Attachment_19_-_RETS_W9113M-15-R-0007_Industry_Questions_and_Government_Answers,_Rev_1.pdf

RTS Engineering and Technical Services (RETS) W9113M-15-R-0007

Industry Questions & Government Answers Rev 1, 9 August 2017

1. Question: RFP Section L Vol. V, Section 1 Part F. Since the Government no longer uses SEESOR as their QMS, will the Government provide exports out of the current QMS into the bidders library?

Answer: No. The USG does not consider the current QMS to be relevant to the RETS solicitation or resultant contract.

2. Question: RFP Attachment 13. The Government has provided a Government

Furnished Equipment (GFE) list per the excel file. Does this file represent all the GFP to be managed on the program or just the “Equipment”? If it is just the “Equipment” can the Government provide the material to be managed?

Answer: The GFE list is a complete list of non-incidental property planned to be transferred to the RETS Awardee during transition phase-in. The RETS awardee shall maintain property accountability and property IAW RETS PWS requirements.

Government Clarification Answer: In addition to GFE provided within Attachment 13 there also exists RTS GFM consisting of RTS Instrumentation and RTS facility specific consumable supplies. GFM (spare parts, raw materials, consumables) shall be maintained IAW FAR 52.245-1 as per RETS PWS Section 4.7 requirements. A list of RTS facility specific consumable supplies (not consumed by the end of the legacy contract) will be provided during the contract transition period. RFP Section L, Table L-10 provides “for proposal purposes only” estimates for GFM.

Note: Attachment 13 - RETS_GFE.xlsx supersedes the list provided in Section 1.0 of Attachment 10 - RTS_Technical_Facilities_Equipment_Manual.

3. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, 3.2.4.12. Will the Government provide information on the current configuration management software product utilized to manage the project's source-code?

Answer: No. The RETS offerors are to propose a configuration management approach and plan IAW PWS requirement 3.2.4.12.

4. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, 3.2.4.12. Are the project's ECPs currently stored in the RTS Technical Library in electronic form?

Answer: Yes. Current engineering change proposals (ECPs) are stored on the USG SharePoint (in electronic form).

5. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, 3.2.4.12.1. Is the current configuration identification process a completely electronic or completely manual (paper-driven) process? If it is somewhere in-between, what is the proportion of electronic to manual (paper-driven)?

Answer: Current configuration identification process is electronic.

6a. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, 3.2.4.12.4. Is the current configuration control board process for ECP dispositions an electronic or paper-driven process?

Answer: Current configuration control board process is electronic.

6b. Question: If it is an electronic process, what software product(s) are currently being used to support the ECP dispositions?

Answer: The RETS offerors are to propose a configuration management approach and plan IAW PWS requirement 3.2.4.12.

7a. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, 3.2.4.12.5. How many reference books, periodicals, technical manuals, vendor literature documents are stored in the current RTS Technical Library in paper form?

Answer: There is no hard copy technical library currently in existence and no requirement for the RETS contractor to maintain one.

7b. Question: These documents in paper form represent what proportion of the total documents in the current RTS Technical Library?

Answer: No percentage (0 %) of documents are in paper form in the current RTS Technical Library.

7c. Question: Will the documents in paper form be required to be maintained in current versions in multiple physical locations (i.e. Huntsville and Kwajalein)?

Answer: There is no hard copy technical library currently in existence and no requirement for the RETS contractor to maintain one.

8. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, 3.2.4.12.5. How is the electronic part of the current RTS Technical Library implemented? What software product(s) are currently being utilized to support the RTS Technical Library?

Answer: RETS awardee will maintain the RTS Technical Library on the U.S.

Government (USG) provided SharePoint. RETS contractor shall receive access to the RTS Technical Library upon contract transition phase-in.

9. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS. Under PWS section 3.2.2.6 the contractor shall conduct USAV Worthy maintenance in support of RTS Standard Technical Services (STS) IAW AR 750-1, American Bureau of Shipping, 46 CFR 4169, and International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea to maintain the load-line documentation in a current, ATP 4-15, and AR 56-9.

Are the current maintenance records, reports and dry-dock schedule available to review and assess for staffing/planning requirements?

Answer: The preventative maintenance (PM) worksheet for the U.S. Army Vessel (USAV) Worthy will be added to the Offeror's Library. The number of "Man Hrs" provided on the worksheet are estimated hours from the current Government System. The last Worthy drydock was completed July 2015.

RFP Section L.3, Volume VI Maintenance Approach has been revised to include the following language: “For proposal purposes only: Offerors shall assume the USAV Worthy will have just completed the next rotation of its drydock under the current contract by the time the RETS contract phase-in has been completed. All maintenance records will be provided to the awardee during the transition phase-in.”

10. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, 3.2.2.6. When the USAV Worthy is in a scheduled or emergency repair situation who is responsible for finding a replacement vessel to support missions?

Answer: The USG is responsible for finding a replacement vessel to support missions.

11. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, 3.2.2.6. There are a number of other vessels that will be supported under the BOS contract, but the USAV Worthy has been singled out for support under RETS contract. There are synergies and cost reductions possible with having all the maritime functions under one contract.

Would the customer consider removing the maintenance and ship’s operation from the RETS contract, but leave the Range Safety Systems Operations for mission support activities?

Answer: No changes will be made to the RFP in regards to this question.

12. Question: RFP Section L Vol. VI Section 10. Are composite rates that are requested for TMS CLINs also required for subcontractor sealed proposals?

Answer: No, subcontractors are not required to provide individual subcontractor composite rates. As specified in Section L, Vol. VI Cost/Price Proposal, c. Cost Proposal Format/Content, Section 10 Composite Rates instructions refers to the Prime Offeror only. Subcontract costs proposed for a TMS CLIN are included in the Prime’s calculation of the CLIN composite rate. Subcontractors are required to submit proposed rates in accordance with Section L Vol. VI - Cost/Proposal instructions.

13. Question: RFP Section L Vol. VI Section 11. If an offeror is proposing an ODC that is part of an innovative solution approach can it assume that it is included in the cost reimbursable plug numbers provided in the solicitation? If not where should this cost be provided?

Answer: USG provided “plug numbers” do not include innovative solutions. If based on an innovative approach, an offeror proposes ODC that differs from the USG provided “plug number” then the offeror should provide a detailed explanation of the innovative approach and rational for the proposed cost in proposal volumes and BOEs IAW RFP Section L.

14. Question: RFP Section L.3 Vol. III and Section J. The RETS Sample Technical Directive (Attachment 15) is marked FOUO as well as the DD Form 254 (Attachment 12).

Should Industry consider our responses as FOUO and if so, how would the Government like the documents/CD ROM to be marked or separated from non- FOUO documents?

Answer: Technical Directive response should be marked FOUO as it is a response to a FOUO document. Follow DD 254 and Solicitation Section L instructions for proposal submission and markings. Separation of FOUO is not required but the CD/DVD is required to be appropriately marked. See L.3.b.(3)(a) "The offeror shall apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e) "Restriction on disclosure and use of data," and FAR 3.104-4 "Disclosure, Protection, And Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information."

15. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, Attachment 13 and USG Answers to Draft RFP

Questions Set 4. PWS 3.2.2.5 requires the contractor to maintain all range safety systems and the KMRSS Worthy while PWS 3.2.2.6 requires the contractor to maintain the USAV Worthy IAW various regulations and standards.

Set 4, Question 3 of the Draft RFP asked if the USG would provide a complete detailed GFM for the Worthy. In response, the USG provided the Supplemental Tab of Final RFP Attachment 13-GFE. In review of the Tab's listing of 600+ line items, we do not locate any of the telemetry or optics devices to be maintained, nor do we see any specifics of the ship's specifications (propellers, engines, steering mechanisms, etc.). Without the complete listings, it is difficult to schedule maintenance activities and price those activities.

Will the Government provide a complete listing of the GFM/GFE for the Worthy?

Answer: USAV Worthy (vessel) is a single property end-item. The list of associated vessel equipment has been provided as part of the RETS GFE list (RETS Solicitation RFP Attachment 13). A majority of Worthy vessel component items are included under the single nomenclature item: "Ship, USAV (Worthy)".

16. Question: RFP Section A.3.B and Section L Vol. VI, b.(1). Contract award is projected for first quarter of FY2018. The Cost Volume indicates an award date of 16 Jan. 2018.

On what date shall the Offeror plan as the contract award date?

Answer: See FedBizOpps (FBO) RETS RFP Amendment one. The assumed contract award date was changed from 16 January 2018 to 1 June 2018.

17. Question: RFP Section H.18.i.(1). RFP requires Associate Contractor Agreements

(ACA) be established with certain other contractors when joint participation is required. A list of companies is provided with POC except for the Kwajalein Base Operations provider.

Will the Government provide information on when and how this information will be provided and how the Base Operations contract will be competed with award date, etc. This information is essential in solutions approach, as well as establishing ACA.

Answer: The Garrison Base Operation Support/Logistics services contract award is pending.

18. Question: RFP Section H.2. US employees employed under the RETS contract will be responsible for the 5% income tax under the laws of the RMI.

Is this considered a Labor Charge or an ODC to the contract?

Answer: Per FAR 31.205-6(e) allowable income tax differential is compensation.

19. Question: RFP Section L. L.3, Section 2 states, “For offerors proposing under a formal or informal joint-venture agreement, or other formal teaming arrangement, provide a copy of the fully executed agreement to include signatures of all parties.”

Can the copy of the agreement be included as an attachment to Volume I and be excluded from the page count?

Answer: Yes, submission of joint-venture agreement as an attachment to proposal Volume I is acceptable and the agreement pages are excluded from the page count.

Section L.3 Vol. I - General Information; Section 2 - Executive Summary request "offerors proposing under a formal or informal joint-venture agreement, or other formal teaming arrangement, provide a copy of the fully executed agreement to include signatures of all parties".

20. Question: RFP Attachment 18. Two WD Wage Determinations were provided in the RFP; WD 15-5693 (Rev.-2) 3/28/17 an Odd WD for Guam, Northern Marianas, Wake Island and WD 15-4604 (Rev.-3) 3/28/17 an Even WD for Alabama Counties of Limestone, Madison. In our opinion, the WD’s should be consistent for determining Health & Welfare contributions. Therefore we are requesting the WD 15-4604 (Rev.-3) 3/28/17 an Even WD for Alabama Counties of Limestone, Madison be changed to WD 15-4603 (Rev.-2) 1/3/17 an Odd WD for the same location.

Answer: See RFP Amendment 2, revised Attachment 18. The Wage Determinations (WD) for Guam, North Marianas, and Wake Island is not applicable to the requirement and has been removed. Furthermore, the WD for Alabama Counties of Limestone, Madison have been changed from even WD number 2015- 4604 to an odd WD number 2015-4603.

21. Question: RFP Section I. Contract clause 52.222-43 Fair Labor Standards Act and

Service Contract Labor Standards - Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) is not included in the solicitation.

Will offerors be allowed to seek equitable adjustments for Wage Determination schedule increases in applicable salary and fringe benefits? Or does the Government intend for offerors to propose escalation on labor categories covered by Service Contract Labor Standards in their bids?”

Answer: FAR Clause 52.222-43 is not prescribed for CPFF or CPIF type contracts (Refer to FAR 22.1006(c)(1)). RFP Section L, Volume VI, Section 3(g) provides instructions on escalation.

22. Question: RFP Section H.5. In the USG RFI dated 4 Nov 2015, amended 2 March

2016 and the USG provided Draft RFP dated 19 April 2017, LB offerors were required to demonstrate commitment to meeting a 25% SB utilization goal with individual socio-economic goals for WOSB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB and HUB Zone businesses. However, the Final RFP removed the requirement for meeting socio-economic goals and now only requires the 25% SB overall goal.

Recommendation: Recommend the USG re-establish the individual socio-economic goals to demonstrate commitment to the SB community at large.

Answer: Due to the unique and remote nature of the majority of the RETS requirement, it was determined that the best course of action was to set an overall minimum Small Business Participation percentage without setting minimum percentages for each socioeconomic category. The minimum percentage of 25% of total contract value demonstrates a significant commitment to Small Businesses. No changes will be made to the RFP in regards to this question.

23. Question: RFP Section H.3. The solicitation states "(3) For all employees working outside the United States, the contractor shall comply with the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651 et. seq.) as required by Section I Contract Clause, FAR 52.228-3 titled “Workers’ Compensation, Insurance (Defense Base Act).”

Shall offerors assume this cost is included in the plug numbers provided for ODCs?

Answer: No, the cost of DBA Insurance is not included in the ODC “plug number”.

24. Question: RFP Section H.1.a. Will the government use any of the companies listed in H.1.a to evaluate subcontractor price proposals? If yes, should a subcontractor enter into an agreement with each of the companies listed and submit a copy of those agreements with the cost proposal?

Answer: No, Non-Government advisors will not have access to cost/price proposals.

25. Question: RFP Section H.3.b.(1); Section M.3.3.d.(6) and Attachment 18. Section

H provides guidance regarding Service Contract Labor (SCLS)-covered labor on Wake Island. Section J includes the Area Wage Determination (AWD) covering Wake Island. The evaluation criteria in M directs that SCLS pertains only to SCLS-covered labor in Huntsville.

If the requirement to use SCLS standards does not apply to Wake Island, Guam, North Marianas, will the Government consider removing them from Section H and Attachment 18, respectively?

Answer: See RFP Amendment 2, revised Attachment 18. The WD for Guam, North Marianas, and Wake Island is not applicable to the RFP and have been removed.

The evaluation criteria in Section M will not change. RFP Section H.3 b. (1) has been revised to delete "(including Wake Island and Guam)".

26. Question: RFP Section J and Attachment 18. Attachment 18 contains two AWDs covering Huntsville and Guam/Wake Island.

The AWD for Huntsville (15-4604) is an even-numbered AWD with a requirement to demonstrate the contractor is providing minimum Health & Welfare based on the average cost of all covered staffing. Additionally, Offerors must estimate H&W based on "all hours worked by the service employees".

The AWD for Guam/Wake Island (15-5693) is odd-numbered AWD with a requirement to demonstrate the contractor is providing minimum Health & Welfare based per employee.

Additionally, Offerors must estimate H&W based on per hour with a maximum of 40 hours per week, 173.3 hours per month.

Given the disparate requirements of the H&W reporting and the estimating of costs of the two types of AWDs, will the Government consider revising the RFP-provided AWDs to accommodate consistent H&W reporting requirements?

Answer: See RFP Amendment 2, revised Attachment 18. The WD for Guam, North Marianas, and Wake Island is not applicable to the RFP and have been removed.

Furthermore, the WD for Alabama Counties of Limestone, Madison have been changed from even WD number 2015-4604 to an odd WD number 2015-4603.

27. Question: RFP Section B and Section L.4.c.9. Section B "Units" for CLINs XX01 and XX05 are shown as hours.

Section L direction regarding CLIN pricing directs offeror to determine CLIN costs by estimating total estimated costs, in addition to CLIN directed fee type, "to arrive at each CLINs total proposed cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) or cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPAF), as applicable".

Please confirm that Offeror is to complete Section B with CLIN proposed totals and not based on "Unit", "Unit Price" and "Amounts" to establish proposed totals.

Answer: USG confirms that the Offeror is to complete Section B CLIN by identifying proposed estimated cost, fixed fee and total estimated cost or proposed target cost, target fee, minimum and maximum fee. The USG contract writing system does not allow the unit field to be removed. The question above refers to a “CPAF” CLIN; to be clear, RETS does not have any cost plus award fee (CPAF) CLINS.

28. Question: RFP Section L.2. Offeror’s may choose to use screen shots of IT or web-based tools as iconic examples, not intended to convey detailed information.

Please confirm the Government will accept such exhibits as iconic samples even though the text contained in these samples may not meet required font size for graphics?

Answer: See RFP Section L.2 Proposal Preparation Instructions, b. Format Requirements, (3) for instructions on font type and size.

29. Question: RFP Section L.1. Revisions between any early submissions and the final submission should be clearly identified.

Should changes be identified with a different color text and change bars?

Answer: Offeror's shall use its own discretion in clearly identifying any changes between any early submissions and final submission.

30. Question: RFP Section L, Vol. VI. Given the complexities associated with transition, including the logistics requirements, we recommend that the Government provide a plug number for offerors to use in pricing their transition. If the Government could provide this, it will level the playing field for costs and decrease incumbent advantage. Obviously, the incumbent’s transition costs will be less given that they already have an in-place, on island infrastructure. Depending on when the transition occurs, there will be a number of variables that can drive costs; therefore, providing a plug number prevents any cost gaming from across the bidders.

Providing a plug number for transition allows offerors and the Government evaluators to focus on the true discriminating costs among bidders over the life of the contract.

Will the Government provide a plug number for transition costs?

Answer: A “plug number” will not be provided.

31. Question: General. Over the life of a 10-year contract such as RETS, workforce recruitment/retention needs can vary greatly depending on the demographics of the incumbent workforce. For example, if the majority of the workforce will be at or near retirement age during the effort, recruitment efforts will be highly critical to ensure that you retain corporate knowledge over the life of the contract.

To help offerors have a better understanding of the specific recruitment needs, will the Government provide demographics for the incumbent workforce, including average age?

Answer: Workforce demographics for incumbent will not be provided.

32. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, 4.3.3 and Attachment 15. The Safety Manager educational requirements listed in the PWS requires a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering. However, the Labor Category table only requires the Safety Manager to have a Bachelor’s degree. We suggest that the Government revise the PWS to match the Labor Category educational requirements.

Will the Government update the PWS to just require a Bachelor’s degree?

Answer: The PWS is correct. RFP Amendment 2, Attachment 15 education requirement for RTS Safety Manager is revised to Bachelors degree in Engineering..

33. Question: RFP SF33. The proposal validity date is 60 days in the SF33 unless changed by the offeror. Given the recent amendment extending contract award date to June 2018, we recommend the Government provide a proposal validity date that is consistent with your schedule so that offerors’ proposals do not expire during the evaluation period.

Will the Government revise SF33 to reflect the actual proposal and contract award schedule?

Answer: RFP Amendment 2, Section L for revised proposal validity date.

34. Question: RFP Section L, Vol. VI. The final RFP does not provide adequate workload data for the STS portion of the workforce. In answers to questions, the Government has suggested that additional details would be provided in the final RFP. However, information to allow offerors to sufficiently develop a BOE for the STS work requirements is lacking. Without this information, the final RFP presents a strong incumbent advantage.

Will the Government provide additional STS workload indicators so that offerors can staff accordingly?

Answer: RETS Solicitation RFP Section L, Table L.6 (STS workload data) and 2 years of RTS instrumentation maintenance records have been provided to assist offerors in establishment of an STS BOE.

35. Question: RFP Section L Vol. II, Section 2 and Vol. V, Section 3. Part A –

Performance History Matrix: Provide the matrix of recent and relevant corporate experience that is submitted in Volume V, Section 3 of the offeror’s proposal for this solicitation.

Part B – Provide a matrix of the recent and relevant corporate experience of the offeror’s team.

Will the Government clarify what is to be included in the matrix for past performance if Corporate Experience is to provide contract data and narrative similarities between

RETS PWS and the cited programs’ PWS? Is the information to be duplicated in its entirety?

Answer: This is duplicate information. As stated in Section L for Volume II, Section 2, the matrix submitted in the past performance volume (Part A) shall be the same matrix provided in Volume V, Section 3 (Part B).

36a.Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS and Attachment 15. Neither the RFP nor PWS describe the security clearance requirements for personnel that will support the RETS contract. PWS 5.1.1.2 indicates “a sufficient number of personnel” must have a Secret clearance. Additionally, there is no mention of the need for Top Secret clearances (with and without SCI).

Similarly, the RETS Labor Category table does not indicate the security clearance required to perform the work described for each category.

This results in offerors, apart from the incumbent, having no insight into which systems and facilities require a Secret or greater clearance. This creates a significant challenge for offerors with respect to staffing solutions and recruiting planning.

Will the Government consider providing revisions to Attachment 15 to include minimum security clearance requirements for each category?

Answer: No. See RETS Solicitation DD254 for security clearance requirements.

Additionally, see solicitation Section L Table L.6 for security management workload data.

Note. Offeror is to determine sufficient workforce to execute requirements based on PWS requirements. However, for further clarification - IAW Solicitation Section L - Table L.6 approximately 15-20 RETS contractor personnel will be expected to have TS/SCI level clearances, the large majority of the remaining RETS workforce are expected to have SECRET clearances.

Solicitation DD 254 and Solicitation Section L Table L.6 provides Security Management workload data that should assist in offeror determination of workforce security clearance requirements.

36b.Question: Will the Government consider revising PWS 5.1.1.2 to include a table that summarizes the percentage of personnel with Secret, Top Secret, Top Secret/SCI, and no clearance currently performing work that will be under RETS?

Answer: No changes will be made to the RFP in regards to this question.

37a. Question: RFP Section H.3. The RFP requires first right of refusal for grandfathered local hires. These individuals would not have security clearances.

Because the RETS scope of work is being extracted from an existing RTS support contract, it is not clear what bearing this requirement has on RETS positions, which inhibits staffing and recruiting.

Will the Government identify the number of positions associated with the RETS PWS that are currently performed by local hires (RMI, FSM)?

Answer: First right of refusal for grandfathered employees applies to RMI grandfathered employees who meet the RETS labor category minimum requirements for a position. The USG estimates there are approximately 68 remaining grandfather RMI employees on the current contract, of which approximately 5-10 might qualify to perform RETS contract services work.

37b.Question: Will the Government consider identifying the labor categories associated with the RETS contract that are currently being filled by local hires (RMI, FSM)?

Answer: No, the labor categories will not be identified

38. Question: RFP Attachment 15. The job description for position 25, Engineer, Electrical / Electronics, Journeyman indicates this is a lead position. Other positions with similar inconsistencies are: 119-Plumber, Maintenance (Lead) and 121-Painter II (Lead).

Other positions with similar descriptions provide minimum years of experience.

The lack of this information inhibits accurate staffing and recruiting planning.

Will the Government consider revising Attachment 15 to include minimum years of experience for these lead positions?

Answer: No. When a government provided labor category does not include minimum experience levels, the offeror must propose its determination of the minimum experience offered to fulfill the requirement.

39. Question: RFP Attachment 15. Attachment 15 numbers the category # counts from

1 to 136. However, there are actually 143 categories. This creates a challenge for an offeror when referencing labor categories in proposal responses.

Will the Government consider revising Attachment 15 category # column to correct the numbering sequence?

Answer: RFP Amendment 2, Attachment 15 is updated to ensure that each labor category row is associated with a single labor category. NOTE: There are currently 137 RETS labor categories. If there are multiple functions described within a single labor category - this still constitutes a SINGLE labor category.

40a.Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, 3.1.1.6.7. The requirement states that “The contractor shall operate, maintain, and calibrate RTS systems and associated equipment at Wake Island and other locations within the RTS AOR outside Kwajalein Atoll as part of

RTS TMS.”

Is this a permanent duty station?

Answer: Wake Island is not a permanent duty station.

40b.Question: If so, how many personnel are stationed there?

Answer: Wake Island is not a permanent duty station.

40c.Question: What systems and associated equipment reside at Wake and other off atoll locations?

Answer: Infrastructure to support optics platforms are in place on Wake Island.

However, optics sensors are campaigned to Wake as needed. Wake island also contains meteorological support equipment (which is not the responsibly of the RETS contractor to maintain). No other locations outside of Kwajalein Atoll contain RTS instrumentation or support infrastructure. See RTS Instrumentation and Support Facilities Manual (ISFM) and RTS Technical Facilities Equipment Manual (TFEM) within the Offeror's Library.

41. Question: RFP Section H.5.d. Page 40, paragraph d states, “Failure of the contractor to achieve the small business participation commitments identified in this provision, to include failure to provide and/or implement corrective actions required by H.5.c, may be considered a material breach of contract.”

This language does not appear to be consistent with FAR 52.219-9 which requires the contractor to act in good faith. The material breach language only comes into play, if the contractor is not acting in good faith.

We propose the Government modify this language to, “Failure of the contractor to act in good faith to achieve the small business participation commitments identified in this provision, to include failure to provide and/or implement corrective actions required by H.5.c, may be considered a material breach of contract.”

Answer: FAR 52.219-9 describes the requirements for a Subcontracting Plan which is not part of the Source Selection evaluation. The referenced RFP language relates to a Small Business Participation Commitment Document which is part of Source Selection evaluation and not subject to the requirements of FAR 52.219-9. No changes will be made to the RFP in regards to this question.

42. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, 3.2.4.7. Perform all UXO operations IAW DoD

6055.09-M, DA PAM 385-64, AR 710-2, DA PAM 710-2-1, and AR 190-11. This work scope seems more appropriate to the BOS scope of work.

Will the Government consider removing this PWS requirement from the RFP?

Answer: No changes will be made to the RFP in regards to this question.

43. Question: RFP Section L Vol. III Section 1. “To further assist proposal preparation, the following table provides the Government’s estimated allocation of the total level-of-effort (labor hours) among the support activities associated with the TMS / I&M CLINS for the base TMS / I&M period and all TMS / I&M option periods, as well as the anticipated location of such support actives. This estimation is provided for INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES only. The actual allocation of labor categories and hours proposed (i.e., labor mix) is at the offeror’s discretion. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the proposed allocation is consistent with and feasible for executing the offeror’s planned approach for satisfying the TMS / I&M performance requirements of the PWS. If the offeror’s approach results in significant deviations (i.e., +/- 10%) from the allocations provided in Table L.4 below, supporting rationale for the deviations shall be provided in the offeror’s proposed BOE.”

If the offeror proposes deviations from the USG estimated percentage allocations in table L.4, in what format should the offeror provide a rationale for those deviations?

i.e., should table L.4 be used/modified to include the offeror’s rationale for those deviations? Or should the BOE narrative provide the corresponding rationale for those deviations?

Answer: If the offeror's planned approach results in significant deviations from Table L.4, the offeror shall provide its rationale in its BOE narrative for those deviations.

Furthermore, offeror shall provide its proposed allocation of labor categories and hours proposed (i.e., labor mix) in its BOE.

44. Question: RFP Section L, Table L.1. Exclusions from page limits: Volume III Test

Mission Capabilities | Section 1: Labor Resource Skill Mix applicable to Section 1 (level of effort BOE)”.

Please confirm that the offeror’s BOE response (inclusive of all narrative, tables, figures) to the response requirements in Volume III Section 1 is outside of page count.

Answer: Confirm. See RFP Section L.2, d. Exclusion To Page Limits, Volume III Test Mission Capabilities.

45.Question: RFP Section L, Table L.1. “Exclusions from page limits: Volume IV

Maintenance Approach | Labor Resource Skill Mix applicable to Section 1 (planned resources)”

Please confirm that the offeror’s response (inclusive of all narrative, tables, figures) to the response requirements in Volume IV Section 1 is outside of page count.

Answer: Confirmed. See RFP Section L.2, d. Exclusion To Page Limits, Volume IV Maintenance Approach.

46. Question: RFP Section L Vol. V, Section 1. It is not clear when the transition start date is relative to contract award.

In order to properly plan for transition, will the Government provide the transition start date as it relates to contract award.

Answer: Contract transition start and contract award date are the same for proposal purposes.

47a.Question: Set 4 of Government Responses to Draft RFP Industry Questions number 20. The Government indicated that offerors should refer to the final RFP for information regarding a “request for sponsorship letter”. The final RFP does not provide any information on this subject.

Will the Government provide details on the requirements for submittal of the request for sponsorship letter? Is it required to be submitted with the proposal?

Answer: The USG will notify an offeror when to begin the process by submitting a request for sponsorship letter. Initiation of the process, if required, will begin prior to contract award. Additional information will be provided before contract award. The length of the process is dependent upon each offerors particular situation.

47b.Question: Is it required to be submitted with the proposal?

Answer: No, the request for sponsorship letter is not required to be submitted with an offerors proposal.

48. Question: RFP Section L, Table L.1. “Exclusions from page limits: Volume V

Management Approach | Phase In and Phase Out BOE applicable to Section 1 (Transition Plan).

Please confirm that the offeror’s BOE response (inclusive of all narrative, tables, figures) to the response requirements in Volume V Section 1 is outside of page count.

Answer: Confirmed. See RFP Section L.2, d. Exclusion To Page Limits, Volume V Management Approach.

49a.Question: RFP Section L Vol. VI Section 10. “For TMS CLINs only, the offeror shall derive and identify applicable composite labor rates for each TMS LOE CLIN.

Separate composite rates shall be derived for each CLIN’s estimated cost (total CLIN direct and indirect labor costs divided by total CLIN labor hours), fixed fee (total CLIN fixed fee divided by total CLIN labor hours), and total CPFF (total CLIN CPFF divided by total labor hours). Offerors shall provide sufficient information for the Government to fully understand and verify how the proposed composite rates are calculated. The proposed composite rates will be utilized by the Government to establish estimated costs, fixed fee, and total CPFF for incremental option exercises as specified in Section H-4 of the solicitation.”

Considering the proposed composite rates will be used by the Government to establish estimated costs, fixed fee, and total CPFF for incremental option exercises as specified in Section H-4 of the solicitation, should we assume the option exercised in the out years will consist of the same skill mix as that proposed for the TMS CLINs?

Answer: Offerors should propose their best estimate of skill mix based on their approach to the PWS requirements and the information that has been provided in the RFP and Attachments. An offeror’s proposed skill mix is required to be supported by the offeror's BOE.

49b.Question: Hours to support the TMS CLINs have been allocated across the Prime

Offeror and subcontractors resulting in a TMS CLIN composite rate composed of multiple companies across multiple labor categories. A composite rate at the subcontractor level would not be useful for Government estimating. As such, is this requirement applicable to the Prime Offeror only?

Answer: As specified in Section L, Vol. VI - Cost/Price Proposal, c. Cost Proposal Format/Content, Section 10 Composite Rates instructions refers to the Prime Offeror only. Subcontractors are required to submit proposed rates in accordance with Section L Vol. VI - Cost/Proposal instructions.

50. Question: RFP Section L Vol. VI. The same level of detail and supporting data that is required for the prime Offeror cost/price proposals shall be submitted for all proposed subcontractors.

The Government limit the requirement when Subcontractors submit cost/price proposals at the Prime level of detail to when the Subcontract value is greater than five (5%) percent of Contract Value.

Answer: The Government considered the Offeror's recommendation. As stated in RFP Section L, Vol. - Cost/Price Proposal, a. General Instructions (7) The same level of detail and supporting data that is required for the prime offeror cost/price proposals shall be submitted for all proposed subcontractors. No changes will be made to the RFP in regards to this question.

51. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, 3.2.1.1.1. Specifically the sentence that reads

“168 sensor hours per week of space surveillance operations shall be performed by RTS 24/7 by a single RTS sensor (either ALTAIR or TRADEX).

PWS Paragraph 3.2.1.1.1 requires 204 hours per week of space surveillance operations when both ALTAIR and TRADEX are operational, and 168 hours per week when only one sensor is operational. Is it the Government’s intent that the remaining sensor operate continuously for up to 168 hours? Regarding weekend operations, it would be impossible to meet the 168 hour threshold without 24/7 operations of the one operational radar over the weekend. Is the 168 hour threshold met if one sensor is down only for part of the week and is able to meet mission requirements for the rest of the time?

Recommendation: Please clarify the PWS language governing sensor operations for ALTAIR and TRADEX.

Answer: Refer to RFP Amendment 2, Attachment 1, PWS section 3.2.1.1.1. The total number of Space Surveillance Sensor hours remains the same. PWS requirement revised to clarify).

52. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS, 3.1.1.6.7. There is limited information available on assets the RETS contractor is responsible for on Wake Island. For example, is the DSWR 77C weather radar part of the RETS scope? The IFSM contains information primarily on weather sensors. Note that the work order data has essentially no information about maintenance actions on Wake. For maintenance actions on Wake, will the BOS Contractor’s aviation department provide transportation, or are RETS personnel required to travel to Wake via Air Force sponsored flights?

Recommendation: Provide additional information on assets on Wake that the RETS contractor is responsible for, including work order history.

Answer: Infrastructure to support optics platforms are in place on Wake Island.

However, optics sensors are campaigned to Wake as needed. Wake island also contains meteorological support equipment (which is not the responsibility of the RETS contractor to maintain). No other locations outside of Kwajalein Atoll contain RTS instrumentation or support infrastructure. See RTS Instrumentation and Support Facilities Manual (ISFM) and RTS Technical Facilities Equipment Manual (TFEM) within the Offeror's Library for further details.

Transportation to and from Wake Island will be Government provided to the RETS contractor.

53. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS 3.2.2.7. PWS paragraph 3.2.2.7 and IFSM

Section 2.D.1 provide requirements and limited technical descriptions of the KMISS system, however the TFEM has no detailed information about KMISS, and Final RFP Attachment 13 (GFE listing) has no KMISS-specific information. Further, the work order data provided relates only to the KMISS as it existed prior to the major upgrade cycle that the system has just completed. We recognize that the upgraded KMISS has only recently been commissioned and has limited operational time since the upgrade was completed, thus there is no meaningful maintenance history available.

Can the government provide any planning assumptions WRT KMISS maintenance that were part of the ECP planning and approval process?

Recommendation: Provide Government planning assumptions for KMISS maintenance.

Answer: KMISS Operations and Maintenance Manual - Rev G will be added to the Offeror's Library. No ECP based assumptions are available for KMISS..

54a.Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS 3.2.4.3.3. The contractor shall provide experienced air conditioning and refrigeration mechanics to install and maintain all types of air conditioning equipment at RTS range facilities, including but not limited to 190 ton chillers providing cooling to radar transmitters. The contractor shall ensure: All air conditioning systems operational during critical mission support times and no damage occurs to mission support instrumentation/systems or equipment as a result of air conditioning and refrigeration (AC&R) failures during non-mission periods.

Can the USG provide industry a list of how many chillers will be installed and how many chillers are currently there to be maintained?

Recommendation: Provide a list with make and model number by location, building number and historical workload.

Answer: The RTS Technical Facilities Equipment Manual (TFEM) currently lists chillers that the RETS contractor shall be responsible for maintaining under the RETS contract.

54b.Question: Are these chillers currently covered under the BOS contract for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance?

Answer: Yes, however, operations and maintenance of the chillers described in the TFEM is a requirement of the RETS PWS (3.2.4.3.3).

55. Question: RFP Attachment 1 PWS 3.2.4.3. Provide specialized facility maintenance (such as air conditioning/electrical/ machine shop mission critical work/antenna maintenance) for the facilities which enclose range instrumentation/systems as identified in the ISFM. Provide and track the status of RTS technical facilities projects for inclusion into the U.S. Army Garrison- Kwajalein Atoll (USAG-KA) Annual Work Plan (AWP) and Installation real property management process. The focus of this effort will be to ensure Range Facilities/critical facility systems are secured, maintained, and repaired to support the success of mission objectives by range instrumentation/system assets.

Can the USG clarify who is responsible for the structural upkeep and power supply to the technical facilities?

Answer: See RFP Section H.12. Structural upkeep and power (utilities) for all RTS technical facilities (which are all listed Kwajalein Installation real property) is the responsibility of the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll Garrison and will be provided by the Installation to RTS for use by the RETS contractor for RETS contract purposes.

56. Question: RFP Section H.1.b. Will all prime contractor team members be required to execute an agreement with the companies listed in Section H.1?

Recommendation: The requirement only applies to the prime contractor.

Answer: This requirement applies to all prime contractor team members IAW with FAR 9.505-4 (b).

57. Question: General. During our site visit to RTS we didn’t note any evidence of an

RTS-wide work control system. Is there a maintenance management / work control system, something like Maximo, in use either as CFE or GFE? If CFE, will the incumbent provide machine-readable data that we can import into our system during transition? If there is no such system, will the incumbent provide data at the system or component level during transition?

Recommendation: Ensure that relevant data is available at contract award to facilitate a smooth transition.

Answer: The "RTS wide work control system" in use on Kwajalein at this time is called the Kwajalein Enterprise Asset Management System (KEAMS). The KEAMS software suite itself will not be transitioned to the RETS contractor. However, all relevant data will be transferred during contract transition in accordance with USG approved phase-out and phase-in plans.

58. Question: RFP Section H.1. Is the e-mail address for Mb Solution, Inc. correct?

Answer: No, see RFP Amendment 2, Section H.1 for the correct email address.

59. Question: RFP Section L. We’re in need of clarification regarding the following sentence in the RFP (pg 98 – Section 3 – SF 33 and Solicitation Documents): “Also include Section K, DD Form 254 and other applicable fill-ins for team members.”

Should we interpret the above sentence to mean the prime offeror is to submit a completed Section K for themselves as well as all proposed teammates/subcontractors? Also, what specifically would the prime offeror include in the SF 33 as it relates to the DD Form 254?

Answer: See RFP Amendment 2, Section L, Vol. I Section 3 - SF 33 and Solicitation Documents.