Set_3_QA_FBO_format.pdf

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

Set 3 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 L.3. Will the Government please provide a condition report of all the facilities, property, and equipment that the offeror is accountable for to include any current or future obsolescence?

Answer: The RETS contractor will NOT be responsible for the maintenance and sustainment of these real property assets. In reference to the condition of the Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) to be issued to the RETS contactor -all offerors shall assume that all GFE is issued in an operable condition and will be used "as is" upon issuance.

2. Question: DRFP Section L.3. Will the Government release the incumbent phase-out plan and schedule?

Answer: The USG will not release the incumbent phase-out plan or schedule.

Refer to Final RFP and attachments for Transition Plan requirements.

3. Question: DPWS, 3.2.4.12. Will the Government provide the current configuration management plan?

Answer: The USG will not provide the current configuration management plan.

4. Question: DPWS 5.1.7. The iWATCH training requirement imposes completion of training within 30 days of contract award which does not leave adequate time for a non-incumbent to hire, train, and transition tasks. Would consider changing this requirement and other related requirements to 30 days after transition end?

Answer: Refer to the Final RFP and attachments.

5. Question: DPWS 5.1.7 IWATCH Training requires “training shall be completed within 30 calendar days of contract award” and PWS 5.1.2 Anti-Terrorism Level I Training requires “shall complete Anti-Terrorism (AT) Level I Awareness training within 30 calendar days after contract start date”. Is it the Governments intent for the offeror to plan to have all staff hired and trained within 30 days of contract award?

Answer: Refer to the Final RFP and attachments.

6. Question: DPWS 4.7.2. Can the Government provide in the Bidder's Library current warehousing plans and define warehouse facility responsibilities under the three pending contracts?

Answer: No.

7. Question: DPWS 4.7.2. Will the Government provide a Maintenance/Calibration system?

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.

Answer: Refer to the final RFP and attachments. In order for the Government to answer this question, please reference the PWS paragraph and clarify what is meant by “Maintenance/Calibration system”.

8. Question: DPWS 4.7.2. Is the GFM list with roughly 9,000 lines complete or is there more material? If so, can the Government provide a more comprehensive list of material in accordance with FAR 52.245-1 data elements?

Answer: Refer to the final RFP and attachments.

9. Question: DPWS 4.7.2. Will the Government provide vehicles for use on-island as

GFE?

Answer: Yes, refer to the final RFP and attachments.

10. Question: DPWS 4.7.2. Will the Government provide the RETS contractor with storage of Government property going through the disposition cycle (i.e. use of DCCB on Kwajalein) Answer: Yes, refer to the final RFP and attachments.

11. Question: DRFP/DPWS. Will the Inter-Service Support Agreements (DD Form

1144) be in place before Contract Award? If so, can the Government provide guidance to bidders on terms of the ISSA?

Answer: The USG is working toward ISSA completion, date is TBD. Refer to final RFP Section H and attachments.

12. Question: DRFP Section H. Item 8 says the Government will provide surge crew

ISO Kwajalein Mobile Range Safety System (KMRSS) for sea trials. Will the Government provide a KMRSS surge crew for mission deployments?

Answer: No

13. Question: DRFP Section H. How many KMRSS mission deployments are anticipated for a typical year, and how long are these deployments?

Answer: Refer to final RFP and Attachments. USG anticipates an average of two deployment/fiscal year, lasting two to three weeks each.

14. Question: DRFP Section H. How many pounds of Air and how many pounds of

Surface shipments from CONUS to Kwaj are authorized?

Answer: The Government approved current contract weight limits are 750lbs for unaccompanied and 2,000lbs for accompanied.

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.

15. Question: DRFP Section H. Can the Government provide USAG-KA Regulation 210-50, Family and Unaccompanied Personnel Housing?

Answer: This is an incorrect reference. The actual document should be USAG-KA regulation number 420-1, Housing Management which will be loaded to the RETS Offeror Library.

16. Question: DPWS and DPWS Attachments. There are multiple instances in the

PWS that describe a process and imply an in-place tool or software program. Will the government provide a list of all tools and programs?

Answer: Refer to final RFP and Attachments to include "Software to be transferred to the contractor".

17. Question: DPWS 3.2.1. Will the government provide the Strategic Operating

Instruction (OI) 534-9 referenced in PWS 3.2.1 in advance of the Final RFP?

Answer: Yes. This is a classified publications. See FBO AMD 18 for how to request access to RETS documents.

18. Question: DRFP Section I. Section I includes FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract

Labor Standards, but does not include 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards-Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts). Is it the Government's intention that offerors should propose escalation on any wage determination labor rates or will the Government include 52.222-43 in the RFP?

Answer: FAR 52.222-43 is not applicable to the RETS contract.

19. Question: DRFP Section A. Please clarify what is meant by the following statement:

"Any element of the offeror’s proposal that the Government finds advantageous may be conformed to the contract as a material obligation subject to sole discretion of the Contracting Officer."

Answer: The offeror's proposal will be incorporated as a binding element (material obligation) of the contract at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

20. Question: DRFP Section A. Will subcontractors be required to enter into non-disclosure agreements with MIT-LL and TSS Consulting, LLC?

Answer: Yes, this requirement applies to all offerors and major subcontractors.

21. Question: DRFP Section H. When will the Government furnish the "rates established by USAG-KA" for personal residence phone services?

Answer: The rate for USAG-KA residential telephone service is currently $25 per month. This rate is subject to change.

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.

22. Question: DRFP Section H. When will the Government furnish the "rates established by USAG-KA" for access to commercial and residential Internet?

Answer: The rate for USAG-KA residential high speed internet service is currently $50 per month.

23. Question: DRFP Section L. Will Consent letters be limited to contracts used in Past

Performance citations in the Past Performance History Matrix or should they address performance beyond the specific citations?

Answer: Consent Letters shall be limited to the relevancy parameters identified in Section L of the final RFP.

24. Question: DRFP Section M. This section indicates that Past Performance will only be considered relevant if the total potential contract value of a cited contract is at least $20 M annually. Does this requirement apply to citations for teammates or subcontractors who will be performing only specific areas of the PWS?

Answer: See Section L of the final RFP. The $20M annual requirement is applicable to prime offerors only.

25. Question: DRFP Section L. If an 11x17 sheet are used in any of volumes 1 through

5, will it be counted as a single page or as two pages?

Answer: Refer to final RFP Section L, Proposal Preparation Instructions, Format Requirements which detail the limitations for use of 11x17 pages that are counted as a single page.

26. Question: DRFP Sections H and L. Is the OCI Mitigation Plan the same document as the COI Compliance Plan mentioned in H.33.b (2)?

Answer: Refer to final RFP Section H for revised language.

27. Question: DRFP Section L. Part D requires signed Consent Letters for each subcontractor/team member. Does the Government have a specific template they would like the offeror to use for these consent letters?

Answer: There is not a Government prescribed template. Offerors should use their own format.

28. Question: DRFP Section L. The DRFP states that “the past performance volume shall be submitted 20 calendar days prior to the date established for receipt of proposals.” However, Table L.1 and the Volume II instruction sections indicate there is a Go/No GO volume and past performance is Section 1 in that volume.

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.

28a. Question: Is the Government asking that Volume II, in its entirety, be submitted 20 calendar days prior to the date established for receipt of proposals? Is the Government is asking that offerors submit only section 1, past performance, of Volume II 20 days prior to date for receipt of proposals?

Answer: Refer to final RFP Section L for specific instructions. Offerors are invited to submit OCI in advance of issuance of the final RFP. Offerors are requested to submit Past Performance and Corporate Experience sections of their proposal prior to final proposal submission date.

28b. Question: If so, will the Government clarify if there are any additional formatting and delivery instructions related to submitting this single section of Volume II?

Answer: There are no additional formatting and delivery instructions. Follow the instructions in final RFP Section L.

28c. Question: If so, should Section 3 be included (be resubmitted) in the Volume II submittal?

Answer: Yes.

29. Question: DRFP Section L. Table L-3 provides Estimated Hours for each contract year (L, Vol 4, page 102). Is this table based on historical data from the ROS components of the current support contract?

Answer: It is not clear what the ROS acronym means. The information in this table is the Government provided estimated level of effort for TMS/I&M during the indicated periods of performance.

30. Question: DRFP Attachments. Will user manuals for GFI software items that are not commercially available products, such as Acu Controller (Raytheon) and ARIES (MIT), be provided to the winning offeror after award?

Answer: The Government’s intent is to provide these manuals after contract award.

31. Question: DRFP Section L. A Basis of Estimate is required in Volumes III, IV, and

VI, though the BOEs are to be more extensive in Volume VI.

31a. Question: In Volume III, are the BOEs describing the required labor resources/skill mix to execute the proposed phase-in and phase-out transition requirements required in both Volumes III and VI?

Answer: The BOEs provided in the Cost/Price Volume should be consistent with all other volumes. Cost/price of the sample TD will not be evaluated.

31b. Question: In Volume IV, are the BOEs for the scenarios in Part C, d., (1) and (2) required to repeated and priced in Volume VI?

Answer: Refer to final RFP.

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.

32. Question: DRFP, Exhibit B, Attachment. Will the Government make the DRFP listed Exhibit B, Attachment 9, Range Instrumentation and Support Facilities Manual (ISFM), dated 23 July 2015, available thru the FOUO bidders library as it has Exhibit B, Attachment 10, RTS Technical Facilities and Equipment Manual (TFEM) dated 28 Nov 2016?

Answer: Final RFP Exhibit B can be found in the attachment section of FBO.

Attachments 9 (ISFM) and 10 (TFEM) are located in the RETS Offeror's Library.

33. Question: DRFP, Exhibit B, Attachment. Will the Government make the DRFP listed

Exhibit B, Attachment 11, RTS Mission Planning Package, date N/A, available thru the FOUO bidders library as it has Exhibit B, Attachment 10, RTS Technical Facilities and Equipment Manual (TFEM) dated 28 Nov 2016?

Answer: All RETS FOUO documents are provided in the Offeror's Library.

34. Question: DRFP, Section H. Would the government clarify which labor categories are eligible under H.2 Compliance with the COFA and Implementing Agreements, a.

MUORA Article VIII – Employment of Labor and b. SOFA Article IV, Utilization of Contractors and Employment of Labor?

Answer: All labor categories are eligible as long as they meet the RETS education and experience requirements for the position.

35. Question: DRFP, Section H. Would the government clarify Section H.29 Incentive

Fee, how 95% and 98% are specifically calculated by formula (as well as other listed System Ao rates)?

Answer: Refer to CDRL A024, Appendix M "Format for RTS Sensor and Network Availability and Reliability Report" in the DSL and the final RFP.

36. Question: DRFP, Section H. Would the government clarify how H.29 Incentive Fee

System Ao rates are calculated when the STS system listed does not meet the required availability due to unclear demarcation lines between the Kwaj BOSS and Kwaj C4IM contractor?

37. Question: DRFP, Section L. The RFP states, “The approach shall describe the following: (1) how the offeror plans to resource the support of the sensors, to include identification of the proposed labor resource mix (offeror labor categories and hours per labor category) and any required materials, ODC, travel, and/or GFP/GFI.” Does the government expect offerors to provide resourcing for only the sensors or all the systems and subsystems identified in the PWS and ISFM.

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.

Answer: Offeror's proposal must provide resourcing for all PWS requirements.

38. Question: General. Previously we had been told that when GBR-K comes operational ALCOR will be taken off-line and put in some type of caretaker status.

What will be the time frame from when GBR-K is operational until ALCOR is removed from service? What should we assume the final state of ALCOR will be; caretaker or shut-down Answer: Refer to final RFP Section L. Assume the final state of ALCOR will be shut down.

39. Question: DRFP. Would the government consider using a plug number for including GBR-K system as part of the STS and TMS CLINS?

Answer: The Government will not provide a plug number for the GBR-K. Refer to the final RFP Section L.

40. Question: No Reference. Would the government please clarify what is meant by and how we understand the demarcation lines between Atoll and ROC-H instrumentation “design” (as the responsibility of the RETS contractor) and Instrumentation “development” (as the MIT/LL contractor) as stated in the Atoll and ROC-H industry day presentations, and the RETS PWS?

Answer: Technical Directives will be issued by the government to the RETS contractor for each I&M project. Technical Directives will specify RETS contractor participation requirements for each I&M project.

41. Question: No Reference. As there are OEMs that manufacture BMD systems competing for the RETS contract, creating a high potential for a conflict of interest, would the government publish criteria upon which it will grade the Section H.33 Organizational Conflict of Interest as a “Go” per Section M.3 Evaluation Factors For Award?

Answer: The Government guidance on OCI is provided to all potential offerors and referenced 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 mitigation plans in advance of issuance of the final RFP.

42. Question: No Reference. Would the government consider releasing salary information for the RETS labor categories published as has been practiced on other US Army range contracts in remote locations (Yuma, AZ) to help ensure current workforce retainment?

Answer: No. The RETS labor categories listing provides education and experience requirements. Offerors should propose their own labor categories mapped to the

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.

RETS labor categories. Offerors should propose their labor rates for the categories identified.

43. Question: No Reference. Does the government expect all RETS labor to be estimated by the offeror, or are there fixed hours for either STS or TMS that the government will provide a plug number for?

Answer: The Government expects all RETS direct labor to be estimated by the offeror. Refer to Section L of the final RFP. A total LOE is provided for TMS/I&M.

44. Question: DRFP Section B. Table L.6 provides estimated “Quantity/Unit” as total hours for each period of performance. These hours are provided for TMS LOE for the base and option periods. Will the Government entertain providing the estimated “Quantity/Unit” total hours for the STS portion of each period?

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

45. Question: DRFP Section H. The DRFP states that OCI will be evaluated as a

Go/No Go qualifier. Currently, the client’s determination of an offeror’s OCI status will be performed concurrently with the proposal period. Other Government solicitations have conducted an advisory OCI prescreening before the RFP was released, which helped offerors make bid decisions and conserve resources. Will the Government entertain providing a pre-proposal opinion of an offeror’s potential OCI with respect to

RETS?

Answer: The Government guidance on OCI is provided to all potential offerors and referenced the applicable authorities via FedBizOpps RFI Amendment 20. The

46. Question: DRFP Section L. Regarding Volumes with multiple sections [L.2.c, Table

L.1] that must be addressed. Is it the Government’s intent that these sections will be included in one singular proposal volume file?

Answer: Offerors should organize their volume files as outlined in Section L Table L.1, which identifies the volumes and their corresponding sections to be provided in accordance with the format requirements outlined in Section L.2 Format Requirements.

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.

47. Question: DRFP. As the classified documents referenced and provided by the Government require a different system accreditation to access (as opposed to a facility clearance to receive and store) which can take several weeks for DSS to approve, will the government release of the Final RFP allow for such system accreditation to occur?

Answer: Instruction for Offerors to gain access to RETS Offerors Library have been provided in FedBizOpps AMD 20. After an offeror's request has been received, then additional instructions are provided on the process to obtain the classified document.

Also refer to final RFP Section L.

48. Question: DRFP Section L. Regarding submittal of Volume II [L.1, pg 93; Table L.1, pg 95; Volume II, pg 97]: Pending the answers to previous questions, is it the Government’s intent that each section of Volume II should be submitted as a separate file or that Volume II should be submitted as a single file?

Answer: Yes, Volume II should be submitted as a single file with each section clearly identified. Refer to Section L of the final RFP.

49. Question: DRFP Section L. Regarding the Professional Employee Compensation

Plan [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: It is the offeror's responsibility to submit a plan IAW the final RFP requirements and within the volume specified in the final RFP. Refer to Section L of the final RFP for the correct volume number. Documents submitted in Adobe Acrobat® IAW limitations stated in Section L of the final RFP must use Optical Character Recognition to allow evaluators to search documents.

50. Question: DRFP Section L. Regarding providing a Basis of Estimate [L.3; Volume

III, section 1, Part F, pg 100; Volume IV, Section 2, Part D, pg 105; Volume VI, Section 3, pg 108]. A Basis of Estimate is required in Volumes III, IV, and VI, though the BOEs are to be more extensive in Volume VI. a. In Volume III, are the BOEs describing the required labor resources/skill mix to execute the proposed phase-in and phase-out transition requirements required in both Volumes III and VI? b. In Volume IV, are the BOEs for the scenarios in Part C, d., (1) and (2) required to repeated and priced in Volume VI?

Answer: Refer to final RFP and final RFP Section L Table L.1, which identifies the volumes and their corresponding sections. The Cost/Price Volume shall include BOEs consistent with those found in other volumes of the proposal. Offerors are

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.

instructed to propose costs/prices for all of the CLINS identified in Section B of the RFP for the execution of all PWS requirements.

51. Question: DRFP Section L. Regarding page numbering for Volumes III through V

[L.2, Table L.1, pg 95]. The page limitation of 100 pages is for Volumes III, IV, and V, with the exception of Vol III Part F of Section 1 and Volume IV Section 1. What is the Government’s expectation for continuous page numbering (including the embedded unlimited portions) to show compliance with the page limitation?

Answer: Offerors' page numbering is at their discretion, but must conform to the Section L proposal preparation instructions and page limitations specified in the final

RFP.

52. Question: DRFP Sections B and H. The incentive clause states: “The contractor is only entitled to fee on target costs that have been funded.” On an incrementally funded contract, if the contractor is in an underrun position, it is likely that the contractor will not be funded any higher than their costs expended. Based on our interpretation, the contractor could never achieve the underrun incentive fee if the available incentive fee is always adjusted to the funded amount. Our recommendation is that the available incentive fee should not be adjusted based on funding of cost.

Answer: Refer to final RFP Sections B and H.

53. Question: DRFP Sections B and H. The Cost Incentive Fee clause directly ties the cost incentive fee to technical performance. Based on this structure, the contractor fee is negatively impacted twice – in the technical performance area and Cost – even if the two are not directly related. Our recommendation is that the technical criteria be removed completely from the Cost Incentive fee clause. While we think removing technical criteria from the cost incentive clause is the best approach, an alternative is to state that if the technical performance suffers directly because of cost savings measures implemented by the contractor, then there should be a decrease in the cost incentive fee. The issue with this approach is it could be very difficult to objectively determine if the cost savings directly led to a decrease in technical performance.

Answer: The Government considered the Offeror's recommendation; however, no revision is made to the CPIF structure. Refer to final RFP Section B and H.

54. Question: DPWS 3.1.1.3.3. Is there already an asset de-confliction tool available to ensure assets are not scheduled for conflicting time requirements? If so, will the Government provide additional information on this tool?

Answer: There is not an asset de-confliction tool available.

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

55. Question: DPWS 3.1.1.4.1. The PWS requires the contractor to ensure data required to support RTS customers is collected/analyzed and provided to customers.

Is there a data analysis software suite available for use or will one have to be developed by the contractor?

Answer: The AAW and MS Office tools are available to produce the quick look reports. These tools are listed in final RFP Attachment 14, Software to be Transferred to Contractor.

56. Question: DPWS 3.1.1.5.6. What type of network equipment (i.e., Cisco) is utilized and approximately how many network nodes exist?

Answer: See final RFP Attachment 10 (Technical Facilities and Equipment Manual) for network description and Attachment 13 (GFE) list for equipment.

57. Question: DPWS 3.2.1.1.1. The PWS states that 252 sensor hours per week (not man-hours) of space surveillance operations during Long Range Tracking and Instrumentation Radar (ALTAIR) and alternate Target Resolution Discrimination Experiment (TRADEX) are required. Will the Government clarify if these sensors are automated or if they require continual operator intervention?

Answer: See final PWS for updated requirements for sensor hours and additional information. These sensors require continual operator intervention during these sensor hours.

58. Question: DRFP Section H. For sensor maintenance, the technical parameter states: “STS: Maintain operational availability for all RTS instrumentation systems (sensors).” We recommend that this technical parameter should indicate that is exclusive of scheduled maintenance times. Will the Government please clarify that this parameter will account for scheduled maintenance times?

59. Question: DRFP Section H. Section H.29 (3) addresses failure to pass an Army level security inspection. This is a technical issue that would negatively impact work, including system availability. Therefore, we recommend that this paragraph be added to the technical performance criteria and weighted appropriately and removed from the Cost Incentive Fee clause.

Answer: The Government considered the Offeror's recommendation; however, no revision is made to the CPIF structure. Refer to final RFP Section B and H.

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.

60. Question: DRFP Section L. The RFP states that the Government will conduct a go/no go evaluation based on Past Performance, Small Business, OCI, and Data Rights. OCI is due 10 days after RFP release and Past Performance 20 days. Given this schedule, offerors will have developed their entire proposals, expending a significant amount of Bid and Proposal funding, before being notified of eligibility based on the go/no go evaluation. We recommend that the Government first conducts an evaluation of offerors’ OCI submittal prior to release of the final RFP. At least a month between the OCI submittal due date and the final RFP release should allow the Government time to evaluate OCI issues and notify ineligible offerors prior to final RFP release. Would the Government consider this approach?

Answer: The Government guidance on OCI is provided to all potential offerors and referenced the applicable authorities via FedBizOpps RFI Amendment 20. The

61. Question: DRFP Section L. The Government has encouraged use of Marshallese companies, where applicable, during industry days; however, the RFP does not include any requirements to include Marshallese companies. Will the Government confirm that it will not evaluate the inclusion/exclusion of Marshallese companies in offerors’ proposals?

Answer: As noted during industry day, it is encouraged that offerors consider including Marshallese companies, however it is not a requirement.

62. Question: DRFP Section L. Elements of Volume II, including Past Performance and

OCI, are due early as part of the go/no go approach. Are Section 2 – Small Business Participation and Section 4 – Data Rights Assertion due with the remainder of the proposal? We recommend that these sections be submitted earlier if part of go/no go decision or move them to Volume I.

Answer: Data Rights has been removed from the Go/No Go criteria. Refer to final RFP Section L for specific instructions. Offerors are invited to submit OCI in advance of issuance of the final RFP. Offerors are requested to submit Past Performance and Corporate Experience sections of their proposal prior to final proposal submission date.

63. Question: DRFP Section L. Part A of Section II – Recruiting and Retention Plan requires a Total Employee Compensation Plan. We recommend the compensation plan be excluded from page count. Depending on the number of teaming partners, compensation plans can become lengthy – providing benefits information for multiples companies. The compensation plan is a key element in recruiting and retaining, and with the page limitations, offerors will not have the space to adequately

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.

explain their compensation. Will the Government consider excluding the compensation plan from page count?

Answer: The Total Professional Employee Compensation Plan portion of Section 2 (Recruitment and Retention Plan), Part A is excluded from the page count.

Remaining portions of Section 2 are included in the page count. Refer to Section L of the final RFP for the correct volume number.

64. Question: DRFP Section L. Given the importance of Transition to the evaluation, we recommend that the Government add a section to the Transition Plan requiring offerors to provide evidence of transitioning contracts that are OCONUS, remote sites and involve working with foreign nationals. These types of transitions include unique requirements. Understanding offerors’ records of achieving similar transitions is an indicator of their ability to effectively transition the Kwajalein RETS effort. Will the Government consider adding this requirement?

Answer: Refer to final RFP Section M for revised relative importance of the factors.

65. Question: DRFP Section L. Offerors are required to provide approved accounting systems. In the case of newly formed JV companies, we recommend that the Government allow the use of the managing member’s approved systems and that the RFP clearly state such.

Answer: The Government will not provide JV formation advice to Offerors. Refer to final RFP for accounting system and JV written agreement requirements.

66. Question: DRFP Section M. The Government states that the evaluation will “employ combined adjectival/risk rating schemes to assess the merit of the proposals with respect to the evaluation factors.” Will the Government include the adjectival/risk ratings in Section M so that offerors fully understand the evaluation process/ratings?

Answer: Refer to final RFP Section M for the evaluation methodology.

67. Question: DRFP Section L. CPIF – The current Incentive Fee is 70/30. Contractor requests a stronger incentive for underrun such as 50/50. This would encourage the Contractor to effectively manage these CLINS as well as driving positive performance for the Government.

Answer: Refer to the final RFP and attached documents.

68. Question: DRFP SF 33. What is the acceptance period for proposals submitted?

Answer: Refer to the final RFP and attached documents. The Government requests offeror’s proposals to be valid for 220 calendar days after the date of required proposal submission.

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.

69. Question: DRFP, Section L. Please explain what is meant by an “informal” joint venture.

Answer: A joint venture may be an informal arrangement that exists between two (or more) parties through a written document, or may be a formal written arrangement existing as a separate legal entity. (13 CFR 121.103(h) Affiliation)

70. Question: Draft RFP Section M. When will offerors with proposals rated a “No Go” be notified that they are no longer considered for evaluation?

Answer: After completion of the Go/No Go evaluation.

71. Question: DRFP Section H. Comment: The DRFP states Logistics Support

Contractor will provide freight forwarding services via Military Ocean Terminal Concord. However, the current draft BOS contract PWS only states that the contractor will operate a freight forwarding service. In order to ensure accurate and timely offsite receiving, and prioritization of services, we recommend the RETS contractor be required to have a representative present in the USAG-KA Logistics Support Contractor’s freight forwarding office to validate and inspect incoming cargo prior to transshipment.

Answer: Freight forwarding services will be provided by the government. With regard to offeror’s personnel in the office, the offeror may propose any solution they deem appropriate to support the requirements of the RTS PWS.

72. Question: DRFP Section H. Comment: The DRFP states Child Youth Services

(CYS) for contractor dependent personnel will be provided. Question: Will these services be provided at no cost or via a fee to the contractor employees?

Answer: Refer to the final RFP and attached documents. As stated in Section H, Child Youth Services are identified as a Government Furnished service.

73. Question: DRFP Section L. The instructions state that each offeror “… shall demonstrate its ability to successfully execute the standard technical service requirements of this solicitation through the provision of a viable maintenance approach for meeting system/sub-system operational availability and accuracy requirements.” The table on Pages 5-7 of the RETS PWS distinguishes all scope elements designated as standard technical service (STS) requirements versus Test Mission Services (TMS) requirements. For this Volume V (Maintenance Approach) requirement, are offerors expected to address their approaches to satisfy all RETS PWS elements associated with the STS requirements?

Answer: Refer to the final RFP and attached documents. Offerors are expected to address their approaches to satisfy all RETS PWS elements associated with the STS requirements per Sections B and L.

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

74. Question: DRFP Section L. The instructions state, “The cost proposal, including all proposed rates and factors, shall be for a ten year period of performance with an assumed contract award date of 28 November 2017 … Phase-In will occur within the first 90 days after contract award.” For proposal purposes (in both Cost/Price and the Transition Plan in Volume III), should offerors assume (1) notification of award on 28 November 2017; (2) award of contract on 28 November 2017; (3) Transition/Phase-in period from 28 November 2017 to 25 February 2018, where the current incumbent contractor will continue to perform the requirements associated with the RETS contract; and (4) 26 Feb 2018 the first day the RETS contractor will be responsible for all requirements of the RETS PWS and contract? We suggest, for proposal purposes, stipulating specific dates and divisions of responsibility for the incoming and outgoing contractor teams (1) to ensure consistency in timing across all RETS offerors, and (2) provide clarity and understanding of timing and responsibilities for all parties involved.

Answer: The assumed award date is revised to 12 January 2018, subject to change. Refer to the final RFP and attached documents. See Section L for transition plan language.

75. Question: DRFP Section L, Cost/Price Proposal, Direct Labor Cost. The instructions state, “(1) Labor Resource Mix. Identify the labor hours proposed inclusive of the prime offeror team/subcontractors and differentiated between prime offeror and team/subcontractors) by labor category … (2) Labor rates shall be proposed separately for RTS site (Kwajalein) and ROC-H (Huntsville, AL) locations.”

The Government prescribes the total not-to-exceed Level of Effort (LOE) hours for the TMS and I&M in Table L.4, but the prescribed hours are not specified by location.

Since hours required to satisfy STS requirements are not provided, we assume offerors are required to perform a bottoms-up estimate of their proposed labor resource mix to fulfill all STS requirements of the PWS. Section L.4 (For Information Purposes) on Pages 14-15 provides insight into the historical data and assumptions used to derive the Government’s prescribed TMS labor hour requirements.

75a. Question: Would the Government consider providing a breakout of the total not-to-exceed LOE hours for the TMS and I&M in Table L.4 by location (Kwajalein and Huntsville)?

Answer: Table L.4 provides an estimation for Informational Purposes Only of the level of effort hours allocated between Kwajalein and Huntsville. 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 its proposed allocation is

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.

consistent with and feasible for executing the offeror's planned approach for satisfying the TMS/I&M performance requirements of the PWS.

75b. Question: Will the Government be providing offerors workload indicators or any other relevant information that will aid offerors in developing a labor resource mix to satisfy all STS requirements of the RETS PWS? The information provided in Section L.4 (For Information Purposes) provides information that could aid offerors in developing a very high level estimate of labor resources required to fulfill the STS requirements, not the information is not sufficient for offerors to develop labor resource mix estimate detailed enough and with the appropriate veracity for a proposal. If the Government is not planning to provide workload indicators or any other relevant information that will aid offerors in developing a labor resource mix to satisfy all STS requirements, we suggest prescribing the total not-to-exceed hours for the STS requirements, and do so by location (Kwajalein and Huntsville).

Answer: Refer to Section L of the final RFP. Labor hours for STS, Phase-In, and Phase-Out CLINs must be estimated and proposed by the offeror.

76. Question: Industry Day. Several Industry Day discussions involved the potential difficulty in identifying and effectively utilizing small businesses within the current 541712 NAICS code and exception. One possible means of increasing the pool of small businesses for participation is to utilize the “Space and Missile Exception” for NAICS code 541712, which corresponds to a size standard of 1250. The use of this NAICS code qualifies additional companies as “small” for the purposes of this solicitation and may help the Government to meet the stated small business goals.

Answer: The NAICS code for the RETS acquisition is 541712 with a size standard of 1,000 or less employees for Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology), which best describes the work for the RETS procurement.

77. Question: DRFP Section H. Background: The US Army Test and Evaluation

Command (ATEC) and the US Air Force Test Center (AFTC) have enacted policy and guidance excluding system developers from participation in major MRTFB and other test programs. The basis, in both cases, is a system developer is deemed to have “impaired objectivity” in testing of their systems or components. These are documented in: DRFP, Section H33, Organizational Conflicts of Interest. Based on participation in the site visit at Kwajalein in January 2017 and at the ROC-H visit in February, there appears to be sufficient competition without utilizing system developer companies as a prime bidders, major subcontractors, or JV participants.

a. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) Policy Bulletin 2-11, Organization Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Involving Contractors in Support of Army Test and

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.

Evaluation, dtd 19 Apr 2011 (Note: this Policy bulletin has been updated, but basic exclusion cited remains in document.) b. Air Force Test Center (AFTC) Enterprise Organization Conflict of Interest (OCI) Guidance dtd 8 Jan 15. These policies and guidance also cover companies that participate as stakeholders in Joint Ventures (JV) - being deemed to have “impaired objectivity”. Examples of ATEC’s application of this OCI guidance was recently shown in a case of a JV divestiture involving both Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman in the White Sands Missile Range and the Electronic Proving Ground programs operations. Also, AFTC imposed this guidance in removing Raytheon from the operations of the USAF J-TECH ranges (Nevada Test and Training Range, Utah Test and Training Range, and Air Force Flight Test Center). Finally, subcontracting roles have been generally included in this restriction.

Based on participation in the site visit at Kwajalein in January 2017 and at the ROC- H visit in February, there appears to be sufficient competition without utilizing system developer companies as a prime bidders, major subcontractors, or JV participants.

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

78. Question: DRFP and DPWS. In the answer to question 2-23, the government states that offerors should address the standard technical services requirements in PWS Section 3.2.2 only. Will the government update Sections L and M of the final RFP to reflect that only PWS Section 3.2.2 should be addressed? Will the government confirm that PWS Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 are not required to be addressed by offerors and will not be evaluated?

Answer: The previously answered question referenced above stated: “Within the Maintenance Approach, please clarify that Offerors should address the standard technical service requirements that directly apply only to maintenance.” The correct answer is: Offerors shall propose a maintenance approach that encompasses all of the requirements identified in PWS Section 3.2 RTS Standard Technical Services.

79. Question: DRFP and DPWS. The government has provided Labor CLINS in RFP

Section B that align with PWS Task 3.0 (TMS and Instrumentation Modifications, STS and Transition). However, there is no CLIN for labor associated with PWS Tasks 4.0 (General Requirements). Will the government provide labor CLINS for PWS Task 4.0 or are offerors expected to distribute the costs associated with this task across the CLINS provided? If no additional CLINS are provided for PWS Task 4.0, how does the government expect offerors to distribute these costs across the TMS and STS CLINS?

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.

Answer: No additional CLINs will be established. Section L instructs offerors to propose costs/prices for all of the CLINs identified in Section B of the RFP for the execution of all PWS requirements. Offerors are instructed to provide basis of estimates and to provide detailed cost buildups with full visibility to the development of offered costs/prices that fully describes the basis of estimate supporting the proposed costs, and that is consistent with other proposal volumes. Per final RFP Offerors' methods used to estimate costs associated with the PWS effort should be in accordance with the offeror's disclosed accounting and estimating policies and procedures. Refer to Cost/Price Volume, Basis of Estimate section of the final RFP.