SCEC_Q&A_for_Draft_Solicitation.pdf

Questions in Response for Solicitation #: W909MY-17-J-R002, pOTA SCEC

1. How many other OTAs does CERDEC sponsor or hold with other consortiums? What

Technology Objectives are addressed by the OTA(s)? How long has the agreement(s) been in place and what is the expiration date?

Answer: This will be the first Consortium pOTA sponsored by CERDEC.

2. What amount of funding have been obligated through the OTA(s) to date?

Answer: This will be the first consortium pOTA sponsored by CERDEC.

3. Currently, what OTA(s) does the ACC-APG, Belvoir support?

Answer: This will be the first Consortium pOTA supported by ACC-APG Belvoir.

4. Which agencies (or components) are sponsors ( or stakeholders) in OTA(s) which ACC-APG supports?

Answer: This will be the first Consortium OTA supported by ACC-APG Belvoir.

5. What funding levels (by year) have been processed through the OTA(s)?

Answer: This will be the first Consortium OTA supported by ACC-APG Belvoir.

6. Does ACC-APG have experience with supporting funds committed and obligated from other

Government agencies, such as Department of Transportation or Department of Energy?

Answer: Yes

7. Is the consortium model an absolute requirement, or can an alternative organizational model be offered?

Answer: A consortium business model is required, but the specific organizational structure of the consortium should be clearly identified in an Offeror’s proposal.

8. Is it required to establish an independent consortium, or can an expansion of a current consortium be considered?

Answer: Existing Consortiums are not eliminated. If an existing consortium is proposed, the

Offeror should indicate how this approach will meet the Government’s requirement as outlined in the solicitation. However, market research has indicated that no currently existing consortium addressing the highly specialized requirements of the US Army Communications-Electronics

Research, Development and Engineering Center and its partners appears to already exists.

CERDEC, as the Army’s principal applied research, advanced technology development and engineering center, is charged to develop and integrate Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C5ISR), target acquisition, C4ISR counter measures/counter counter-measures and countermine/counter IED technologies that enable information and cyber dominance and decisive lethality for the networked

Warfighter. The C5ISR technologies required by our Soldiers and the need for protections of these technology to ensure that the combat overmatch of U.S. Soldiers is maintained is unique.

9. How are the Technology Objective areas different from already established consortium?

Answer: See response to question 8.

10. What process and criteria does ACC-APG plan to utilize to determine the appropriate direction of projects to SCEC or to other OTAs/consortia?

Answer: Working with the Army’s established technical leads for C5ISR technologies within the

CERDEC, the ACC APG will review each project on a case-by-case basis to determine if projects are appropriate for execution within SCEC. In its role as the Army lead for the research and development of C5ISR technologies, CERDEC is optimally equipped within the whole of

DoD to support these activities. CERDEC’s leadership in this technology space is unquestioned within the DoD and the Army and is manifest by their governance/engagement in multiple

C5ISR forums to include the DoD Sensors Community of Interest (COI), the DoD Cyber COI, the DoD Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence COI, the Military

Sensing Symposiums and others. CERDEC offers this expertise to the DATC and other interested parties as the Army’s C5ISR experts.

11. How does ACC-APG plan to address potential and/or perceived misdirection of projects due to overlaps in the Technology Objective areas with another OTA(s)/consortium?

Answer: No potential and/or perceived misdirection of projects is anticipated. The mission of the SCEC is consistent with the congressionally mandated and DoD/Army established missions of CERDEC and its C5ISR partners.

12. Is there a specific location required for the office the Consortium will establish?

Answer: No, a specific office location is not required.

13. Is there a size requirement to prime this? This also seems that it could easily be considered for a small business set aside? Is it? Should it be?

Answer: This requirement is not set aside for small business. However, as noted in “Part 2-

Eligibility,” if an Offeror does not meet the definition of a small business or non-traditional contractor, they will be required to submit a one third cost share of pOTA costs. This is consistent with the Section 815 of the 2016 NDAA 2016, as amended, codified in 10 USC 2371b which provides for the authority of the military departments to perform pOTA awards.

14. Are there slides available from the industry day?

Answer: Any vendor which would like to receive a copy of the industry day material can request this material directly from the POCs on this announcement.

15. Is there a listing of participants from the Industry day that can be used to determine possible teaming?

Answer: The list of individuals that attended industry day is available on FBO.gov under the special notice number W909MY-17-R-J002.

16. Given that much of the consortium operations in the draft solicitation is dependent on the requirements identified in the pOTA (currently not available), does the Government anticipate an additional round of comments when that becomes available?

Answer: Yes, there will be opportunities for Questions and Answers throughout the solicitation process. However, the pOTA document is only draft and it is the Government’s expectation that

Offerors may propose changes to the document.

17. In Para 4.0, it is stated that the “SCEC (Sensors, Communications and Electronics

Consortium) must be operated exclusively to support the Technology Objectives described in the pOTA…” Can an existing consortium management entity that currently operates and manages

Other Transaction Authority consortia establish and operate a separate SCEC division within its corporate structure, wholly and exclusively dedicated to supporting the Technology Objectives of the pOTA, or does the SCEC need to be a fully incorporated, stand-alone, autonomous entity?

Answer: The Offeror is responsible for proposing their best approach.

18. Will the Government be open to proposals containing alternative approaches to the consortium structure, business model, management and operations?

Answer: Each Offeror is invited to propose a unique solution to the Government’s requirements.

However, any proposal should indicate how the approach will best meet the Government’s requirement as outlined in the solicitation.

19. Para 1.2 states that “the pOTA Awardee will not be eligible to participate in the Prototype

Project Awards (PPAs)... as the pOTA awardee will be responsible for conducting PPA competitive process. The limitation is placed in order to reduce conflict of interest issues and is included in the interest of competitive fairness.” Does this also apply to members of any governing, advisory or oversight body of the Consortium?

Answer: No

20. Does this mean that the Consortium is responsible for evaluating White Papers and participating in the selection process?

Answer: The Consortium will be responsible for requesting and evaluating White Papers and capabilities; submitting the White Papers and proposals to the Government; and negotiating and awarding subawards to Consortium Members in support of Prototype Project Awards. The

Government will solely be responsible for selection of Prototype Project Awards.

21. Para 5.3.2 requires the Offeror to submit a Consortium Membership Agreement (CMA) that mirrors the pOTA. Is the Government open to alternative member agreements?

Answer: Each Offeror is invited to propose a unique solution for a member agreement to address the Government’s requirements as outlined in the solicitation.

22. Para 6.3.1 states that “the Government will evaluate proposals for the following: Ability to sustain management, cost, schedule and performance oversight, and control of performance of the pOTA.” Under this pOTA, would the Awardee be responsible for the technical oversight and control of member execution of the PPAs, and therefore assume the liability for their performance?

Answer: The Awardee will be responsible for the management of Consortium Members. The

Awardee will be responsible for cost control, schedule, and performance as a result of their management of the Members.

23. Para 6.3.1 also requires “management of Consortium Intellectual Property,” and Para 6.3.2 requires the Offeror to have experience in “product licensure.” Does the Government envision the pOTA Consortium to own any Intellectual Property?

Answer: The ownership of the IP, whether it belongs to the Consortium or an individual

Consortium Member, will be addressed in the individual PPAs. Additionally, Consortium

Members shall have the option to file a patent. Regardless, all Intellectual Property generated by the Consortium or Consortium Member while performing under this Agreement or subsequent

PPAs will be provided to the Government with Government Purpose Rights. Government

Purpose Rights does not include commercial applications.

24. The Solicitation requests a six-month financial plan for creation/set-up of SCEC and a sustainability plan for Years 3-10. Would an alternative plan/approach to financial operations be acceptable in the prospective proposal?

Answer: An alternative plan/approach would be acceptable as long as it establishes plans for creation/set-up within six months and self-sustainment without Government assistance after the first two years.

25. Para 5.2.2 requires “…Offeror’s approach to Consortium operations during years 3-10 will be fully self-sufficient, sustainable without federal funds for Consortium operations.” What does

“without federal funds” mean? Does this mean that the Government will not pay a consortium management fee to the Awardee after the first two years?

Answer: “Without federal funds” is referring to appropriated funds for Consortium Management.

This reference is not referring to project awards. The expectation is that the Government will fund Consortium operations for years 1 and 2.

26. Please clarify the role the Government envisions the Venture Capital community playing with respect to SCEC’s creation and operations? Again, may the Offeror propose an alternative approach?

Answer: The Government has no position on the participation of the venture capital community with respect to SCEC’s creation and operations. Each Offeror is invited to propose a unique solutions to the Government’s requirements. Offerors submitting proposals inconsistent with the Government’s final request for proposal may not be considered for award.

27. Para 4.2.3 requests that the Financial Plan address …“how operating funds will be generated, and a plan to finance the cash flow required for prompt payment of a Consortium Member’s reimbursable prototype project costs while awaiting payment by the Government…” To clarify, does this mean that payment must be made by the Awardee to a Consortium Member performing under a PPA prior to receipt of a milestone payment from the Government?

Answer: It is the responsibility of the Awardee to pay Consortium Members consistent with the

Prompt Payment Act. The Government acknowledges that delays are possible when submitting invoices to the Government. We also recognize the need for small businesses and nontraditional defense contractors to receive payment quickly.

28. Does the 40-page limit exclude appendix items other than those of key personnel?

Answer: No, all other appendix items are included in the 40-page limit.