A13_Industry_Quest_Answer.pdf

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

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 paragraphs 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6.

22. Question- Section L.5.2: Is DMS/MS an existing capability, or is this a new requirement that the Government would like added to current contract?

Response: The Diminishing Manufacturing Sources/ Material Shortages (DMS/MS) is an existing capability is included in this solicitation.

23. Question- Section L.5.2: Is the requirement “To provide effective system level hardware and software maintenance” for the TADSS including Simulators, or is it geared more towards Role Player stations, software licenses, and the MRET’s?

Response: The requirement for "effective system level hardware and software maintenance" includes simulators, Role Player stations, software licenses, and the Mission Rehearsal Exercise Training System (MRETS).

24. Question- M.2.1 Subfactor 1.1, Key Personnel:The Government will evaluate qualification statements (resumes) and Letters of Commitment of the key personnel (listed in Key Personnel Attachment) in terms of duties, experience, education, certifications, and security clearances. The Government will evaluate the experience level and ability of the Offeror’s key personnel to adapt and respond to the meet the demanding requirements of Special Operation Forces Aviation TADSS. The Government will evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the Offeror’s approach to manage and maintain the key personnel.

We understand the Government’s need to ensure effective management of key personnel. However, incumbent contractors can provide obstacles to competitors in obtaining Letters of Commitment from current key personnel on a contract through employee non-compete agreements and other various forms of direction to employees affecting their current and future employment. If competitors’ opportunity to obtain Letters of Commitment from current employees is affected in this way, competitors would be unfairly challenged in evaluation for this factor. The incumbent would have a strong competitive advantage if only the incumbent is allowed to offer the currently qualified key personnel in place on the contract. In addition, the Government’s present requirement for resumes and letters of commitment ensures the current key personnel will be bound only to the incumbent and a successful offeror will be required to replace all of them resulting in unnecessary turnover, turbulence, and risk to the program.

Some companies may elect to not submit a proposal due to the current key personnel resume and letters of intent requirements. The Government can ensure effective management of key personnel by requiring Government approval of all key personnel and qualification statements after the evaluation of proposals during the contract award process.

Response: This Evaluation Factor is removed, refer to the updated solicitation Evaluation Factors under (Sections L&M).

25. Question- M.2.1 Subfactor 1.1, Key Personnel: Will the Government consider removing the requirement for qualification statements (resumes) and letters of commitment to ensure fair competition and a robust competitive field?

Response: This Evaluation Factor removed, refer to the updated solicitation Evaluation Factors under (Sections L&M).

26. Question- Q10 M.4.0 Factor 3 COST/PRICE: M.4.1 The Government’s analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is the summation of:

1) All Firm-Fixed Priced CLINs for Base Period and all Option Periods,

2) All Cost type CLINs for the Base Period and all Option Periods, plus or minus any adjustments to Cost reimbursable (Cost and CPFF) CLINs for probable cost identified during the Cost Realism Analysis, and for development of FFP and in particular the Cost CLINs and to avoid adjustments to probable cost as describe above, it would be necessary to review and analyze CDRL data for the last 5 years. Could you please provide five years of CDRL data for as a minimum the following CDRLs from the old contract. If the numbers were different under the old contract please provide the applicable CDRL number based on the Title below.

A001 Contractor Progress, Status and Mgt. Report

A002 Physical Inventories Report

A004 Contractor Operation Maintenance and Logistics Report

A008 Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs)

A015 Scientific and Technical Reports

Response: The Government will not provide five years of Contracts Data Requirements List (CDRL) data.

27. Question- Item No: CLIN 0010, Pg 6 : The Weekend Maintenance/Engineering support CLIN is FFP. Will the Government be providing Historical data that shows the number of hours spent providing Weekend Maintenance/Engineering Support? Most bidders do not have enough relevant information to cost this.

Response: The PWS paragraph 3.5.1.5 states 8 hours of support on weekends. The Weekend Support Time (WST) is a scaled down support of PWS paragraph 3.5.1.2 that has full support of management, logistics, engineering, and technicians. Paragraph

3.5.1.5 further states: " Periodically, as required by the government, engineering, advanced computer systems support and/or networking support will be required during WST." This additional support points back to PWS paragraph 3.5.7 Overtime/Surge.

28. Question- A1-PWS SECTION 3.5.1.2 Page 32 : Is LASAR CTT nine hours? 0800-

Response: PWS paragraph 3.5.1.2 Contracted Training Time – Ft. Campbell, KY, has been revised to read "A/MH-6M CMS CTT is nine (9) hours per day (0800-1700), five

(5) days per week M-F (NOTE: The LASAR CMS has four, 2 hours training periods (8 hours) with 15 minutes (x3) between training periods for crew change out).

29. Question- Will the ATO/RMF be finished on the simulators before contracted award?

Response: The ATO/RMF is projected to be finished prior to contract award. PWS paragraph 3.1.9.3 Authority To Operate (ATO), describes the requirement to maintain the ATO.

30. Question- Will Wage Determination (WD) be part of Final RFP to incorporate SCA-protected employees that are currently under a Collective Bargaining Agreement

(CBA?)

Response: Yes, the Wage Determinations (WD) is Attachment 10, to this solicitation, to incorporate SCA-protected employees that are currently under Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

31. Question- SECTION B: CLINs (0020, 1019, 2019, 3019 and 4019) in the RFP Section B (W900KK-18-R-033_SOF_TEAMS_III-DRAFT_0330218.pdf) have “(2-mo)” in their titles, i.e. “CLIN 0020 Contract Phase-Out (2-mo)”, but the Period of Performance (PoP) for the CLINs is listed as 12 months.

Response: The CLINs that show a Period of Performance of 12 months (CLINs: 0020, 1019, 2019, 3019 and 4019) in the RFP Section B, that show “(2-mo)” in their titles, i.e.

“CLIN 0020 Contract Phase-Out (2-mo)”, will reflect a 2-month in lieu of 12-months in Section F of the RFP.

32. Question- SECTION B, Attachment A7 : The TEP spreadsheet (A7_COST_PRICE_WORKBOOK.xlsx) has CLINs 0021, 1020 and 1021 that are not identified in the RFP Section B.

Response: Attachment 7- Cost Price Worksheet.xlsx has CLINs 0021, 1020 and 1021 that are not identified in the RFP Section B. CLINs 0021, 1020 and 1021 have been removed from Attachment 7- Cost Price Worksheet.

33. Question- Attachment A7 : The TEP Spreadsheet (A7_COST_PRICE_WORKBOOK.xlsx) does not include pricing for the 6-month option to extend services.

Response: The TEP Spreadsheet Attachment 7- Cost Price Worksheet is updated to include pricing for the 6-month option to extend services. Section L.6.2.1, provides further guidance regarding pricing the 6-month option to extend services.

34. Question- Attachment A4 : Attachment 4 – STIII TADSS is referenced as A4, but the title and header of the file is “Attachment 6.”

Response: The Attachment 4 is revised.

35. Question- Attachment A6 – STIII Key Personnel is referenced as A6, but the title of the file is “Attachment 8.”

Response: The Key Personnel attachment is removed to reflect the updated evaluation Factors in section L &M.

36. Question- Do the CMS' need to be maintained to a Qualification Performance Standard such as FAA 14 CFR Part 60 Level C/D? What about the other TADSS?

Response: The PWS paragraph 3.5.1, Contractor Performance Factor (CPF) states “The contractor shall meet or exceed the CPF rate of 95% calculated for each CMS, UMS, MRETS and MROC“.

37. Question- Site Visit : What are the current cyber categorizations for each device?

(confidentiality, integrity, availability)?

Response: Cyber categorizations for each device are currently undefined, the PWS paragraph 3.1.9.3, Authority To Operate (ATO), describes the requirements to maintain the ATO.

38. Question- Site Visit: Can accreditation boundary diagrams be provided?

Response: The accreditation boundary diagram are classified, the PWS paragraph 3.1.9.3, Authority To Operate (ATO), describes the requirements to maintain the ATO.

39. Question- Site Visit: Is there a discrepancy list available for the devices?

Response: Discrepancy list is tracked for each of the devices, but will not be provided as part of the RFP.

40. Question- Site Visit: What are the current hours of use for the projectors?

Response: CMS Hours: LASAR - 23,138, MH47-1 - 12,769, MH47-2 - 8,642, MH60-1 - 10,872, MH60-2 – New

41. Question- How old are the motion systems? When did they receive tech refresh?

Response:

Answer - [DEVICE - (AGE IN YEARS, TECH REFRESH DATE MM-YYYY)]

LASAR - 12, 05-2018

MH47-1 - 2, 03-2016

MH47-2 - 10, 04-2017

MH60-1 - 2, 10-2016

MH60-2 - 10, 05-2017

42. Question- How many personnel and what level/role will need to be filled? Skill levels required? (Technician 1,2, Operator, etc)

Response: The labor catergories are provided in Attachment 7, Cost/Price WorkBook

43. Question- What is the schedule for tech refresh on the MRETS, MROC, CAPT, DTTT and other devices that may face obsolescence near-term?

Response: Tech Refresh schedules will vary; all tech refresh efforts will be an Engineering Change Proposal (ECP), or conducted by a third party.

44. Question- When was the last tech refresh for these devices?

Response: CAPT and DTT are under tech refresh by third party with late 2019 delivery. The MRETS and MROC have undergone a limited tech refresh in the past 24 months.

45. Question- Does the government or incumbent have data rights for all proprietary software and will this convey with contract award?

Response: Data rights vary based on the software configuration item. All existing data rights will be conveyed with contract award.

46 Question- The Engineering Support Contractor Performance Factor is required to be at 90%, is this standard currently being met by the incumbent?

Response: Yes, the incumbent is meeting the Engineering Support Contractor Performance Factor requirement.

47. Question- If the ESCPF has not been met by the incumbent, what are the major challenges that prevent achieving this goal?

Response: The Engineering Support Contractor Performance Factor (ESCPF) is being met.

48. Question- What additional training systems or upgrades to current systems are planned or anticipated during the period of performance?

Response: The Government anticpates additional training systems may be installed and upgrades may occur during the period of performance by a third party. Engineering Change Proposal (ECPs) will be used to cover additional systems and/or upgrades as required.

49. Question- What is the Period of Performance?

Response: This solictitation will result in the award of a single award of a “C” type contract with a five-year period of performance (base period of one year and four one year options).

50. Question- Is the spares inventory optimized based on historical system repairs and utilization?

Response: Yes, the current spares inventory has been optimized based on historical system repairs and utilization.

51. Question- We have heard that there may be a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with some of the personnel/positions on SOFTEAMS. If that is true, will we be able to get the positions, salary, and benefit data identified that refer to the CBA.

Response: A Collective Bargaining Agreement/Wage Determination is included as Attachment 14.

52. Question- Examples of sufficient supporting detail include: basis of labor rates, historical actuals, subcontract cost/price analysis, Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRA), the most recent actual average rate, budgets, forecasts, current collective bargaining agreements, number of trips and material descriptions and quantities.

Do current collective bargaining agreements exist on the contract? Will they be provided to bidders now?

Response: Yes, the Collective Bargaining Agreement currently exist on the contract and is included as Attachment 14.