.2.7 remains in the PWS and Attachment 15 - Key Personnel has been added to the RFP. Resumes will be provided during contract performance to ensure addition or substitution of Key Personnel meet requirements outlined in Key Personnel attachment.

23. PWS 3.1.9.2.1, ISSO Duties and Responsibilities, bullet a) states “In coordination with the ISSM, initiate protective or corrective measures when a cybersecurity incident or vulnerability is discovered.”

Question: Can the Government please clarify if the ISSM is a Government Position or a Contractor Position?

Response: The ISSO is a contractor position. The ISSM is a Government Position.

24. PWS 3.1.9.9, Assessment states “The contractor shall conduct an assessment of the current system environment and the supporting infrastructure for security vulnerabilities and weaknesses.”

Question: Are all RMF activities complete and current and do all systems currently have ATOs?

Response: No, RMF activities are in progress with a projected completion at the end of calendar year 2018. The UMS has an ATO maintained by PM UAS. None of the other TADSS systems within this effort have current ATOs. The Government is in the process of obtaining ATOs for the systems. Currently, Government and Contractor personnel are collaborating to collect data, input required information, and manage the RMF process with a goal of obtaining ATOs by the end of calendar year 2018.

25. Bullet d) of paragraph, 3.2.1.1 General Administration states “Provide all transportation of personnel, parts and equipment necessary to accomplish the requirements in this PWS.”

Question: Can the Government please confirm if a contractor supplied vehicle is required?

Response: The Government will not provide vehicular support. The Contractor shall independently determine the best way to support this requirement.

26. PWS 3.2.2 Configuration Management (CM) states “The contractor shall provide, implement and maintain a non-proprietary tailored hardware, software, network and documentation CM plan to include the functions of configuration identification, control, audits and status accounting for all TADSS supported under this contract. The contractor shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining the CM of baseline hardware, software, firmware, and documentation comprising the total system as directed and approved by the Government. The Government requires these processes and data to be transferable to other contractors; therefore, any new configuration management systems shall not contain proprietary or non-commercially available components.”

Question: Can the Government please provide information related to the hardware and software tools and systems currently in use?

Response: For CM, a COTS product “Razor” hosted on a PC based server is being used.

27. PWS 3.2.2.5 Reports states “The contractor shall collect, document, review, analyze, and track status of all SOF TEAMS software Discrepancy Reports (DRs), Enhanced Functionality Reports, Software Change Reports (SCR) and DA 2408-13 entries in ULLS-A or most current electronic logbook in use by 160th SOAR(A). The contractor shall provide comments and determine their impact on the TADSS. If required by the Government, the contractor shall as a result of the continuing analysis, develop a plan for implementing any necessary modifications.”

Question: Can the Government please clarify the level of modifications that might be anticipated?

Response: The contractor can anticipate unscheduled hardware repairs due to normal wear and tear, minor software de-bugging, cockpit hardware (i.e.

switches, knobs, dials, flight control, or other ergonomic changes) modifications to reflect design basis aircraft changes, and ‘clean-up’ modifications to ensure maximum concurrency with the design basis aircraft.

Level of modifications vary from adding power drops to converting the MRETS A/V system from analog to digital. Examples of modifications that have been performed include upgrading Emergency Power Off functionality, UPS upgrades, additional fiber installation and tuning aerodynamic response.

28. PWS 3.5.1.1 Contractor Performance Factor (CPF) Calculation states CDT is calculated as follows:

CDT = Chargeable Down Time - Hours that the systems and equipment are scheduled to be in a full or operational readiness state (CTT hrs. and Surge hrs.) but unable to support the required mission rehearsal, training, simulation, exercise, engineering, testing or demonstration efforts. For any downtime exceeding 30 minutes, the contractor shall notify government team members and training stakeholders as determined by the IPT process.

Paragraph 3.5, Operations Support of TADSS states “The contractor shall provide for a rapid response capability which responds to unforeseen system issues or failures and provide proposed courses of action within 60 minutes to minimize operational delays during CTT.”

Question: Can the Government please clarify what must be accomplished in the 30 minutes referenced in the CDT definition and how this differs from the 60 minute reference in paragraph 3.5?

Response: The 30 minutes refers to notifying training stakeholders typically via email. The 60 minute refers to proposing a course of action to minimize delays to stakeholders, typically the COR, CMS Instructors, etc.

29. PWS 3.5.1.5 Contracted Weekend Support Time - Ft. Campbell, KY

Question: Can the Government please clarify if this is every weekend, or every weekend as required?

Response: Contracted Weekend Support Time is for every weekend.

30. PWS 3.6.4.4 Develop ‘Orange Book’

Develop an orange book for the TADSS if an Orange Book does not already exist.

Delivery of the orange book shall be within one-hundred twenty (120) days of contract start.

Question: Can the Government please confirm if there is currently an Orange Book for each device?

Response: No, there are no Orange Books currently.

31. Attachment 14, Article 21: Technical Lead does not define the function of the position. Is this a Technical Lead over the Simulator Technicians or do Technical Leads support some other function?

Can the Government please provide a job description for the Technical Lead?

Response: The Technical Lead is equal to the Lead Technician stated in Attachment 7, Cost/Price Workbook, see tab 7e for definition.

32. Attachment 14, Article 21: Section 6 refers to a logistical technician and specifically refers to an hourly pay rate adjustment. Can the Government please confirm if the logistical technician(s) is/are part of the bargaining unit? If so, can the Government please provide the salary for this labor category?

This anomaly also begs the question if there are any other labor categories that are part of the bargaining unit that have not been provided to bidders? Redaction of a CBA to protect proprietary information is commonplace, however the majority of the CBA has not been provided to bidders. It is incumbent upon offerors to ensure we are able to price all labor categories that are covered by the bargaining agreement in accordance with the pay rates as defined in this agreement. Can the Government please confirm that all wage related terms of the CBA have been made known to all bidders?

Response: The Government cannot confirm that logistical technician(s) are part of the CBA. All of the information provided to the Government regarding the CBA labor categories is provided with RFP. It is up to the contractor/bidders as to how to utilize personnel to fulfill the SOF TEAMS III requirement. The redaction of the CBA is to protect proprietary information of the current contractor.

33. Attachment 7, Cost Price Workbook

Attachment 7, Cost_Price_Workbook tabs Attachment 7c and Attachment 7e both contain labor categories, however the labor categories listed in the tabs differ. Can the Government please clarify the reason for the differences and how bidders are to complete each tab? For example, multiple levels of Configuration Analyst are shown in tab Attachment 7e, however no Configuration Analyst labor category is shown in tab Attachment 7c. Are the Configuration Manager and the Configuration Technician shown in tab Attachment 7c supposed to map to a specific level of Configuration Analyst? If so, which ones? Another example is that tab Attachment 7c lists a Site Manager, where tab Attachment 7e does not. Is the definition for the Site Manager up to the contractor? Are we to add this labor category to tab Attachment 7e?

Response: Attachment 7, Cost_Price_Workbook tabs Attachment 7c and Attachment 7e are both updated to reflect the same labor categories.

34. PWS, Section 1 Scope

The last sentence of the Scope paragraph states “The CPFF portion shall include over and above work requests, repair actions and service agreements, spares, tools and test equipment purchases.”

Question: Can the Government please confirm that “repair actions” includes parts required to implement the repair?

Response: Yes, repair actions include parts and any Third Party labor that are required to implement the repair.

35. PWS, 3.1.1 Organization Structure

Bullet c) states “Provide an experienced and highly competent technical staff to perform all functions identified within the scope of this PWS, where experience is defined under Key Personnel attachment of the contract.”

Question: Can the Government please clarify where Key Personnel and their required experience is defined or provide this information?

36. PWS,3.1.3.1.1 Transition Phase In

Bullet f) states “Implementation of SOF TEAMS III Website.”

Question: Can the Government please confirm a similar website is currently in place and functioning for the current SOF TEAMS II program?

Response: Yes a proprietary website is currently in place for SOFTEAMS II. The incoming contractor will be responsible for implementing the SOFTEAMS III website.

37. 3.1.3.1.2 Transition Phase-Out states “The contractor shall provide to the Government a download of all records and other support data stored in electronic systems (such as inventory control system, website) onto magnetic media.”

Question: Can the Government please confirm if the current systems in use belong to the Government? What systems are currently being used?

Response: The SOF TEAMS II website uses Alfresco Document Management System and is not owned by the Government.

JIRA is used for tracking software/hardware deficiencies/enhancements and is not owned by the Government, however the Government owns additional licenses.

TCMax is used for inventory control and asset management and is owned by the Government residing on the Government NIPRNet.

SharePoint is used for technical documentation and is owned by the Government residing on the Government NIPRNet.

MS Access is used to pass along information between shifts and is owned by the Government residing on the Government NIPRNet.

38. Attachment 7 (A7_Cost_Price_Worksheet.xlxs), Tab “Attachment 7c” and Tab “Attachment 7e” list different labor categories.

Question: Please clarify which list of labor categories is correct for this RFP.

Response: Attachment 7, Cost_Price_Workbook tabs Attachment 7c and Attachment 7e are both updated to reflect the same labor categories.

39. Are the labor rates on tab “Attachment 7c” to be priced as FFP, COST, CPFF, or T&M? Please advise

Response: The labor rates on tab “Attachment 7c” to be priced as Firm- Fixed- Price.

40. Can the labor category listed on Tab “Attachment 7c” as HW/SW Engineer be split into separate labor categories: Software Engineer and Hardware Engineer? Please advise.

Response: Attachment 7, Cost_Price_Workbook tabs Attachment 7c and Attachment 7e are both updated to reflect the HW/SW Engineer to be split into separate labor categories.

41. Section L.3.0: Respectfully request an additional 10 pages for a total page limit of 50 pages for Volume III – Technical, Operational, and Configuration Management. This volume is the most technically complicated volume and has three subfactors (one more than Volume II which also has a 40-page limit). Each subfactor in Volume III requires detailed processes and procedures to fully describe our approach to meeting the Section L and related PWS requirements. An increased page count would enable offerors to thoroughly explain each technical requirement in the initial submission without having to shorten responses solely to meet page count. This would also eliminate the need for the evaluators to initiate Evaluation Notices (ENs) to solicit additional information in order to substantiate the subfactor evaluations.

Response: PM STS (Aviation) recommends approving the request. Allow up 50 pages for the Technical Volume.

END OF FRFP QUESTIONS

Attachment 13- SOF TEAMS III W900KK-18-R-0033 CONSOLIDATED DRFP and SITE Visit QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS POSTED 22 June 18

1. Question- Paragraph 3.3.1.1 a) of the PWS states: “3.3.1.1 Hardware Maintenance The contractor shall provide the following hardware support for all TADSS listed in Appendix A of this PWS:

a) Provide required tools and test equipment (TTE) used to maintain complex electronic equipment and networks. The contractor shall be responsible for the replenishment, management, calibration/update, maintenance and replacement of TTE provided by the Government as identified in Appendix A of this PWS. Provide and implement control and inventory procedures that ensure all tools and support equipment are accounted for at the end of each maintenance workday.”

Will the government provide any tools and Test Equipment? If so, can you identify that equipment?

Response: All Government provided Tools and Test Equipment are listed in Government Furnish Property List, Attachment 5, to the solicitation. Other required specified tools can/will be procured through COST Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs).

2. Question- PWS paragraph 3.5.5.3 TADSS Relocation states: “When requested, the contractor shall provide labor, materials, and services to de-install and relocate

TADSS”.

Will TADSS relocations be an ECP, or are the relocation costs included in the basic proposal?

Response: Any TADSS relocation will be covered by an Engineering Change Proposal (ECP), see update Performance Statement of Work (PWS) paragraph 3.5.5

3. Question-PWS Para 3.6.1: Advanced Computer Systems Support states that:

“The contractor shall provide advanced computer systems support for TADSS.”

Will the “Advanced Computer Systems Support” include support for 160 SOAR government infrastructure also, such as the government personnel’s .mil computer systems?

Response: Government personnel computer systems are NOT part of Advanced Computer Systems Support.

4. Question- PWS Para 3.6.1: Advanced Computer Systems Support states that:

“The contractor shall provide advanced computer systems support for TADSS.”

Does this include all contractor computers (on the .mil), such as the program manager, CLS personnel, software engineers, etc?

Response: Contractor personnel computer systems are NOT part of Advanced Computer Systems Support.

5. Question- PWS paragraph 3.6.6 Distributed Operations states: “The contractor shall provide Distributed Operations support, when directed by the PCO or COR, to 160th SOAR(A) and USSOCOM operations external to the facilities”.

Does the 160 SOAR have a persistent DMO presence? Or is it only for exercises?

Response: The 160th SOAR(A) has a persistent Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) capability. Individual exercises are coordinated directly with the Contracting Officer (PCO) or Contracting Officer Representive (COR) as per Performance Worl Statement (PWS) Distributed Operations 3.6.6.

6. Question-PWS paragraph 3.6.6 Distributed Operations states:

“The contractor shall provide Distributed Operations support, when directed by the PCO or COR, to 160th SOAR(A) and USSOCOM operations external to the facilities”.

Approximately how many DMO exercises does the 160 SOAR do in a year?

Response: There were approximately twenty-four (24) exercises last calendar year.

The DMO is a persistent capability, and individual exercises are coordinated through the PCO or COR as per Distributed Operations PWS 3.6.6.

7. Question- PWS paragraph 3.7 Modification or Upgrade Installation states: “The contractor shall install all approved modifications and upgrade kits as a part of the normal maintenance and engineering efforts of this contract”.

This statement is open ended! Since these modifications will be on top of the contractor engineers’ normal upkeep and maintenance duties (such as projector alignments, minor software corrections, database corrections, etc.), will there be a proposed timeframe/cost threshold for these modifications? If not, this statement includes minor and major modifications without using the ECP process, basically out-of-hide. Para “3.7.2 Minor Modification Support” talks to Minor mods, but paragraph 3.7 seems to trump that, and is open ended.

Response: Paragraph 3.7, Modification or Upgrade Installation of the PWS states: “For efforts above and beyond normal maintenance and support functions a work order shall be initiated to define the modification effort.” There is no set threshold or cost/timeframe.

Major modifications are conducted by a third party with support of SOFTEAMS contractors described in 3.7.1, and minor modification are conducted as described in

3.7.2 using a ROM and/or ECP with the work order request.

8. Question- PWS paragraph 3.7 Modification or Upgrade Installation states: “The contractor shall install all approved modifications and upgrade kits as a part of the normal maintenance and engineering efforts of this contract”.

Will the contractor be responsible for contracting out ECPs, modifications, etc.? Some of the time? All of the time?

Response: Yes, the contractor will be responsible for contracting out approved modifications or upgrades if the work exceeds the capability of the contractor or requires additional hardware. It’s the Contractor discretion to make the determination when to contract out the work.

9. Question- PWS paragraph 6.1.1 DTT/CAPT Purpose Description state:

“The CAAS DTT is a software based tool intended for classroom training and integration into the 160th SOAR(A) designated mission planners via CD or DVD.”

We are unsure what this means. Does it mean that the DTT is an application that gets loaded into the Mission Planning computers and can it work on a plain desktop computer?

Response: Yes, the Desktop Top Trainer (DTT) is an application that can be installed on the Mission Panning Computers. The Mission Planning Computers are commercial Off the Shelf laptops. The DTT will not be installed on desktop computers.

10. Question- What type of TADSS system is (or will be) located at Ft Lewis WA?

Response: Per revised PWS paragraph 3.5.1.3 contractor shall assume one MH47 or MH60 CMS as described in Appendix A 6.5 or Appendix A 6.6 may be located at Ft.

Lewis, WA.

11. Question- What type of TADSS system is (or will be) located at Hunter AAF?

Response: Per revised PWS paragraph 3.5.1.3 contractor shall assume one MH47 or MH60 CMS as described in Appendix A 6.5 or Appendix A 6.6 may be located at Hunter Army Airfield (HAAF).

12. Question- Which TADSS systems currently have Cybersecurity ATOs?

Response: The contractor shall be responsible to maintain all Authority To Operate (ATO)s as described in paragraph 3.1.9.3. All TADSS described in Appendix A will have an ATO at contract award.

13. Question- Do the SANs and/or infrastructure have their Cybersecurity ATOs?

Response: The contractor shall be responsible to maintain all ATOs as described in paragraph 3.1.9.3. All TADSS described in Appendix A will have an ATO at contract award.

14. Question- Attachment A8 Key Personnel list four separate Key Personnel Descriptions.

We do not see a requirement as to how many of these key personnel resumes are required. Is it one resume (with letter of commitment) for each of the four descriptions?

Response: The Evaluation Factor for Key Personnel is removed, refer to revised evaluation Factors in Section L and M, of the solicitation.

15. Question- DRFP, pages 2 – 46 all Cost Item Numbers: Will the Government be providing a common number/cost for the Cost Item Numbers, or does the government want the contractor to come up the number/cost?

Response: Yes, Attachment 7- Cost Price Worksheet, is revised to reflect the COST

CLINS.

16. Question- Reference: M.1.2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS AND ORDER OF IMPORTANCE RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposal based on the following evaluation areas (presented in their relative order of importance): Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3 Factor 1 (Program Management) is divided into three

(3) subfactors. Subfactor 1.1 [KEY PERSONNEL] is more important than Subfactor 1.2.

Subfactor 1.1 is also more important than 1.3. Subfactors 1.2 and 1.3 are equal in importance. Each subfactor will be assessed and given a Combined Technical/Risk Rating (see M.5.1) based upon strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies as those terms are defined in Section M 6.0. An overall Combined Technical/Risk Rating will be assigned to this factor by combining the ratings of subfactors 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in accordance with the relative order of importance.

Factor 2 (Technical, Operational, and Configuration Management) is divided into three

(3) subfactors. Subfactors 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 are equal in importance. Each subfactor will be assessed and given a Combined Technical/Risk Rating (see M.5.1) based upon strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies as those terms are defined in Section M6.0. An overall Combined Technical/Risk Rating will be assigned to this factor by combining the ratings of subfactors 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 in accordance with the relative order of importance. An evaluation rating of “Marginal” for any evaluation Subfactor will cause the entire evaluation factor to be evaluated as "Marginal.”

The order of precedence for factors/subfactors IAW the Evaluation Factors For Award state that Subfactor 1.1 Key Personnel is more important than either 1.2 or 1.3 and that Factor 1 is more important Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important than 3. This makes the Key Personnel subfactor the MOST important subfactor of all, while requiring resumes and letters of commitment.

Response: Refer to the revised solicitation, Section, under M.1.2 EVALUATION

FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS AND ORDER OF IMPORTANCE.

17. Question- Will the Government consider removing the Evaluation Factor for Award adjectival rating for the qualification statements (resumes) and letters of commitment to ensure fair competition and a robust competitive field?

Response: Refer to the revised Evaluation Factors in the solicitation under Sections L&M.

18. Question- Section L.4.1: Can the Government clarify “Recent and Relevant” Experience?

Response: Refer to the revised solicitation, Section L under L.4.1 SUBFACTOR 1.1, ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE.

19. Question- Section L.4.1: Is the Government asking for offerors who have recent experience working on like / similar contracts, or requesting the experience of the incumbent?

Response: The Government is asking for a description of the Offeror’s Organization Structure for use in the evaluation as described in L.4.1 Subfactor 1.1, Organizational Structure.

20. Question- Section L.4.3 : Can the Offeror assume that if the Outstation Option is exercised, Will the expectation be for them to be used, maintained, and housed in the same manner and resources provided as they are at FT Campbell, KY?

Response: Per the revised solicitation, this Section is updated to L.4.2, Subfactor 1.2, and Execution Approach. Yes, if the Outstation Option is exercised the TADSS will be used, maintained, and housed in the same manner and with the same resources that exist at Fort Campbell.

21. Question- Section L.5.1: Please provide detail on the TADSS (type of motion, what type of DTT’s, CGF, SAF, Visual system formats, what type of gaming, etc…)

Response: See PWS, Appendix A…