Set_2_QA_FBO.pdf

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

Set 2 of Government Responses to Industry Questions

Note: The Government answers are based on information known at the time of this release. Offerors and potential offerors shall rely on the Final RFP for proposal preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

1. Question: DRFP Section H.9 Public Release Of Information. What is the response time for SMDC-PA in response to Public Release of Information? Failing a response from SMDC-PA can the Contractor assume a positive decision and release information?

Answer: RFP Section H.9 Public Release of Information will be removed from the RFP.

The clause at DFARS 252.204-7000 Disclosure of Information (OCT 2016) will be included in Section I. The DFARS clause does not specify a Government response time. The contractor shall not release information publically without SMDC approval.

2. Question: DRFP Section H.14 Special Education. Please confirm this service is at no cost to the Contractor. Confirm no cost to contractor or specify what the fees are if any.

Answer: Offerors shall assume that the very limited special education services referenced in RFP Section H are provided at no cost to the contractor.

3. Question: DRFP Section H.18 Contractor-Contractor Relationships. Is the list of contractors requiring ACAs complete?

Answer: No, the list is not complete. The final RFP is currently being updated to provide additional information and may be subject to future updates should other contractors need to be added.

4. Question: DRFP Section H.1 Non-Government Advisors. Is there a predetermined

Government Agreement or should Offerors use their Agreements?

Answer: Offerors shall use their own agreements.

5. Question: DRFP Section L, Table L-6. Please clarify the units in some of the table elements, specifically 3.2.4.8.1, 3.2.4.8.2, 3.2.4.8.3. Clarify units of measurement.

Answer: The units of measure are identified in the “Standard” column. See the final

RFP for any additional updates to the table.

6. Question: DRFP Section L.3 Volume Descriptions-Volume Vi – Cost/Price

Proposal, Section1 – General Information, paragraph c, page 111. If an Offeror has DCAA / DCMA evidence of an approved accounting system (Approval Letter) outside the 4 year period, should the Offeror complete the Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist and submit with its proposal? Since Offerors do not have control over when DCAA / DCMA conducts audits and full audits are time consuming and DCAA / DCMA may not have available resources to audit in a timely manner, suggest the Government relax the 4 year requirement and accept Approval Letters outside the 4 year period.

Answer: In the scenario described, the offeror’s proposal shall include a current completed pre-award survey form 1408 checklist.

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

7. Question: Will the Government consider conducting another session of one-on-ones with industry in Huntsville to discuss the changes to the revised DRFP and get additional feedback from industry to ensure a successful acquisition? There are aspects of the acquisition that industry will not discuss through formal questions due to the competition-sensitive nature.

Answer: The Government is not planning to have additional one-on-one meetings.

8. Question: Based on questions submitted to the last revised DRFP, it appears that the Government did not release all questions with answers. Several questions submitted were not addressed in the Q&A or changed in the revised DRFP. Is the Government planning to release additional answers to questions or should offerors resubmit all unanswered questions?

Answer: Additional answers are forthcoming. The draft documents released via FedBizOpps RFI Amendment 20 provided responses for many of the questions received prior to that amendment. The Government appreciates all of the constructive input received to date from potential offerors and notes that each question was considered in preparing the solicitation documents.

9. Question: Given that the hospital on island is managed by the BOS contractor, how do offerors know what insurance plans are accepted? To bid a medical plan that provides the RETS employees adequate coverage, can the Government provide detailed information about how the healthcare plans work with the BOS managed hospital?

Answer: For proposal purposes the offeror should assume that the Kwajalein Hospital will submit your insurance claim through their established insurance billing programs.

HOWEVER, this does NOT indicate whether or not your insurance policy will cover your claim. RETS offerors should coordinate with their health care insurance provider to determine coverages at US Army Garrison - Kwajalein Atoll (USAG-KA).

10. Question: For proper staff and estimation purposes, and to ensure a technical response consistent with the actual current system capabilities, offerors need a detailed facilities and equipment list providing current condition/status or assumed condition/status of RETS assets. Will the Government consider providing this information? In addition, please clarify RETS contractor responsibility for planned and ongoing upgrades. This information is critical to an accurate technical response and to the identification and execution of RETS innovations/efficiencies.

Answer: Technical Equipment and Facilities Manual (TFEM) in the offeror's library contains a listing of all relevant facilities. Improvement and Modernization (I&M) LOE is provided in section L. In-progress projects and upgrades will be transferred to the RETS contractor during contract transition.

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

11. Question: DPWS Paragraph 3.2.2.6. With regard to the Worthy and ABS software, does the current ABS maintenance software in use reside on a government computer or the incumbent’s computer? Will all existing maintenance data be turned over to the new vendor during the transition period?

Answer: All ABS maintenance software resides on USG computers. All existing ABS maintenance data will be provided during contract transition.

12. Question: DPWS, Paragraph 4.3. The Key Personnel position descriptions were updated in the revised DRFP. For example, the Chief Engineer description significantly changed. The Attachment 15 Labor Categories document was not released with the revised DRFP. Will the Government update Attachment 15 to match the position descriptions in the PWS at a later date or with the final RFP?

Answer: Yes.

13. Question: DRFP Section H.33 and L.3. The Government has provided detailed language regarding OCI in Section H per FAR. Taking a strong OCI posture during acquisition prevents any negative impacts to the contract’s mission during performance. However, Section L language allows offerors, such as OEMs, who have clear OCI issues to mitigate those to an acceptable level during acquisition.

While processes to firewall may appear viable during a proposal phase, it is difficult for a company with a clear OCI to be unbiased when the successful performance of a services contract may impact their overall health of their business in other, oftentimes more substantial/profitable lines of their business, such as a hardware developer/provider. Offerors can also form joint ventures claiming that they can separate any OCI issues from one or more of the parent companies. However, this also can be problematic. We recommend the Government evaluate OCI and eliminate OEMs that could risk your mission. Will the Government consider this approach?

Answer: The Government has provided its guidance on OCI to all potential offerors and has referenced the applicable authorities. The Government recommends that all potential offerors review and follow this guidance. Offerors are invited to submit any OCI and mitigation plans in advance.

14. Question: DRFP Section H.34. Under H.34, it states that the Government will provide “surge crew for sea trials: Surge Crew required to support an 8 hour sea trail every 90 days. These labor categories will include Engineers, Mates, Able bodied Seaman, and QMEDs.” This implies that the ship is not staffed 24/7 and may only be staffed by a contractor skeleton crew in between missions. Is this correct? If not, can the Government provide additional details regarding the staffing requirements during these missions?

Answer: Yes, minimal crew between missions/sea trials.

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

15. Question: DRFP H.34. Maintenance of the ABS Load-Line Certification is mentioned both as a Contractor requirement and also as Government provided.

What specifically are the Contractor's responsibilities with regard to Load-Line inspection scheduling, documentation, annual inspection coordination, 5 year dry dock certification, etc.?

Answer: Contractor responsible to take care of all dry dock (On Condition Cyclic Maintenance (OCCM)) activities (e.g., SOW, Transit, Oversight) and obtain Load Line certification as part of OCCM. Annual Load Line inspection will be coordinated through the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and will be government provided.

16. Question: DRFP H.34. There is no mention of corrective maintenance and periodic

Dry docking maintenance periods. Are those items part of the contract or Government scheduled/provided? Will the Government provided additional information regarding the maintenance periods/responsibilities?

Answer: Preventative maintenance and dry dock requirements are defined in the RETS PWS and references.

17. Question: DRFP Section L. The revised DRFP puts the Technical requirements, including the Sample Task and Maintenance Approach, as the most important evaluation factor – more important than management. In Answers to Questions, the Government states that “all inherent advantages of an incumbent contractor cannot be completely mitigated.” However, the Technical requirements provide incumbent advantages – since the incumbent is currently performing the technical requirements to date. Given the advantages this revised DRFP provides to the incumbent, some offerors may decide to not pursue the RETS opportunity – limiting competition and preventing the Government from receiving a truly best value solution. With the winning offeror retaining the majority of the incumbent workforce, the true discriminators offerors bring to the Government are their management processes and tools, key personnel, and innovations and efficiencies. We recommend that the Government not make Technical the highest rated factor and instead focus the RFP on management discriminators among offerors? Will the Government consider this approach in an effort to level the playing field?

Answer: The revised relative importance of evaluation criteria in the DRFP Section M represent those considerations that are most important in determining the best value offer to meet the RETS requirement.

18. Question: DRFP Section L. Given that the winning offeror will retain the majority of the technical workforce, we recommend structuring the proposal response more on the key discriminators offerors bring – their management approach, tools and processes, and innovations/efficiencies that deliver cost savings to the Government.

We recommend adding another subfactor: Innovations, with the Section L text being preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

as follows: “The Offeror shall describe in detail any innovative practices, techniques, or approaches that it proposes to employ or utilize technically, operationally, and/or managerially and include the expected benefit to RETS, including any estimated financial value of proposed innovations (if any) in terms of cost savings, cost avoidance, and/or cost benefit to RETS. Details supporting such estimates (if any) may be included in the Cost volume as a voluntary appendix.” We suggest the associated Section M text read: “The Government will evaluate any proposed innovations for their degree of perceived achievability by the contractor proposing the innovation(s), the relative risk associated with the proposed innovation(s), and the potential and expected value to RETS of the proposed innovation(s).” Will the Government consider this approach?

Answer: Section L of the RETS draft solicitation provides offerors the opportunity to propose innovative/efficient approaches, processes, techniques, tools, etc., within the Test Mission Capabilities, Maintenance Approach, and Management Approach proposals. Any proposed innovative/efficient aspects will be a consideration in the Government's evaluation of proposals as described in Section M. Furthermore, all cost proposals must be reflective of the approaches, processes, techniques, etc., identified in an offeror’s non-cost proposals, and will be evaluated for realism and reasonableness.

19. Question: DRFP Section L.1 (a). In Section L.1 (a), the Government requests that offerors submit Volume II, Section 1, (Organizational Conflicts of Interest), Volume II, Section 3 Parts A-D (Past Performance), and Volume V, Section 3 (Corporate Experience), Parts A and B at least 10 calendar days prior to the date established for receipt of proposals. We recommend that the Government conduct a phased approach and assess OCI and Past Performance before the release of the remainder of the proposal sections. This gives offerors ample time before developing their entire proposal and then being eliminated due to OCI. Will the Government consider revising the DRFP to have OCI and Past Performance due at least 30 days prior to the final RFP?

Answer: FedBizOpps RFI Amendment 20 invites offerors to submit OCI early. The decision to evaluate those criteria designated as Go/No Go, to include OCI and Past Performance, concurrently with the Best Value evaluation was determined to be in the best interest of the Government and consistent with the schedule necessary to award the RETS follow-on contract prior to the expiration of the legacy contract.

20. Question: DRFP, Section L.1 (a). The Past Performance requirements in the

Go/No Go evaluation, which will be assessed as Acceptable/Not acceptable appears to overlap with the requirements in the Corporate Experience section of Management. Given that it is a pass/fail in the Go/No Go phase, how will it be evaluated in the Management Factor and what is the advantage of requiring it in both places with different evaluation criteria?

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

Answer: Past Performance will be evaluated to determine how well an offeror performed its recent and relevant performance history (i.e., the quality of performance) while Corporate Experience will only be evaluated to determine how relevant an offeror's recent performance history/experience is to the solicitation requirements (i.e., the similarity of performance). In Past Performance, relevancy is evaluated solely on a relevant/not relevant basis to determine if a particular recent performance history example will be included in the quality assessment. Therefore, the degree to which an offeror's performance history is relevant (e.g., very relevant, somewhat relevant) will not impact the acceptable/unacceptable determination (other than the fact that an offeror with no relevant performance history will be considered to have an "unknown" performance record and will be assigned an acceptable rating in the Go/No criteria). Contrarily, the evaluation of an offeror's recent Corporate Experience will consider the degree to which an offeror's performance history/experience is relevant to the solicitation requirements. The quality of an offeror's performance history/experience will not be considered under the Corporate Experience criteria.

21. Question: DRFP Section M.4.4. The Government does not provide detailed evaluation methodology for the Cost Proposal other than it “will be evaluated for cost/price reasonableness and realism.” In the evaluation criteria language, the Government states that: “The burden of proof for cost/price reasonableness and realism rests with the offeror.” Will the Government provide more detailed evaluation criteria for the Cost Proposal clearly defining how the Government plans to establish reasonableness and realism?

Answer: The Cost/Price criteria in Section M of the solicitation clearly states that one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 will be employed to assess the reasonableness and realism of proposed costs/prices.

22. Question: DRFP Section M.4.4. With the lack of specific cost evaluation criteria and the lack of a cost model template, offerors will submit wildly different cost information and in different formats – making it difficult for evaluators to compare cost proposals in an “apples to apples” assessment. Without more prescriptive cost data to ensure that offerors are all bidding costs in a similar format and pricing Government required cost elements, the ambiguous cost instructions and evaluation criteria could create significant work for the Government in evaluating offerors’ costs – requiring numerous ENs and/or amendments to correct the issues. These kinds of cost proposals are also very open to protests with offerors citing that their costs were not appropriately compared/evaluated to other offerors. We recommend the Government revise the Cost language and provide a Cost model template. Will the Government consider providing the detailed cost instructions and a model that can be used to ensure comparability?

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

Answer: The Cost/Price proposal instructions as currently stated in Section L of the solicitation clearly defines the format and content in which cost/price proposals must be submitted. Proposals submitted in accordance with these instructions will provide an acceptable basis to conduct the cost reasonableness and realism assessment.

23. Question: DRFP Section L, Volume IV, Maintenance Approach. Within the

Maintenance Approach, please clarify that Offerors should address the standard technical service requirements that directly apply only to maintenance.

Answer: Offerors should address the standard technical service requirements in PWS section 3.2.2 only.

24. Question: Industry Day Tours and Scripts. During the Industry Day tours, many of the facilities were undergoing modification. In some cases, this was significant enough to alter the status of an asset (i.e., “caretaker status”) and in other cases, the modifications appeared to have potentially significant impact on the staffing, distribution of staffing support between Kwaj facilities and HSV, technical capability, and equipment maintenance requirements. Additionally, the upgrade work appeared to be at least the partial responsibility of MIT Lincoln Labs personnel.

24a. Question: For proper staff and estimation purposes, and to ensure a technical response consistent with the actual current system capabilities, we respectfully request a facilities and equipment list providing the current condition/status or assumed condition/status of RETS assets.

Answer: RETS Contract Section H contains the listing of Government provided facilities that the RETS contractor shall be provided for administrative purposes, the RETS GFP listing provides the equipment that shall be provided in an operational condition and used "as is", the RTS Instrumentation and Support Facilities Manual (ISFM) and Technical Facilities and Equipment Manual (TFEM) are provided within the FOUO offerors library and contains the description and technical specifications for RTS instrumentation that is to be maintained, and a two year historical (FY12/13) listing of RTS Instrumentation maintenance (down to individual Job Order level per asset to include the RTS Mission Data Network) along with FY12/13 Instrumentation Availability records are also provided within the FOUO offerors library to provide an indication of required maintenance to maintain the RTS instrumentation availability within those specific operational periods (FY12-13).

24b. Question: We also request clarification of the RETS contractor responsibility for planned and ongoing upgrades. This information is critical to an accurate technical response and to the identification and execution of RETS innovations/efficiencies.

The provision of this information also significantly lowers Phase-in risks since the incoming contractor will be aware of potentially mission critical asset modifications for which they may be responsible.

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

Answer: I&M efforts (to include plans for ongoing and planned projects) have been grouped with Test Mission Services (TMS) and a Level of Effort (LOE) estimate has been provided within RETS contract Section L for TMS and I&M efforts.

25. Question: Industry Day Tours and Scripts. With the concurrent procurement activities for the Kwajalein Base Operations contract, there are significant cost and quality of life impacts that may impact RETS personnel located or assigned TDY to Kwajalein and Roi Namur. Since costs for these services may change, we respectfully request the Government provide an estimation of personnel cost of living, including an estimation of additional contractor workforce costs such as school fees for on-island dependents. This information could be provided as a prescribed plug number with common assumptions for all offerors. We believe this information is essential to ensuring consistent responses from offerors.

Answer: See the RETS RFP which defines the services to be provided to the RETS contractor as Government Provided Base Support Services.

26. Question: Industry Day Tours and Scripts. Given the nature of the Improvement and Modernization activities for RETS facilities and equipment, we respectfully request an assumed schedule of upgrades/modifications to RETS assets. This will facilitate common assumptions and responses from offerors with regard to staffing, asset availability, and technical capability.

Answer: I&M efforts (to include plans for ongoing and planned projects) have been grouped with Test Mission Services (TMS) and a Level of Effort (LOE) estimate has been provided within RETS contract Section L for TMS and I&M efforts.

27. Question: DRFP Attachment 10 – RTS Technical Facilities Equipment Manual

(CDRL A037 SAMPLE), Page 129. A note is made regarding the RSP Remote Display Terminal: “This system is currently not in service. There is a possibility that it will be reactivated in the future, although no plan is in place to do so at this time.

9/2015”. Has the RSP Remote Display Terminal been reactivated? Why was it deactivated, and is there a future plan for reactivation?

Answer: The quoted statement within the RTS TFEM Page 129 remains valid at this time. The RSP Remote Display Terminal is not in service and there is no government plan at this time to reactive it. However, the government desires the RSP Remote Display to remain within the TFEM and remain as a deactivated component of RTS Data Acquisition Systems until further notice.

28. Question: DPWS, Reference AFSC PAM 91-710, Page 49. Within this document there are instructions for tailoring. Does the Kwajalein range use a tailored version of this document or does this document represent the controlling guidance?

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

Answer: This reference has been removed from the RETS PWS. This reference applies to Air Force ranges only. AFSC PAM 91-710 will be removed from the RETS Offerors Library and RETS Contract Document Support List (DSL).

29. Question: DPWS, Reference DLM 4000.25-1 Change 4. Given the remote nature of Kwajalein, how are requisitions currently handled? For example, does the RETS contractor procure items independent of the Government and coordinate with the Government for shipment, or does the contractor coordinate shipments independently as well? What coordination between the contractor and the Government is required for this process and what systems are currently in place to facilitate these activities? This information is critical to ensure zero impact to mission operations during Phase-in of the RETS contract and is further complicated by the necessary interfaces between RETS, the BOSS contractor, and the Government.

Answer: IAW PWS requirements the RETS contractor is to propose a system for material procurement and management / accountability during the proposal period (for government review / acceptance). Additionally, Section H of the RETS RFP defines the coordination requirements for material transportation to / from Kwajalein Atoll.

30. Question: DRFP, Section H. The new language in Section H regarding OCI substantially mitigates OCI concerns from the previous draft. However, we believe the potential for mitigation of any and all OCI still poses a material risk to the Government for this procurement. We respectfully request the Government consider identifying areas where the Government believes OCI cannot be mitigated. As an example of such a stipulation, language is excerpted below from a recent Air Force Acquisition at Eglin AFB, FL (FA2486-16-R-0065, Section H). We believe the specific identification of work which reflects an OCI that cannot be sufficiently mitigated (i.e., “aircraft or stores development”) reduces offeror risk that a submitted OCI plan will be rejected, and reduces the Government’s risk that unacceptable OCI is avoided prior to contract award. Additionally, while we recognize the current DRFP provides for a submittal of OCI information 10 days before the final proposal, this does not allow the Government time to review and respond to OCI before additional offeror Bid and Proposal money is expended. We respectfully request the Government strongly consider an OCI submittal well in advance of the final proposal so offerors who are deemed unacceptable due to OCI can avoid the additional time and expense of proposal generation and the Government can avoid the time and expense associated with the review of the entire proposal volume. "In order that the Government may prevent (a) conflicting roles which might bias the Contractor's judgment or objectivity and (b) unfair competitive advantage (actual. potential, or perceived) to the Contractor in Air Force acquisitions, it is agreed by the parties to this contract that the Contractor will be restricted in its future contracting with the Government to the extent described below. a. For any contract (other than Advisory preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

and Assistance (A&AS) contracts, except C4ISR mission area) that could be impacted (favorably or adversely) by Air Force SEEK EAGLE Office (AFSEO) store compatibility recommendations, or that represents or directly supports an AFSEO customer, the contractor agrees not to compete without first obtaining an exemption from the SEEK EAGLE Modeling, Analysis, and Tools Support (SEMATS) 2 Contracting Officer. These contracts include, but are not limited to: aircraft or stores development, production and sustainment government contracts with AFSEO's government customers' prime contractors; and any A&AS contractor that evaluates, the AFSEO produced mission planning software product. This Includes contracts where the contractor is either a prime or a subcontractor to a prime. When applicable, the contractor shall submit an exemption request containing an OCI mitigation plan that will mitigate risks that could drive the contractor to exercise poor judgment, lose objectivity or unfairly influence key Government decisions related to stores compatibility."

Answer: The Government guidance on OCI is provided to all potential offerors and referencesd the applicable authorities via FedBizOpps RFI Amendment 20. The Government recommends that all potential offerors follow this guidance. Offerors are invited to submit OCI and mitigations plans in advance of issuance of the final RFP.

The Government also notes that this question references an apparent section H clause from an Air Force contract for aircraft stores and development. The Government notes that the RETS follow-on contract is not an Air Force contract nor is it a contract for aircraft stores and development. The procedures of another service and of another program/activity would not apply to the RETS follow-on contract.

31. Question: DRFP Q&A [Set 1], Section L. The current DRFP and most recent

Question and Answer document indicates the Government does not intend to provide an excel cost template. This poses risk to the Government and to offerors in that it is likely to be difficult or impossible to effectively compare offeror cost volume submissions due to differences in modeling, presentation, and organization. We strongly recommend the Government consider providing additional cost volume guidance and a Government cost template. This will greatly facilitate the direct comparison of multiple offerors.

Answer: A cost model spreadsheet is not being provided. Each offeror's cost proposal must provide the information required by Section L and M, -that complies with the offeror's estimating and accounting practices and procedures. Proposals submitted in accordance with the current instructions for the Cost/Price volume will provide an acceptable basis to conduct the cost reasonableness/realism assessment and a comparative analysis of all proposals.

32. Question: DRFP, Attachment 15: RETS Labor Categories/ p. 15, Job #50. Will experience in lieu of degree be allowed for Ops Spec IV-SOI Analyst as it is for the Operations Specialist II ‐ Space Surveillance?

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

Answer: No.

33. Question: DRFP, Attachment 15: RETS Labor Categories p. 5, Job #31 & #32. Will experience in lieu of degree be allowed for Field Engineers? Field Engineer I, Field Engineer II

Answer: No.

34. Question: DRFP, Attachment 15 RETS Labor Categories. There are 61 RETS Labor

Categories where the ‘Minimum Years of Experience” is blank. There are 7 RETS Labor Categories where the “Education Level’ is blank. Education and Experience levels are major drivers when determining how to cross-walk an offeror’s labor categories to the RETS labor categories, and provide consistency across all offeror’s and teammates.

34a. Question: If ‘Minimum Years of Experience’ is blank, does this mean that no experience is required? (Is there a blanket definition)?

Answer: If Education Level is blank it means the government leaves it up to the offeror to propose an education level appropriate for the labor category (as long as other areas stipulated by the government are met).

34b. Question: If ‘Education Level’ is blank, does this mean that a High School or equivalent is required? Is there a blanket definition?

Answer: If Education Level is blank it means the government leaves it up to the offeror to propose an education level appropriate for the labor category (as long as other areas stipulated by the government are met).

34c. Question: Will the Government provide the specific Years of Experience and Education Level to fill in the blanks for those labor categories that do require a specific number of Years of Experience and a specific Education Level to ensure consistency across offerors?

Answer: See answers to a and b.

35. Question: DRFP, Attachment 01, PWS 3.2.4.8.2, p.25. The contractor shall protect physical security assets IAW AR380-5, AR 190-13, AR 190-51, DoDM 5200.01, Volume 3, ATP 3-39.32 and local security requirements. Please clarify the meaning of “shall protect physical security assets”. Are there formal requirements based on this statement? Also, does this statement apply to RTS related assets only?

Answer: Refers to RTS Assets only. The RETS contractor shall protect physical security assets - not guns and guards; but, RETS contractor shall be responsible for maintaining open storage areas.

36. Question: DRFP, Attachment 01, PWS 3.2.4.8.4, p.25. The contractor shall provide access control for RTS Kwajalein Atoll facilities. Access control shall comply with the FAR, the Security Agreement (DD Form 441), AR 380-5, AR 190-13, AR 190-51, and preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

DoDM 5200.01 Volumes 1-4. Please clarify what is meant by ‘access control’. Does this include guards, access cards, or keyed locks?

Answer: No, this does not include guards. All access control, to include, but not limited to, access cards, providing access to secure areas, key locks, and escorts.

37. Question: DRFP, Attachment 01, PWS 3.2.4.8.10, p.30. The contractor shall ensure all contractor personnel (including visitors) who do not require a security clearance possess the appropriate adjudication IAW Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12. HSPD-12 regulatory guidance references personnel receiving formal Government identification cards for Government facility access and Government network access requiring a favorable DoD NACI investigation. Does this requirement apply only to Contractor employees requiring the appropriate investigation for issue of Common Access Cards or to all personnel visiting Kwajalein who require access to USAG-KA facilities?

Answer: Relates to all non-government RTS support personnel, both resident contractors and visitors supporting RTS. RETS contractor will not be responsible for USAG-KA or NEC contractor personnel or visitors.

38. Question: DRFP, Attachment 01, PWS 3.2.4.8.12, p.27. Provide 24 hours a day, seven days a week U.S. cleared locksmith service; maintain locks, panic hardware, and mechanical ciphers; maintain a master key system and provide keying services.

38a. Question: Does the above include providing locksmith services for ALL facilities throughout Kwajalein Atoll – IMCOM & RTS and other Government/Contractor organizations at USAG-KA/RTS?

Answer: Only includes RTS facilities and RTS contractor facilities, including those on outer islands. For estimates and quantities see "government furnished facilities" in section H and L of the RFP.

38b. Question: The above also references “US cleared locksmith”. Must the contractor hire US cleared locksmiths for all facilities?

Answer: Yes.

39. Question: DRFP, Attachment 01, PWS 3.2.4.8.1.4 COMSEC Management, p.27.

The contractor shall establish a COMSEC account for Kwajalein Atoll and provide COMSEC equipment operation and maintenance on Kwajalein Atoll and ROC-H.

Contractor shall comply with AR 380-40, NISPOM, and National Security Agency Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) Policy Manual No. 3-16. The contractor shall ensure that all accounting records and files are complete and accurate, COMSEC inventories are accountable by hand receipt holders, and all COMSEC line items are accounted for.

39a. Question: Will the COMSEC account at USAG-KA/RTS remain an account managed by NSA or will it transfer to an Army account like it is at ROC-H?

Answer: The account on Kwajalein Atoll must remain with NSA.

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

39b. Question: There is no reference in the PWS for Intrusion Detection System (IDS) Administration. Will IDS operations be transitioned over to IMCOM contract?

Answer: IDS O&M (related to IDS in place in gov't facilities on Kwajalein) is the responsibility of the Kwajalein installation NEC for IDS installation and maintenance and to Kwajalein Installation Emergency Services for IDS monitoring and response.

The RETS Contractor will be responsible for procuring new or replacement IDS systems specifically related to RTS Open Storage areas and to coordinate with the NEC and the Garrison for installation of new or replacement IDS systems that are required in support of the RTS mission and for ensuring that the IDS systems are in place, functional and meet access control requirements as stipulated in the RETS PWS. The RETS Contractor will not be required to install, maintain, monitor, or respond to IDS alarm activations. RETS access control responsibilities may include post response activities.

40. Question: DRFP, Attachment 15 - RETS Labor Categories/page 1. Will the

Government provide an updated job description for the Chief Engineer to be consistent with the revised Draft PWS Section 4.3.2, p. 33?

Answer: Yes. Refer to the final RFP and PWS.

41. Question: DRFP, Section H.29 page 52, Technical Performance Chart, Sensor

Maintenance Performance Levels. The performance metrics shown in the Draft RFP Technical Performance Chart are in-line with current contract performance metrics.

However, the operational hours detailed for Space Surveillance (Draft PWS, Section 3.2.1) represent a significant increase in the number of hours for the KREMS radars.

Will the Government consider lowering performance metrics due to the increased operational hours represented in the Draft PWS?

Answer: No, the performance metrics will not be changed. The actual number of hours of Space Operations required per week has been revised. The revised space operations metrics will be published in the final PWS revision section 3.2.1.

42. Question: DRFP Section L, Volume V, Section 1 – Transition Plan, Part D, p. 107.

As part of transition phase-in the incoming contractor will be assuming control of a large amount of inventory. Will the incumbent contractor be required to do a 100% joint inventory as part of their Transition Out requirements?

Answer: Yes.

43. Question: DPWS, Section 3.2.3 – RTS Mission Comms/IT Services, p. 15. Can the offeror assume that all networks, RTS-C, RTS-U and DEVNet have current Authority to Operate (ATO) certifications and that all networks are fully compliant with Risk Management Framework (RMF) guidelines?

Answer: For proposal purposes assume that this accreditation is in place by RETS Contract full performance start.

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

44. Question: DRFP, Section H.12 (a) (22), p. 43. The Government states that USAG-

KA HE will be provided on an as needed and as available basis. The Government also states that USAG-KA HE maintenance and operations will be provided for RTS provided HE based on availability of requisite certified personnel. How will Government ensure that offeror required HE will be available to meet contract support requirements and to support RTS activities? Will the offeror be precluded from supplying HE operators as part of permanent staff?

Answer: Heavy Equipment (HE) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Support is GFE to the RETS Contractor as defined within Section H. The RETS PWS does not include HE operations and maintenance requirements.

45. Question: DPWS. The RTS ISFM is referred in many areas of the PWS. Would the

Government provide a copy of this document? It is not possible to answer a significant portion of the requirements without it.

Answer: The RETS Instrumentation and Support Facilities Manual (ISFM) is available in the bidder's library.

46. Question: DPWS. The RTS TFEM document is referenced in the PWS. Would the

Government provide a copy of this document?

Answer: The RETS Technical Facilities and Equipment Manual (TFEM) is available in the bidder's library.

47. Question: DPWS. What are the interfaces between the NETCOM baseline and the

RTS Mission Comms? Who maintains the demarc?

Answer: There are no direct interfaces between NETCOM baseline services and RTS mission communications or networks. Each has its own assigned circuit paths.

48. Question: DPWS 3.2.3.3. Is the current software that has been developed accredited? Is all of this software developed under this scope GFE?

Answer: For proposal purposes, assume all existing software is accredited and all software will be transferred to the RETS contractor. The RETS contractor will be responsible for RTS software development as described in PWS 3.2.3.3 and in accordance with PWS 5.4.

49. Question: DPWS. Are there currently systems that are not accredited that reside within the IMS? If so, are there any ongoing initiatives to bring those capabilities up to RMF standards?

Answer: For proposal purposes, assume that this accreditation is in place by transition completion.

preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

50. Question: DPWS. What groups (if any) does the DEVnet support outside of this contract? How is the use of the DEVnet scheduled for any external suppliers software testing?

Answer: The RTS DEVnet is dedicated to the RTS effort and only RTS employees, RTS contractors, and SMDC administrators have access. The RTS DEVnet does not allow external organizations or personnel access. All software testing on RTS DEVnet will be executed by the RTS contractors. The RTS DEVnet is a dedicated resource and no scheduling is necessary.

51. Question: DRFP, Section L. What facilities are anticipated to be available for

Phase-in activities? For example, a successful offeror will likely need to provide a transition team presence on Kwajalein over the period of several months. What assumptions should offerors make regarding housing availability, meal services, and office and equipment for Phase-in activities? Will the Government provide a list of what is available to offerors for phase-in activities?

Answer: Housing and office space is limited. For proposal purposes, offerors should assume that facilities described in the GFF appendix to the RETS RFP will become available in a linear fashion from 0% on day 1 of transition to 100% on day 90 of transition; and that transition personnel are TDY to Kwajalein on an unaccompanied basis for the duration of the transition period. Meal services will be available but not furnished by the Government.

52. Question: Q&A Document [Q&A Set 1]. In the most recent Question and Answer document, it appears the Government inadvertently duplicated Questions 6/7 and 31/32. The questions are identical, but the answers differ. Respectfully request the original question text for Question #7 and Question #31.

52a. Question #6 from Q&A Set 1: DRFP, Section M.3.a. Go/No Go Evaluation (1).

Per the reference cite: "The offeror’s past performance will also be assessed as acceptable in the event (i) the offeror has no recent or relevant performance history, or (ii) past performance information on the offeror is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned. In either of these cases, the offeror’s past performance will be considered as “unknown” and will be deemed acceptable for the past performance portion of the Go/No Go evaluation.

DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 1 April 2016 states" In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).)

In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Recommendation: Change Section M Past Performance Evaluation on "unknown” to "neutral" per the DoD procedures.

Answer: For purposes of evaluating Past Performance, the Government is employing the "Acceptable/Unacceptable" rating method specified in Para. 3.1.3, and Appendix preparation. In the event of inconsistencies between answers provided to industry questions and the RFP, the final published RETS RFP is the only document that industry shall rely upon and definitively states the Government's requirements.

C of the DoD Source Selection Procedures (1 April 2016). Table C-2 of Appendix C defines an "Acceptable" rating as "...the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror's performance record is unknown". The "Note" in paragraph C.2.1.2 of Appendix C indicates that "neutral" and "unknown" are synonymous terms. The rating definitions for all Go/No Go criteria will be included in Section M of the final solicitation.

52b. Question #7 from Q&A Set 1: DRFP, Section M.3a (1) (i). Per the RFP reference cite: "The term "offeror" for this portion of the evaluation criteria includes the prime offeror (inclusive of all joint venture partners) and subcontractors/team members. For a newly formed joint venture (JV) the past performance of each individual partner will be assessed. For an existing JV, the past performance of the JV will be assessed."

Question: Will the Government permit submission and evaluation of JV parent

Answer: The Government cannot fully answer this question without specific details regarding an amended charter. However, unless the amendment makes substantial changes to an existing JV charter (e.g., additional partners are added to the JV, prior JV partners are removed, etc.), only the corporate experience and past performances of the existing JV itself (vice the experiences/performances of the individual JV partners) will be assessed in the evaluation of RETS proposals.

52c. Question #31 from Q&A Set 1: DRFP, L.3, Volume III, Section 2, pg. 101. This section requires the offeror to submit a Professional Employee Compensation Plan.

Since this is a specific, pre-existing corporate document. Will the Government allow this plan to be included as an Appendix and separate .pdf file to Volume III?

Answer: Yes. The final RFP will exclude the Professional Employee Compensation Plan from the collective page limitation for Volumes III, IV, and V.

52d. Question #32 from Q&A Set 1: DRFP, L.3, Volume IV, Section 1, pg. 103. Table L.4 provides an “estimated allocation of total LOE” for a list of TMS labor categories.

Will the Government consider providing a similar table for STS Support Activity?

Answer: As provided in the draft solicitation, a definitive number of labor hours are provided for the CPFF LOE TMS and I&M CLINs. Labor hours for all other labor CLINs (STS, Phase-In, and Phase-Out) must be estimated [and proposed] by the offeror. However, the final RFP will provide additional information to assist offeror's in estimating labor hours/costs for the STS requirement.