Government_Responses_2.pdf

Question # RFP Section Reference Question Response 107 General In order to ensure a common baseline and level playing field for the procurement, can the RFP provide (1) that the WSMR MSS contractor has historically been required to pay wages above the Department of Labor (DOL) Area Wage Determination (AWD) to retain highly qualified Service Contract Act (SCA) employees in this geographic location; (2) incorporate baseline wage information as an exhibit to the RFP; and (3) that any deviation from the average rates that are provided as an exhibit to the RFP must be clearly identified, explained and justified. Will the Agency revise the RFP to incorporate this information?

The Government has revised Exhibit T. Historical Overtime data provided in Exhibit AL.

Will the use of external cloud-based services be allowed in the performance of this contract? If so, what security requirements compliance will be applied to this contract

The Government has no issue with the use of external cloud based services if applicable to the Cost Tracking System. For data collection external cloud based services will not be allowed.

109 Section L; Exhibit AG International Trafficking In Arms Regulations (ITAR). It is not sufficiently clear from the RFP/PWS the extent to which the contractor will have access to and/or manage/control ITAR related items or information, either in the course of working directly on WSMR or potentially OCONUS, that could require the Contractor to either participate in a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) or obtain a related export license. Please clarify this requirement.

Contractors shall comply with 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons.

110 Section L Vol II and Exhibit T; Page 71-74

No historical workload or hours data (including overtime) has been provided in the RFP. However, under the Mission Capability factor, offerors shall address (and the Agency shall evaluate) numerous issues for which this data is essential, including but not limited to:

- “[F]ully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the Government’s requirements.”

RFP page 71, Sec LVol II Mission Capability.

- “[D]escribe the approach to successfully responding to rapid increases and decreases in workload, specifying straight time to overtime methodology.” RFP page 72, Sec L TAB F1.

- “[D]escribe in writing its approach for reducing or controlling costs, business processes, and policies to perform sound fiscal stewardship over funds during contract performance.” RFP page 73, Sec L TAB F2 (c).

- “[D]emonstrate, in detail, the plan for recruiting and retaining a workforce possessing the critical skills needed for the successful performance of the requirements of PWS Section C.5.4, Test Operations and Support Functions through C.5.11, Center for Countermeasures (CCM).” RFP page 73, Sec L TAB F3.

- “[D]escribe the approach to obtaining unique, specialized expertise on short notice and its approach to expanding staff to meet increased workload.” RFP page 73, Sec L TAB F3.

- “[D]escribe its approach and risk mitigation strategies for minimizing disruption of operations due to contract transition and assumption of workload as described in PWS Section C.1.3, Contract Transition and Phase-out (excluding sub-section C.1.3.8.2)” RFP Page 73, Sec L TAB F4.

The historical workload and hours data (including overtime) represents part of the very requirements that offerors must address in their proposals and is also essential to ensure that offerors are competing on a level playing field. Question: Will the Government revise the RFP to incorporate: (1) historical workload data and

(2) a breakdown in Exhibit T between regular and overtime hours by labor category?

Historical overtime data provided in Exhibit AL. The Government has revised Exhibit T.

Section L.-III, C, Volume II, Tab F2, Pages 72-73

Section L states, "A computer, projector, internet connectivity, and screen are provided for demonstration use."

Will the Government please advise if they are also providing an IT professional to assist with equipment setup?

Also, can the Government please advise the speed of the Internet connection?

The Government will provide IT assistance for set-up.

Section L, p. 79, para (6)

This requirement states that, "Offerors shall not deviate from the baseline staffing in Exhibit T except as instructed on the exhibit to account for lead workers and straight overtime."

To ensure a level playing field for all bidders, we recommend that Exhibit T provide a specific number of overtime hours that all bidders must use in their proposal.

Historical Overtime data has been provided in Exhibit

AL

RFP, Section L, (6), p. 78

In this section the Government states that "Offerors shall not deviate from Exhibit T except as instructed on the Exhibit to account for lead workers and straight overtime. Would the Government please provide its definition of "straight overtime"? Is the Government suggesting that overtime hours identified in Exhibit T be priced at "straight pay" which would mean that the ceiling hours in the Exhibit for each LCAT, both regular and overtime, would all be priced at the straight pay rate?

Historical Overtime data provided in Exhibit AL. The Government has revised Exhibit T.

RFP, Section L, c. CBA, p. 80

The Government states that "CBA employees should be proposed using wages as stated on the CBA shown as Exhibit AC of the solicitation". Does the Government wish for offerors to bid the appropriate CBA rates as shown in Appendix D of the CBA, or does the Government expect offerors to also factor in all potential premiums (e.g., shift differentials, hazardous duty, etc.) into the base pay proposed for each LCAT?

Historical Overtime data provided in Exhibit AL. The Government has revised Exhibit T.

The Government aligned all labor categories through consolidation of Exhibits V, W, and T.

115 Pg. 72, Section L-III.C.3 Volume II Tab F2: Subfactor 2 – Cost Management, a. General Instructions dated 30-Mar-2018 states “Presentations will begin on the 7th of May 2018”

Will the Government please indicate how soon before May 7th it will provide offerors with their specific demonstration date?

Offerors will be notified on or about 14 May 2018.

RFP, Attachment 1

New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax applies to 100% of revenue of any contract earnings in the state. Typically, contracts will add the NMGRT as a single entry at the bottom of the pricing. For example, the NMGRT could be included as a line item inserted into a row at the bottom of the Summary Tab. This method, however, would result in a disconnect between the Total Price and Schedule B which would not include the NMGRT by CLIN. Does the Government wish for offerors to add NMGRT as a single lump sum by contract year, or does the Government prefer that offerors include the NMGRT into the price of each CLIN? Please note that if the Government prefers each CLIN include NMGRT, then the material handling rate that each offeror bids for ODCs must also include the NMGRT.

FAR Clause 52.229-10 State of New Mexico Gross Receipts and Compensating Tax (NMGRT) is not applicable to this contract.

Attachment 5 Resume Format

PWS C.5.3.3.1 KEY POSITIONS

On the provided Attachment 5, number 2 states "Contract labor category/contractor’s labor category if different:" however in the PWS, C.5.3.3.1 KEY POSITIONS, calls out three key personnel by the titles Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, and Engineering Manager.

Will the Government clarify which labor category in the WSMR contract corresponds with the key personnel positions called out in the PWS?

The Government revised Exhibit T.

118 Exhibits AC and AF The following non-exempt labor categories are not in listed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). It is our understanding that all non-exempt labor categories are represented (CBA) positions. Is this assumption accurate? If so, to which CBA labor categories do the following positions correlate? If not, are the positions listed below Wage Determination categories? If so, what are the SCA labor category numbers?

ASSISTANT, ADMIN

ELECTRONIC OPTICAL B

MECHANICAL OPTICAL TECH

OFFICE AND CLERICAL

Revised Exhibit T to include exempt, non-exempt and CBA. Any labor category not listed in the CBA are covered by the Wage Determation in Exhibit AF.

119 Exhibit AG

In PWS Section C.5.3.3.6.3, Meteorology (field instrumentation setup, measurements, and weather forecasting) is listed as a required skill set. Please provide clarification as to which labor category description in the labor categories provided in exhibit T and the labor category descriptions in exhibits V and W this skill set resides.

Meteorology performance combines qualified Meteorologists with Electronic and Engineering Technicians. Exhibit T revised. Exhibits W and V has been incorporate into the revised Exhibit T.

PWS, C.1.8.7 Does the Government expect the support contractor to control and execute TMDE calibration? If not, where and how is TMDE calibration completed?

The Government and Contractor receive TMDE services at the TMDE Lab located on White Sands Missile Range Installation.

121 Exhibit AG Please provide a list of software licenses (Maximo, Deltek, testing software, etc.), expiration dates, and associated support agreements that will convey to the contractor and what terms will be associated with them.

Contractor software license will reside with the Contractor. Government software license will be avilable for use in support of the contrat.

122 PWS Section C.5.3.3.1.2.2 and C.5.3.3.1.3

Given that the ABET Language is still listed as a requirement for both and Engineering and Business degree, is it the Government's intent to require a Bachelor's in Engineering for the Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager? Please clarify that it is acceptable for an offeror to propose candidates for Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager who hold business degrees such as Administration or Management and not Engineering.

b.) Typically, engineering experience is dedicated to individuals with an Engineering degree. Therefore, an individual with a Business degree would not be able to obtain this experience. Is it the Government's intent for this bullet to state "Five (5) years of demonstrated engineering and/or management experience on contracts OR projects with organizational responsibilities of a similarly complex nature and financial scope?

The ABET accreditation applies to Engineering degrees. The Government will revise the PWS (page 71 of Technical Exhibit AG_PWS_as_of_19_April_2018) to read: "A valid Bachelor’s degree in Engineering from an ABET accredited college or university or an Integrated Business-Engineering program; advanced degrees preferable."

PWS, C.5.3.3.1.4, Engineering Manager Qualifications, p.72

The Government states in C.5.3.3.1.4 that the Key Position of Engineering Manager must, at a minimum, possess, “a valid Master’s degree in Engineering from an ABET accredited college or university.”

Furthermore, the qualified candidate must also possess, “five (5) or more years extensive field operations and production engineering on contracts OR projects with organizational responsibilities of a similarly complex nature and financial scope.”

Will the Government please allow a tradeoff of 20 years of engineering experience involving progressively challenging positions in Test and Evaluation activities, with emphasis on test management, preparation, execution, data collection, and analysis, in combination with a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering from an ABET accredited university?

The Offeror may propose the stated combination of experience and education with a justification for the deviation. The Government will assess risk associated with an Offeror's proposal and evaluate accordingly.

124 Reference PWS Section C.5.3.3.1.2.2 Program Manager Minimum Qualifications and C.5.3.3.1.3 Deputy Program Manager Minimum Qualifications, page 71 and 72

These sections state minimum qualifications for both the Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager to include “A valid Bachelor’s degree in engineering and/or business from an ABET accredited college or university; advanced degrees preferable”. Additionally, in the same PWS Sections the next bullet states “… demonstrated engineering and management experience on contracts OR projects with organizational responsibilities of a similarly complex nature and financial scope.”

In a 2016 ATEC solicitation (sister organization to WSMR) to which we responded, the minimum qualifications cited for the Program Manager and Assistant Program Manager included the following:

For the MSS WSMR PWS, we believe it is the Government’s intent to require ABET accreditation for engineering degrees and CHEA (or similar) accreditation for business/management degrees for PM and DPM candidates. Will the Government please confirm this assumption?

For the two PM/DPM requirements referenced above, we suggest the following wording for the PM and DPM minimum qualifications:

• A valid Bachelor’s degree in engineering from an Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) or in business/management from a Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) or similar accreditation program; advanced degrees preferable

• … demonstrated engineering and/or management experience on contracts OR projects with organizational responsibilities of a similarly complex nature and financial scope

The ABET accreditation applies to Engineering degrees. The Government will revise the PWS (page 71 of Technical Exhibit AG_PWS_as_of_19_April_2018) to read: "A valid Bachelor’s degree in Engineering from an ABET accredited college or university or an Integrated Business-Engineering program; advanced degrees preferable."

125 Exhibit AG (PWS) para C.1.4.2, Bullet #1 , and Exhibit T (Labor Categories and Hours) CLIN 1 Exempt Personnel Column

PWS, C.1.4.2 Bullet #1 requires that the Quality Control Plan "Be structured to assure independence from any other parts of the Contractor organization; and have direct accountability to the Contractor’s top management." Exhibit T lists mandatory Labor Categories and Hours for two part-time managers:

"MANAGER, QA/SAFETY/SEC/CI" and "MNGR,ENVIR/SFTY QUAL SEC DEPT." It is unclear how these QA managers can be independent when they are also listed as being managers of other areas that QC/QA should be independently inspecting. Please clarify. If the Government disagrees with this assessment of independence for these labor categories, could you please clarify your definition of independence with regard to the Quality Control Plan?

The Government revised Exhibit T.

126 Exhibit N, AH – AJ Discussion: The Government provided CDRLs for Monthly CAP Purchase Request Status Form 1423-1, GFP Receiving Status Report, and Contract Government Furnished Property Listing as part of the 30 March 2018 final RFP release. Exhibit “N” lists 23 reports, plans, lists, etc., that are deliverable during contract POP;

however, these deliverables are not official CDRLs.

Question: Will the Government please clarify if these deliverables will become CDRLs upon award and how offerors should address them in the proposal?

The Government will discuss the specifics related to deliverables and CDRLs upon award.

127 Exhibit Q

In exhibit Q, meteorology defined baseline support including operations and maintenance of MET towers and support to other meteorological systems. Please clarify where in the PWS this support work scope is outlined.

Meteorology is discussed in Sections C.5.3.3.6.3, C.5.4.1.2, C.5.11.1, and pages 97-98.

128 Exhibit T - Labor Categories and Hours

Exhibit T is a significant departure from the prior Exhibit TE-6, which had provided detailed labor categories and expected FTEs for each category. These labor categories and FTEs have been consistent since the original draft RFP released in October 2017 and potential offerors have built their approach around the information previously provided.

Now the government has provided a highly sanitized Exhibit T that blends man-hours, eliminates FTEs, erases Lead indications and essentially has no correlation to the position requirements in the PWS or the labor category descriptions in Exhibits V and W. Moreover, the ‘labor categories’ appear to be ‘job titles’, very likely provided by the incumbent contractor (e.g. ‘vice president of operations’; ‘professionals’; etc.).

For example, the PWS lists a Safety Manager and a Environmental Officer as important positions, each with specific qualifications and degree requirements. Exhibit T has a Manager of Environmental, Safety, Quality, and Security as well as a Safety Environmental Manager. Exhibit V shows none of these positions, and instead lists an Environmental Officer (with different experience requirements than the PWS); Security, Quality Assurance/Safety, Continuous Improvement Manager; and a Safety/Environmental Director (that does not meet the qualifications for both the Safety Manager and the Environmental Officer in the PWS). The titles do not match between Exhibits and the Qualifications for these positions do not match the PWS.

There are also inconsistencies within Exhibit T - such as the notation in the top yellow block (row 1) where you state the Carpenter A under the ATEC CLIN cannot exceed 4090 base hours, yet in row 8 you show 4040 hours for ATEC Carpenter A.

These inconsistencies are in multiple places between the PWS and referenced exhibits and make it impossible for anyone, other than the incumbent, to provide a compliant, responsive proposal as it is impossible to crosswalk these inconsistencies, develop an organization, demonstrate recruiting approaches for unknown positions (such as 'professionals' that have no supporting data or a relevant job description), etc

The Government aligned all labor categories through consolidation of Exhibits V, W, and T.

129 Exhibit T - Labor Categories and Hours

Row 1 states in part, "...Offerors are reminded to pay close attention to the process laid out in the CBA when developing an overtime strategy for covered employees…As indicated in the solicitation, offerors shall not deviate from the hours provided below by labor category. For example, the total hours proposed, inclusive of overtime and lead positions, for Carpenter A under the ATEC CLIN cannot exceed 4,090 for Base period and 5,390 per option period." Only the incumbent has the insight to predict the breakout in number of labor hours between regular and overtime -- it would be a total guess for all others. Please provide the number of Overtime hours by labor category that each offeror should propose.

Historical Overtime data provided in Exhibit AL.

130 Exhibit T - Labor Categories and Hours

The list of labor categories do not include the Key Personnel categories required by the RFP. For example there is no labor category for PM, DPM or Engineering Manager. In exhibit T, there is no PM or DPM and only a part-time 'VP Engineering and a full-time VP Operations. Is this an oversight or does the Government want these labor categories proposed in overhead?

The Government revised Exhibit T.

131 Exhibit T - Labor Categories and Hours and Subfactor 1 - Quality Control and Continuous Process Improvement.

Section L, Subfactor 1 - Quality Control and Continuous Process Improvement requires offerors to provide an extensive Quality Control methodology. However, Exhibit T only provides a couple of part-time Exempt employees identified in a Quality Role (e.g. 950 hours for Quality/Safety Specialist and 20 hours for a Quality Analyst). Please clarify this disconnect.

The Government revised Exhibit T.

132 Exhibit T - Labor Categories and Hours

Traditionally "exempt" positions are salaried full-time positions. However, in Exhibit T there are over 95 of the "exempt" positions that are to be proposed with less than 1800 hours per year (and 60 of those less than 1000 hours per year). Please clarify this disconnect -- are there really that many part-time exempt employees on the current contract?

The Government revised Exhibit T.

133 Exhibit T Exhibit T to the Draft RFP provides total annual hours by labor category only and provides that “[t]he staffing information and total hours in Exhibit T by labor category shall be used as a baseline for developing proposed labor costs. Offerors shall not deviate from the baseline staffing in Exhibit T except as instructed on the exhibit to account for lead workers and straight overtime.” No historical workload or hours data has been provided. A common basis is essential for a procurement such as this in which staffing/workload is unpredictable and not within the control of the contractor. The Draft RFP fails to provide a common baseline for proposals. For example, the Agency has provided no historical data or Exhibit T data disclosing overtime versus regular hours. Such information is essential to proposed staffing and must be provided in the RFP in order to ensure a common baseline and level playing field. Will the Agency revise the RFP to incorporate:

(1) historical workload data and (2) a breakdown in Exhibit T between regular and overtime hours by labor category?

Historical Overtime data provided in Exhibit AL.

Exhibit T

The instructions state that the total hours proposed for Carpenter A under the ATEC CLIN cannot exceed 4,090 for Base period and 5,390 per option period. However, Exhibit T identifies 4,040 hours for ATEC Carpenter A. Will the Government please explain the discrepancy or correct the error?

The Government has revised Exhibit T.

Exhibit T

The updated exhibit removes all Lead positions and instructs offerors to indicate the lead to worker structure.

Since no lead positions are identified, is the Government implying that lead premiums should not be priced with the CBA mandated $1 increase? I.e., should offerors only talk about the lead to worker structure in the technical proposal, but only use the CBA rates for the specific LCATs in Exhibit T without identifying which positions/hours are paid at the Lead rate?

The Government requires Offerors to provide their proposed "Lead to Worker" ratio approach. There is no intent to provide Government or proposed contractor organizational structures or historic mission workload as they do not pertain to the requirements of the proposal.

Exhibit T

Did the government intend to delete the Program Manager position from the list of Exempt positions under CLIN 1? Is the government intent for Offerors to price the WSMR Program Manager in overhead instead of as a direct charge?

The Government revised Exhibit T.

137 Exhibit T A "Machinist" is a Trade position in in the CBA Pay Rate Schedule. Did the government intend to include a Machinist as an exempt position under CLIN 5 Air Force?

The Government revised Technical Exhibit T.

Exhibit T Please clarify what the Government’s definition of “Professionals” is in Exhibit T Exempt LCATs.

The Government revised Exhibit T.

139 Exhibits T, W, and V 1) Ambiguities related to Labor Categories, Hours, and Staffing within the PWS, Exhibit T (released 03/28/2018), and Exhibits W and V that effect an Offeror’s ability to develop compliant pricing:

- The Government requires direct labor rates for exempt positions. However, many of the exempt labor categories within the updated Exhibit T are incumbent position titles that do not link to the PWS, are not included in Exhibit V, and/or are not positions traditionally proposed as direct labor. Examples include the VP of Operations, VP of Engineering, Chairman WF DEV Council, Professionals, etc. Offerors (outside of the incumbent) do not have the required information to assign labor rates to these positions.

- Exhibit T, Row 1 states in part, "...Offerors are reminded to pay close attention to the process laid out in the CBA when developing an overtime strategy for covered employees…As indicated in the solicitation, offerors shall not deviate from the hours provided below by labor category. For example, the total hours proposed, inclusive of overtime and lead positions, for Carpenter A under the ATEC CLIN cannot exceed 4,090 for Base period and 5,390 per option period." Only the incumbent has the historical data to predict the breakout in number of labor hours between regular and overtime.

- Exhibit T, Row 1 states, “Offerors are also required to indicate, by non-exempt labor category, the lead to worker structure.” It’s unclear what the Government is asking for (related to ‘structure) or why the Government has provided Leads in various places and not others (Missile Instrument Tech A Lead – under CLIN 1; Electronic Specialist L – under CLIN 3; Info Systems Specialist L – under CLIN 1 exempt). Adding further confusion, the Government has provided this information with its previous Draft RFPs (productive hours for Leads).

- Offerors are required to identify corresponding company labor categories for the labor categories/employee positions listed in Exhibit T. However, there doesn’t appear to be a clear rationale in the listing of labor categories within Exhibit T to facilitate this crosswalk.

Examples include:

The updated Exhibit T lists Exempt Employees that include an MIS Manager and an Acting MIS Manager for CLIN 1. It’s not clear if these two labor categories represent different positions with different skills and experience? Neither the MIS Manager nor the Acting MIS Manager (and their respective qualifications) are shown within Exhibit

The Government aligned all labor categories through consolidation of Exhibits V, W, and T and revised to include common exempt labor category titles.

140 Exhibits T, W, and V Traditionally, "exempt" positions are defined as salaried, full-time positions. However, in Exhibit T there are over 95 "exempt" positions that Offerors are to propose with less than 1800 hours per year, and 60 of these positions have less than 1000 hours per year. This disconnect is not explained or clarified.

- Previous versions of Exhibit T (and the previous TE-6) clearly portrayed the FTEs required on this effort and demonstrated that the Government defined an FTE as1,880 productive hours. The updated Exhibit T provides a variation of annual productive hours across all positions, with most positions being less than 1,880 productive hours. Thereby leading Offerors to conclude that more than half of the positions to be proposed are part-time. This requires clarification.

- The PWS requires a Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, and Engineering Manager. None of these positions are listed in Exhibit T as part of the Government’s baseline staffing.

Section L, Volume V.e, Compliance, on page 78 states, “(1). Failure to comply with RFP requirements for cost/price information may result in an adverse assessment of an Offeror’s proposal and reduce or eliminate its chance of being selected for award.” With the ambiguities throughout the PWS and Exhibits, offerors are unable to clearly interpret the Government’s intent and require further guidance and clarification in order to submit compliant cost/price proposals.

The Government revised Exhibit T.

141 Ambiguities within Section L, M, the PWS, Exhibit T and Exhibits W and V that effect an Offeror's ability to develop a compliant technical proposal:

Section L Tab F1: Subfactor 1 – Program Management requires the Offeror to provide resumes for Key Personnel Identified in Section C.5.3 of the PWS. This section of the PWS (Sections C.5.3 3.1.2 – C.5.3.3.1.4) lists 3 Key Personnel Positions – Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, and Engineering Manager. Exhibit T does not list any Key Personnel Positions, and only the Engineering Manager is shown in Exhibit V. Adding to the ambiguities, PWS C.5.3.3 states, “The Government requires a management structure that supports efficient and effective program management. The Government identified the following as key positions and important functional areas. With sufficient expertise and training in multiple disciplines, the Government does not require a one to one ratio between people and positions. ” Based on these ambiguities, it is unclear whether or not Offerors are required to bid 3 key personnel positions. This same ambiguity also exists within the Organizational Section for Subfactor 1. The PWS (C.5.3.3.2) provides specific requirements for positions within ‘Important Functional Areas’. However, these positions are not consistently identified throughout Exhibit T and V, and the job descriptions for these positions are not consistent with the requirements in the PWS. For example, the PWS lists a Safety Manager and a Environmental Officer as important positions, each with specific qualifications and degree requirements.

Exhibit T has a Manager of Environmental, Safety, Quality, and Security as well as a Safety Environmental Manager. Exhibit V shows none of these positions, and instead lists an Environmental Officer (with different experience requirements than the PWS); Security, Quality Assurance/Safety, Continuous Improvement Manager; and a Safety/Environmental Director (that does not meet the qualifications for both the Safety Manager and the Environmental Officer in the PWS). The titles do not match between Exhibits and the Qualifications for these positions do not match the PWS.

142 Conflicting requirements related to QA/CPI inhibit an offeror’s ability to clearly understand the Government’s desired quality/CPI approach: PWS, C.1.4.2 Bullet 1 requires that the Quality Control Plan "Be structured to assure independence from any other parts of the Contractor organization; and have direct accountability to the Contractor’s top management." Bullets 4 and 6 also require that the QCP cover all services and establish an inspection system covering all services. However, Exhibit T only provides a couple of part-time, dual-hatted Exempt employees identified in a Quality Role (‘MANAGER, QA/SAFETY/SEC/CI’ and ‘MNGR,ENVIR/SFTY QUAL SEC DEPT’). It is unclear how these Quality Managers can be independent when they are also managers for other areas that QC/QA is required to independently inspect. The quality positions listed in Exhibit T seem to conflict with the Quality Control requirements in the PWS.

The Government revised Exhibit T.

143 Exhibit T, V, and AG Exhibit T - Labor Categories and Hours; Exhibit V - Exempt Job Descriptions; Exhibit AG - PW There are discrepancies that exist between these three documents that need to be resolved to adequately price the job.

For example, the PWS identifies a program manager, deputy program manager, and engineering manager;

however, these positions are not shown on Exhibits T and V. There are no job hours associated with any of these 3 positions. Also, there are two vice presidents in the job hours, but no job description for these positions, which appear to be similar to the deputy program manager and engineering manager. Please clarify the anomalies between these documents. The below positions have hours in Exhibit T, but no corresponding job description in Exhibit V:1. ASSISTANT, MIS CO-OP2. CALIBRATION/LOAD TEST ANALY

CT3. CHAIRMAN WF DEV COUNCIL4. TRACK PROCESSING ENGINEER5. SIGNAL PROCESSING

ENGINEER6. GROUP LEADER, PRODUCTION ENGINEER7. OFFICE AND CLERICAL8. TELEMETRY

MANAGER9. MECHANICAL OPTICAL TECH10. NIE SUPPORT COORDINATOR11. POLICIES PROC SYS

ANALYST12. PROFESSIONALS13. SECURITY COORDINATOR CT14. VP, OPERATIONS15. VP,

ENGINEERING

The Government revised Exhibit T.

144 Exhibit T Labor Categories and Hours presented in Exhibit T:Due to the presentation of the breakdown of hours to labor categories, is there an anticipation that personnel fill hours across multiple labor categories? Are fractional FTE positions expected to be filled by non full-time employees?

145 Reference Exhibits T and V For the following labor categories listed in Exhibit T, there are no contract job descriptions in Exhibit V that directly correlate to these labor categories. Therefore, no minimum education or experience requirements nor labor category descriptions are provided. We believe that without a direct correlation between labor categories in Exhibit T, providing the necessary education, experience, and labor category descriptions, the Government will face the risk of offerors not being able to properly price the labor categories in Exhibit T.

Please provide minimum requirements for education and experience and labor category descriptions for all labor categories identified in Exhibit T.

ASSISTANT, MIS CO-OP

CALIBRATION/LOAD TEST ANALY CT

CHAIRMAN WF DEV COUNCIL

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR

ENGINEER

ENGINEER, TRACK PROCESSING SOFT

ENGINEERING AIDE

ENGR, AERONAUTICAL

ENGR, AEROPROPULSION

ENGR, ASSC SOFTWARE

ENGR, CIRCUIT ANALY NUC EFF

ENGR, DIGITAL IMAGING SOFTW

ENGR, ELECTRICAL

ENGR, ELECTRONIC

ENGR, ELECTRO-OPTICAL

ENGR, HELSTF ELECTRICAL

ENGR, HELSTF MECHANICAL

ENGR, HELSTF OPS AND MAINT

ENGR, HELSTF SOFTWARE

ENGR MECHANICAL

The Government revised Exhibit T.

146 Reference Exhibits T and V The following labor categories identified in Exhibit T correlate to multiple labor categories within Exhibit V.

These descriptions in Exhibit V have different levels of education and/or experience. We believe that without a one-to-one correlation between labor categories from Exhibit T to Exhibit V and labor category education and requirements, the Government will face the risk of the contractor not being able to properly price the labor categories in Exhibit T. Please provide labor category minimum requirements for education and experience for all labor categories identified in Exhibit T.

OPTICAL ENGINEER

ENGR, TSN TELECOM NETWORK SYS

RESOURCE ANALYST

SAFETY COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR

The Government aligned all labor categories through consolidation of Exhibits V, W, and T and revised to include common exempt labor category titles.

147 Reference Exhibits T and V The following labor category identified in Exhibit T has no level of education or experience identified in Exhibit V for the corresponding labor category. We believe that without a one-to-one correlation between labor categories in Exhibit T to Exhibit V and labor category education and requirements, the Government will face the risk of the contractor not being able to properly price the labor categories in Exhibit T. Please provide labor category minimum requirements for education and experience for all labor categories identified in Exhibit T.

SECTION SUPERVISOR

The Government aligned all labor categories through consolidation of Exhibits V, W, and T and revised to include common exempt labor category titles.

148 Exhibit T The three key positions specified in the PWS and identified below are not identified in Exhibit T; therefore, no hours have been assigned to them in Exhibit T. To which labor categories in Exhibit T do these key personnel correlate? If they do not correlate to a labor category in Exhibit T, please provide the hours for these three positions.

PROGRAM MANAGER C.5.3.3.1.2.2

DEPUTY PROGRAM MANAGER C.5.3.3.1.3

ENGINEERING MANAGER C.5.3.3.1.4

The Government aligned all labor categories through consolidation of Exhibits V, W, and T and revised to include common exempt labor category titles.

149 Exhibit T and V The RFP states the Quality Inspector is an Exempt Position. Please confirm that this is accurate and that this position should not be mapped to DOL 99240. If it should be mapped to SCA, please provide the appropriate WD.

The Government revised Exhibit T.

150 Exhibit T In the draft RFP files, the Government provided productive labor hours to determine FTE. Will the Government provide a seniority profile for CBA, Exempt and SCA positions to facilitate a determination of

PTO?

The Government will not provide a seniority profile.

Exhibit T, "Exempt" labor categories

The following labor categories were added to Exhibit T in the DRFP#5 update without any obvious match to the list of Exhibit T labor categories in Exhibit V which was not updated. Would the Government please provide an updated Exhibit V to include these or rename the LCATs to the same title used in Exhibit V so a proper mapping to the qualifications of the position (and hence the salary) can be made? The new labor categories include: Assistant, Field Office; Assistant MIS CO-OP; Calibration/Load Test Analyst CT;

Engineer, Track Processing Soft; Optics Non-Track CT; Policies Proc Sys Analyst; Professionals; Quality Analyst; and Security Coordinator CT.

The Government revised the Technical Exhibit T.

Exhibit T

Did the Government intend to delete the Program Manager position from the list of Exempt positions under CLIN 1? Is the Government intent for Offerors to price the WSMR Program Manager in overhead instead of as a direct charge?

The Government revised Exhibit T.

Exhibit T

To improve clarity for all bidders, could the Government select a Labor Category from Exhibit T and provide an example of how they wish to see overtime presented? It is not clear from the instructions whether the Government wishes the offeror to describe the amount of overtime expected or whether offerors should determine what portion of each LCATs ceiling hours are overtime and then price part of the hours at straight pay and the remainder at time and a half.

Historical Overtime date provided in Exhibit AL. The Government has revised Exhibit T.

154 Exhibit T Discussion: Labor categories in Exhibit “T” contained discrepancies, such as “MECHANIC AUTO/GEN A” and “MECHANIC, AUTO/GEN B” where the comma was the only discrepancy, and “CLIN 5: AIR FORCE ‘MACHINIST’” which had one (1) “MACHINIST” listed as “Exempt” while all other “MACHINIST” positions were listed as non-exempt.

Question: Will the Government please revise Exhibit “T” to consistently account for all positions thereby enabling an accurate evaluation of equal positions for all offerors?

The Government revised Exhibit T.

155 Exhibit T Discussion: In the various previous draft releases, Exhibit “T” (fka TE6) provided FTE counts and defined an FTE as 1,880 hours for a single man-year. However, Exhibit “T” as released on 30 March 2018 does not appear to be based on a similar 1,880 standard calculation. For example, by direction “Carpenter A” under the “ATEC CLIN” cannot exceed 5,390 per option period; however, 5,390 equates to 2.87 FTE's when using a standard 1,880 hour man year. Additionally, many positions appear to be similar to an actual report for part-time surge workers, such as cell D12 of Tab "Opt 1-4" in which the "CALIBRATION/LOAD TEST ANALY CT" is to be priced at only ten (10) hours for the full option.

Question #1: Will the Government please clarify how the hours were derived for Exhibit “T” and confirm one

(1) Full Time Equivalent (FTE) remains 1,880 hours as stated in the draft TE6?

Question #2: Will the Government please provide FTE counts for Exhibit “T”?

156 Exhibit “T”; Pp. 70 – 72, Exhibit

“AG” PWS C.5.3.3.1 – C.5.3.3.1.4;

Pg. 79, Section L-III.C.3 Volume V.f.6

Discussion: In the various previous draft releases, Exhibit “T” (fka TE6) provided one (1) FTE for each of the Key Positions (PM, DPM, Engineering Manager). However, Exhibit “T” released with the 30 March 2018 RFP does not include hours for Key Positions. Section L directs offerors to “not deviate from the baseline staffing in Exhibit T except as instructed on the exhibit to account for lead workers and straight overtime.”

Question: Will the Government please stipulate the appropriate line item in Exhibit “T” against which to price the PM, DPM, and Engineering Manager?

The Government revised Exhibit T.

157 Exhibit “T”; Pp. 111 – 114 Exhibit “AG” PWS C.5.11 – C.5.11.2 list the requirements for the Center for Countermeasures (CCM); however, these PWS requirements appear incongruent with the manning as identified in Exhibit “T.”

Question: Will the Government please validate the requirements from Exhibit “T” align with the details of PWS Section C.5.11 – C.5.11.2?

Historical overtime provided in Exhibit AL. The Government has revised Exhibit T.

158 Exhibit “T” released 30 March 2018 lists hours for the Navy significantly higher than the hours previously provided 19 January 2018.

Will the Government please clarify the reason for the increase, such as an increase in scope or long-term surge requirement?

The Government revised numbers due to projected mission requirements.