Government_Responses_to_Industry_Questions_(7June2016).pdf

Question # Location Industry Question/Concern

Government Response

1 RFP Section B, CLIN 0012, Please confirm that the actual cost to be paid for ODCs under CLIN 0012 is inclusive of allowable and allocable indirect costs in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment.

IAW FAR 52.216-7, Government will reimburse “Properly allocable and allowable indirect costs, as shown in the records maintained by the Contractor for purposes of obtaining reimbursement under Government contracts”

CLIN 0012 description was changed to read: “reimbursed at actual cost with G&A only”.

2 Reference: RFP Page 132 (52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications (Apr 2016))

Question: Based on the inherent scope of this IDIQ vehicle, will the Government consider changing the solicitation’s NAICS Code (541330) size standard from a $15.0M to $38.5M to include the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons exemption.

RFP revised – Government has modified FAR 52.204-8(a)(1) to read:

52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (APR 2016)

(a)(1) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541330.

(2) The small business size standard is $38.5M – (Exception) Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons

3 Reference: L.2.1 Proposal

Files-Page 139-Under File Packaging states in part “Volume/binder sections shall be divided and tabbed appropriately.”

Question: For Volume II Technical does the Government want Factor 1-4 tabbed as well as each section under the Factors tabbed?

Offerors should organize their proposal in a manner which facilitates Government ability to accurately evaluate provided material.

4 Reference: L.1.2 Proposal page limits (Volume II Factor 4) (page 140); L.2.2 Factor 4 Section 4 (Small Business Participation Plan)(page 149); M.2.4 Factor 4 (Program Management)(page 160)

Question: Would the Government please confirm that any required subcontractor certified letter(s) of size status (if not registered in SAM) would be excluded from the 40 page limit for Factor 4 – Program Management, as well as the 340 page total limit of Volume II?

Any requirements for this Factor must be contained in the 40 page limit and the 340 page limit for this Volume.

5 Reference: L.1.2 Proposal page limits (Volume II Factor 2) (page 140); L.2.2 Factor 2 Section 2 (Software) (page 145);

M.2.1 Factor 2 (Engineering Capabilities) (page 157) please confirm that required proof of the offeror’s CMMI-DEV level 3 (or higher) would be excluded from the 75 page limit for Factor 2 – Engineering Capabilities, as well as the 340 page total limit of Volume II?

Any requirements for Factor 2 must be contained within the stated 75 page limit and the 340 page limit for this Volume.

6 Reference: L.2.1 (Volume I- Administrative) Section 1 (a.) Executive Summary Master Index Page 141

Question: Would the Government please confirm that Master Index is excluded from 3 page limit for Section 1 Executive Summary?

IAW the RFP Proposal Volume, Table Notes: “Exceptions to the page limitations are, if required: cover pages, indices/tables of contents, and divider pages, and cross-reference matrix.”

7 RFP Page 142. Section

L.2.1, Vol. I, Section 1 – Executive Summary, RFP Page 142. Section L.2.1, Vol. I, Section 1 – Executive Summary, d.

Security Clearance states that “Each offeror shall provide, if applicable, disclosure of the level of their Facility Security Clearance (personnel only, not facility), Facilities Security Officer (FSO) POC, and their Defense Security Service (DSS) office (address, name, phone, e-mail).”

Question: Instruction conflicts by first requesting disclosure of the facility clearance, but then stating for personnel only and not facility. Will you please clarify?

Government has revised wording in Section L.2.1 to read:

“d. Security Clearance. Each offeror shall provide the level of their Facility Security Clearance, personnel, Facilities Security Officer (FSO) POC, and their Defense Security Service (DSS) office (address, name, phone, e-mail) , if applicable.”

8 Reference: Page 142, L.2.1 (Volume I-Administrative) Section 3 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan

Question: If there is no actual or potential OCI identified, does the USG still require offerors to submit an OCI mitigation plan?

Offerors shall include an OCI mitigation plan or an assertion that no OCI issues were identified and therefore no OCI mitigation plan is necessary.

9 Reference: (Page 142) L.2.1, Volume I – Administrative, Section 6 Signed Teaming Agreements

Question: If a subcontractor is unable, due to Corporate Policy, to enter into a formal teaming agreement with the Prime contractor, will the Government accept a Letter of Commitment, Memoranda of Understanding, or similar type of contractual arrangement in lieu thereof, provided that such document includes all requirements listed in the referenced section?

Yes.

10 Reference: RFP Page 142, (L.2.1 Volume I – Administrative, Section 6 – Signed Teaming Agreements)

Question: Due to the nature of an IDIQ and the uncertainty of the scope and types of task orders that will be released, it is difficult for a Prime to provide guaranteed work share percentages at the vehicle level and still obtain the most competitive rates.

TAs are developed well in advance of receiving pricing from companies, and pricing typically will not be provided by companies until TAs are signed.

Since work share percentages are provided in our price proposal/workbook, would the

IAW the RFP – “The agreement should outline the type of work, complexity and approximate percentage level of work assigned to the subcontractor.”

The Government is requesting disclosure of known Teaming Agreements and approximations not guaranteed work shares.

Government accept it in the price bid so as to allow Primes to truly compete the work effort and not be locked down to guaranteeing work share to companies, increasing costs?

11 RFP Page 142. Section L.2.1, Vol. I, Section 7 – Other than Certified Cost and Pricing Data

RFP Page 142. Section L.2.1, Vol. I, Section 7 – Other than Certified Cost and Pricing Data states that “Other than Certified Cost and Pricing Data” requirements also apply to First Tier subcontractors.

Question: Should First Tier subcontractors submit their “Other than Certified Cost and Pricing Data” through the prime in a sealed package, or should they submit this data directly to a Government POC? If submitting directly to a Government POC, what is the contact information?

Subcontractors can submit sealed package with Prime contractor’s proposal or may submit their OTC Pricing Data directly to the POC in L.1.1. The submission must comply with the proposal due date listed in the section.

12 Section L.2.1, Section 2, page 142, also page 153/163

Several clauses require additions to the contracts sections. For example, compliance with DFARS 252.227- 7013, 7014, and 7017 requires us to add a table to the contract and 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees requires us to submit our plan. But the solicitation instructions do not allow us to modify the contract.

If the solicitation may not be modified, can the Contractor provide required information by submitting separate documents? Can they be added at the end of Section 2? If not, how does the Government want them provided?

Allow offerors to provide attachments to Volume I, Section 2 to provide the required information.

Offerors may provide the documents in Volume 1, Section 2.

Attachments will be incorporated into the contract at time of award.

13 Reference: RFP Page 143 (Volume I – Administrative, Section 7 - Other than Certified Cost and Pricing Data)

Question: The solicitation requires actual direct labor rates by labor category. Will the Government accept salary survey data in lieu of actual salary data where the Prime does not

Offeror shall provide direct labor rates for all categories.

have actual history in that labor category?

14 Reference: RFP Page 143 (Volume I – Administrative, Section 7 - Other than

Question: Indirect Rates – Can the Government clarify its requirement on indirect rates?

IAW the solicitation, the offeror shall identify the start and end of their fiscal year and the allocation/application base for each indirect rate. Offeror shall state whether or not the prior years’ actuals have been audited by DCAA. Offeror shall submit forecasted rates for each fiscal year covered in the solicitation (base, pool and calculated rate). If Offeror does not have a budget or detailed forecast for all fiscal years covered in the solicitation, only the calculated rate information will be required for those fiscal years. Offeror shall submit actual sales for each of the last two completed fiscal years and year-to-date actual sales. Offeror shall submit forecasted sales (for the current fiscal yearend and each fiscal year covered by this solicitation).

15 Reference: RFP Page 143 (Volume I – Administrative, Section 7 - Other than

Question: How many years of historical rate information does the Government want?

IAW the solicitation, page 143, the offeror shall submit the actual sales for each of the last two completed fiscal years.

16 Reference: RFP Page 143 (Volume I – Administrative, Section 7 - Other than

Question: For future years that the offeror does not have a budget or detailed forecast, does the Government still want forecasted sales information?

RFP Vol 1, Section 7 revised to read: “if Offeror does not have a budget or detailed forecast for all fiscal years covered in the solicitation, only the calculated rate information will be required for those fiscal years.”

17 Reference: L.2.2 Factor 1 Engineering Process (AS 9100) (page 144); L.2.2 Factor 1 Section 2 (ISO

9001: 2008 OR AS

9100:2009 OR equivalent) (page 144); M.2.1 (ISO

9001: 2008 OR AS

9100:2009 OR equivalent) (page 157): We understand the QCC is to be implemented and maintained in accordance with ISO 9001: 2008 OR

AS 9100:2009 OR

equivalent per L.2.2 Factor 1 Section 2 and M.2.1.

please confirm that the offeror’s quality program is to be documented in accordance with ISO 9001: 2008 OR AS 9100:2009 OR equivalent, as there appears to be a discrepancy between L.2.2 Factor 1 Section 2 and M.2.1, and L.2.2 Factor 1?

Based on the specific requirements for the Military systems supported by this contract, both ISO 9001:2008 and AS 9100:2009 may be required depending on the item developed or procured. ISO 9001-2008 is applicable for COTS components used within the systems supported on this contract. AS 9100-2009 is applicable for the aviation components used within the systems supported by this contract.

18 RFP Page 145. Section L.2.2, Vol. II, Factor 2, Section 1 – Systems Integration

RFP Page 145. Section L.2.2, Vol. II, Factor 2, Section 1 – Systems Integration states “The offeror’s proposed approach provides adequate detail to determine the offeror's capability to plan and execute

The Government does not expect the offeror to provide cost information in this section. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s process and approach to control cost, schedule and performance.

a complex program to control technical, cost, and schedule elements. Sufficient details should describe all elements of an appropriate plan and demonstrate the plan is complete, executable, and reasonable in cost/schedule/technical approach/risk.”

Question: Typically cost is limited to the Cost/Price volume; does the Government expect to see pricing within the technical volume to show “reasonableness in cost”? If so, what format is acceptable?

19 Reference: RFP L 2.2 Volume II Factor 2 Page

Question: The solicitation notes that the Notional task scenario should be used to formulate responses to Systems Integration, Test, and Specialty Engineering. Should the Software and Functional Engineering sections also reference this task?

Offerors shall respond IAW guidance in the RFP: “The offeror shall use the Notional Task Scenario below when formulating proposal responses to the following Sections: System Integration, Test and Specialty Engineering. Offerors shall use the Notional Task Scenario as a premise for response but shall not allow the Scenario to hinder a full and complete response.”

20 RFP Page 146. Section L.2.2, Vol. II, Factor 3 Logistics

RFP Page 146. Section L.2.2, Vol. II, Factor 3 Logistics overall requirement states that “Offeror’s proposal shall include a Contract Transition Support Plan describing actions required to transition support services from the current contract (e.g. NET, GOCO, EPA). The Transition Support Plan must address how the offeror anticipates a smooth and seamless transition from the existing contract.

The offeror shall submit a Transition Support Plan clearly outlining their approach to meet the Performance Requirements as outlined in the

PWS”.

The final statement within the Factor 3 overarching requirement states that “the Logistics Factor shall be organized in the following format: ..

Section 1 Training…Section 2 Operators/Maintainers (GOCO, EPA, and SAR Support/Operations)… Section 3 Integrated Product Support.”

IAW the RFP: “Offeror’s proposal shall include a Contract Transition Support Plan describing actions required to transition support services from the current contract (e.g. NET, GOCO, EPA). The Transition Support Plan must address how the offeror anticipates a smooth and seamless transition from the existing contract.

The offeror shall submit a Transition Support Plan clearly outlining their approach to meet the Performance Requirements as outlined in the PWS. The proposal shall describe the offeror's Technical approach and processes to satisfy all requirements outlined in this factor.”

The Government requires one transition plan covering all areas under Logistics Factor.

Questions: Does the Government intend offerors to address the transition for each section (e.g., training, etc.) within the respective section, versus submitting a stand-alone Contract Transition Support Plan?

21 RFP Page 146. Section L.2.2, Vol. II, Factor 3, Section 1 – Training, Table 1 Notional RQ-7B Fielding/NET Schedule

RFP Page 146. Section L.2.2, Vol. II, Factor 3, Section 1 – Training, Table 1 Notional RQ-7B Fielding/NET Schedule: Table 1 is not legible.

Question: Will the Government please provide a more legible Table 1.

Notional RQ-7B Fielding/NET Schedule?

RFP revised – Legible copy of the notional training schedule provided as Table 1 in Factor 3, Section 1 has been added to the RFP as Section J, Attachment N.

22 Reference: RFP Page 150, 160 (Volume II– Factor 4 – Program Management, M.2.4

Question: Indirect Rates – Can the Government clarify its requirement on the amount of years that need to be provided for Small Business Participation Reports. M.2.4 reads “the past two years” but page 150 states “Provide three years of information substantiating the offeror’s track record of utilizing Small Businesses”.

RFP Section 4, L.2.2 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL, Factor 4, Section 4 Program Management has been revised to read “two years”

23 Reference: RFP 150-151, (L.2.3 Volume III – Past Performance) consider expanding the definition of relevant for the Past Performance Volume to include the following (italicized/bolded) -

Relevant is defined as $5M or more for services in direct support of United States Government Unmanned Air Vehicle products or other aviation platforms as GFR certified Flight Instructors, trainers, operators and maintainers. Relevance in the engineering, logistic and technical areas would include but not be limited to repairs, engineering (VECP), COLTS, and ICP operations. Recent is defined as the past five years from the date the proposals are due in response to this RFP.

The Government will evaluate Offerors Past Performance submitted. Offerors may use experience In other areas of aviation to show capabilities in other Factors, however for the Past Performance Factor Evaluation UAV experience is considered “Relevant”.

In accordance with the RFP: “Offerors shall submit up to ten Government contracts (combination of Prime and First Tier Subcontracts) either current or awarded during the past five years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Relevant is defined as $5M or more for services in direct support of United States Government Unmanned Air Vehicle products as GFR certified Flight Instructors, trainers, operators and maintainers. Relevance in the engineering, logistic and technical areas include but are not limited to repairs, engineering (VECP), COLTS, and ICP operations. Recent is defined as the past five years from the date the proposals are due in response to this RFP.”

24 RFP Section L.2.3 Page 151 and Section J, Attachment G

For past performance, Section L.2.3 states, "Recent is defined as the past five years from the date the proposals are due in response to this RFP."

However, Attachment G, Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form, directs evaluators to consider Offeror performance "within the past three years." Since questionnaires must be sent out immediately, we respectfully request that Offerors be allowed to revise the questionnaire form to read "within the past five years."

Section J, Attachment G was revised to read: “The following questions pertain to the contractor’s record of past (within the past five years) and current performance.”

25 Reference: RFP L.2.4 Volume IV Factor 6

Question: The solicitation allows for adding additional labor categories to the bottom of the pricing spreadsheet, but does not appear to allow for deviations from the stated LOE.

Should additional labor rates be provided with no hours against them in these cases?

Offerors may add additional categories, but must realign the given estimated hours from provided labor categories. Offerors shall not alter the overall total estimated hours.

26 Reference: L-2.4 Volume IV Factor 6 Page 152

Question: Solicitation text indicates that "Subcontractor fully burdened labor rates ... shall not exceed that of the Prime." Will the Government consider an adjustment to this requirement to permit cost-savings through lower management costs of specialty subcontractors if the expected percentages are forecast as part of the proposed labor rate breakdown?

Subcontractor fully burdened labor rates shall be incorporated into the contract and shall not exceed that of the Prime. Offerors are encouraged to propose cost-savings during Task Order competition.

27 Reference:

Sect_J_Attachment_C_Lab or_Cats_19Apr2016.pdf;

Sect_J_Attachment_E_Lab or_Cat_19Apr2016.pdf

Question: Will the government please provide a Labor Category description for the Labor Category of #46 Configuration Analyst listed in Attachment E?

Section J, Attachment C has been revised to add the Labor Category description for Configuration Analyst.

28 Reference: Section J, Attachment C, Labor Category 8 Program Manager states in part “Knowledge/Skill Requirements – BS/BA degree from an accredited school and at least ten (10) years’ Army Aviation systems support management experience

Question: Would the Government confirm that at least ten (10) years of Military (vs. Army) Aviation systems support management experience, to include significant Army Aviation experience (but less than 10 years of Army Aviation Experience) with at least three (3) years minimum in project management, suffices for the knowledge/Skill Requirements for a Program Manager?

The intent in this section is for Military Aviation experience. Specific Army Aviation experience is preferred, but not required.

with at least three (3) years minimum in project management, or a MS degree from an accredited school and six (6) years’ Army Aviation systems support experience with at least three (3) years minimum in project management experience.

Demonstrated competence in military acquisition, weapon system technical specifications, and knowledge of IPS policies and practices.

29 Reference: Attachment E

Question: Attachment E contains a listing for a (46) Configuration Analyst, but there is no corresponding labor category description in Attachment C.

Are there any education or experience requirements required for this Labor Category?

Section J, Attachment C has been revised to add the Labor Category description for Configuration Analyst.

30 Question: Attachment E contains a listing for a Principle Engineer, Senior Engineer, and an Engineer. Should the contractor assume these map to the Attachment C grades III, II, and I respectively?

Yes. Section J, Attachment C indicates the correlation:

4. Engineer II

Disciplines: Senior Aerospace Engineer, Senior Electrical Engineer, Senior Mechanical Engineer, Senior Systems Engineer, Senior Software Engineer, Senior Specialty Engineer, Senior Test Engineer, Senior Quality Engineer

5. Engineer III

Disciplines: Principle Aerospace Engineer, Principle Electrical Engineer, Principle Mechanical Engineer, Principle Systems Engineer, Principle Software Engineer, Principle Specialty Engineer, Principle Test Engineer

31 Question: Attachment H (Cost price workbook) requires pricing for several CDRLs for which pricing may vary greatly based on specifics related to the task order. Will the Government consider pricing for these CDRLs as part of the Task Order approach? As examples, A001 Engineering Accomplishment Report will vary greatly depending on the scope of the engineering efforts, and A057 –

RFP revised – Section J, Attachment H has been modified to address this concern.

CDRLs A001, A018, A021, A059, A060, A068, A073, A076 and A086 will be negotiated at the TO level.

Manufacturing and Quality Plan will depend on the items to be produced.

32 Attachment H, CLIN0001 The contract does not identify payment terms for FFP CLINs.

What are the payment terms for the

FFP CLINS?

The Government should add contract clause FAR 52.232-32 for performance based payments.

IAW FAR 52.232-1:

The Government shall pay the Contractor, upon the submission of proper invoices or vouchers, the prices stipulated in this contract for supplies delivered and accepted or services rendered and accepted, less any deductions provided in this contract. Unless otherwise specified in this contract, payment shall be made on partial deliveries accepted by the Government if --

(a) The amount due on the deliveries warrants it; or

(b) The Contractor requests it and the amount due on the deliveries is at least $1,000 or 50 percent of the total contract price.

Performance based payments may be negotiated at the Task Order level.

Reference:

Sect_J_Attach_H_Cost_Pri ce_WB_2May2016.xlsx

Question: The attachment states that there are both CONUS and OCONUS labor categories but do not specify which labor categories are designated for CONUS or OCONUS. For the purposes of pricing accuracy, would the government please consider giving the labor categories a CONUS or OCONUS designation?

Section J, Attachment H has been modified to address this concern.

The Engineering CLINs (0001, 0002 and 0003) are all CONUS. Other CLINs are all FFP, therefore labor rates will not be required.

33 RFP Page 152. Section L.2.4, Vol. IV, Factor 6, Cost/Price Workbook; and RFP Section J, Attachment H, Cost Price Spreadsheet, Tab 1 Directions

RFP Page 152. Section L.2.4, Vol. IV, Factor 6, Cost/Price Workbook; and RFP Section J, Attachment H, Cost Price Spreadsheet, Tab 1 Directions.

Directions state that “separate subcontractor envelopes shall be submitted with the Cost/Price volume and shall include a CD and hardcopy of the spreadsheets with the individual subcontractor’s rate buildup.” The spreadsheet does not appear to have a place for subcontractors to provide their rate build up.

Question: In what format should subcontractors provide their pricing rate build ups?

The separate subcontractor envelopes shall be submitted with the Cost/Price Volume and shall include a CD and hardcopy of the spreadsheets with the individual subcontractor’s burdened rate.

34 Reference: Directions, Sect J Attachment H

Question: Does the government want a composite subcontractor rate on the FFP subcontractor rate tab or separate rates by subcontractor?

The government will permit the offeror to add a separate sheet for each subcontractor.

35 Reference: Directions, Sect

Question: If the Government wants to separate subcontractor rates, would the Government like us to recreate the tab for each subcontractor?

The government will permit the offeror to add a separate sheet for each subcontractor.

36 Reference: Directions, Sect

Question: The Government appears to want us to price out all hours using the Prime rate. There is also a statement within the RFP, on page 152, that subcontractor rates will not exceed the Prime’s rate. Finally, the spreadsheet tabs for CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0003 require a cost build up from the Prime. What would the Government prefer the Prime to show if subcontractor rates exceed the Prime rate build up due to factors, such as manufacturing overhead, that would require the Prime to use a Subcontractor with higher rates to meet performance?

Subcontractor fully burdened labor rates shall be incorporated into the contract and shall not exceed that of the Prime.

37 RFP Page 152. Section L.2.4, Vol. IV, Factor 6, Cost/Price Workbook; and RFP Section J, Attachment H, Cost Price Spreadsheet, Tab 1 Directions.

RFP Page 152. Section L.2.4, Vol. IV, Factor 6, Cost/Price Workbook; and RFP Section J, Attachment H, Cost Price Spreadsheet, Tab 1 Directions.

Directions state that “While the Government does not want to receive a separate CD and spreadsheet in a sealed envelope for each of the Prime’s subcontractors, the Government recognizes the need to protect proprietary information, and does make this option available.” It further states that “separate subcontractor envelopes shall be submitted with the Cost/Price volume and shall include a CD and hardcopy of the spreadsheets with the individual subcontractor’s rate buildup.”

Question: Will the Government permit subcontractors to submit their un-sanitized rate build ups directly to a Government POC? If so, will you please provide the contact information?

Yes, unsanitized rate build ups can provided directly to the POC for proposal receipt in Section L:

Lady Pollard

SFAE-AV-UAS-BM

Bldg. 5300, 4th Floor Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 Phone (256) 313-3791 lady.d.pollard.civ@mail.mil

38 L.2.3 Volume III – Past Performance and M.2.3 Factor 5 – Past

Will the Government please clarify the intent behind the Past Performance Relevancy Requirement stated in

As stated in the RFP, “The Government will evaluate that the contracts provided by the offeror are relevant as defined as “$5M or more for services in direct

Performance, page 150 and 160 respectively:

sections L&M? I.e. Does each individual contract submitted for Past Performance have to contain all of the described Relevancy elements, or is the aggregate of submitted Past Performance contracts required to meet/exceed the Relevancy elements, as listed below?

1. Government UAV service

2. Government Flight Representative (GFR)certified Flight Instructor

3. GFR certified trainer

4. GFR certified operator

5. GFR certified maintainer

6. Relevance in engineering, logistics, and technical areas

a. Repairs

b. Engineering (Value Engineering Change Proposals, VECP)

c. Catalog Ordering Logistics Tracking System (COLTS)

d. ICP Operations support of United States Government Unmanned Air Vehicle systems for Engineering Services UAV Operators, Maintainers, Trainers, and Logistics”.

It is the responsibility of the offeror to submit past performance relevant to the requirements of this solicitation and PWS.

39 RFP Section L, paragraph L.2.2, Page 144

In L.2.2 under Factor 1 ENGINEERING PROCESS -the RFP states "The QPP shall document the offeror's quality program to meet the requirements of AS9100 and the requirements within the PWS." In L.2.2 under Section 2 - Quality Program Plan the RFP states "Offeror shall implement and maintain a quality system IAW ISO 9001:2008 or AS 9100:2009 or equivalent." Will the USG please clarify and confirm that a quality program meeting the requirements of ISO 9001 is acceptable.

Based on the specific requirements for the Military systems supporting on this contract, both ISO 9001:2008 and AS 9100:2009 may be required based on the item developed or procured. ISO 9001-2008 is applicable for COTS components used within the systems supported on this contract. AS 9100-2009 is applicable for the aviation components used within the systems supported on this contract.

40 RFP Section L, Factor 4 para d and M 2.4 , Page

Proposal instructions for Factor 4, Program Management, page 150 of the solicitation, states: “Provide three years of information substantiating the offeror’s track record of utilizing Small Businesses on past contracts, including copies of Cumulative Contractor Fiscal Year Summary Subcontracting Reports (SSR), if

RFP revised – RFP Section 4, L.2.2 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL, Factor 4, Section 4 Program Management has been revised to read “two years”.

applicable.” Evaluation criterion for Factor 4, page 160 of the solicitation, states: “The Government will evaluate offeror’s submitted Small Business Participation Reports for the past two years which demonstrate offeror’s achievement of established goals.”

Please clarify whether 2 years (recommended) or 3 years of small business participation reports should be provided.

41 RFP H.7 (f), pages 20 and

Paragraph states; "Per Diem shall not be paid on services performed within a fifty-mile radius of the contractor's home office or the contractor's local office."

Does this mean that no Per Diem would be paid if a company sends personnel from their primary work location to support activity at a location that has a field office?

Reword the sentence as follows;

"Per Diem shall not be paid on services performed within a fifty-mile radius of the individual's home office."

RFP revised – Section H of the RFP has been revised to read:

"Per Diem shall not be paid on services performed within a fifty-mile radius of the individual's home office."

42 RFP Section J, Attachment H, Tabs CLINS 0001, 0002, and 0003

Will the government accept expansion of the pricing workbook to include separate pricing sheets for each of the five years for CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003?

43 RFP Section J, Attachment H, Tabs CLINS 0001, 0002, and 0003

Is the government requesting labor rates for Year 1 only, with rates for Years 2 - 5 to be determined by escalating the labor rates for the prior year by the contractor proposed escalation rates at the bottom of each sheet (tabs 2, 3, 4)?

44 Attachment H, Schedule Tab

The PWS does not clarify the class size or durations to help define the size of the contact team needed.

Can the Government clearly define the quantities and units on the schdule tab? For example, CLIN0005 states 225 days, but not the level effort needed in personnel. Also, is

RFP revised – The PWS has been revised to read:

4.4 Other Training

The contractor shall support training for fielded units, as directed by appropriate TO(s), based upon any number of conditions to include excessive unit transfers of trained personnel, unique exercise requirement, special equipment modifications, operating modes unique to particular units, or training as directed due to mishap rates.

the reference to 225 days intended to represent one year of training? Or, is the intent to price one instructor for one day?

Add the following to either the CLIN definition or PWS 4.4;

On-site training contact teams shall provide training for classes up 20 students. The intent is for the class to take one day.

The contractor shall provide a contact team of trained, qualified instructors to conduct on-site training, as coordinated by PM UAS. The contractor shall ensure that the required training is conducted in conjunction with the equipment fielding/modification/upgrade, including software modifications and upgrades. On-site training contact teams shall provide training for classes up 20 students. The intent is for the class to take one day.

45 RFP Section J, Attachment H, FFP Subcontractor Tab

Regarding The FFP Subcontractor Rate Tab of the Cost/Price Work Book:

Please confirm that Government wants a separate tab in the workbook to include a tab for each first tier FFP Subcontractor?

Required for First Tier Subcontractors, but Offeror may include additional subcontractors.

46 RFP Section J, Attachment

Is the FFP Subcontractor Rate tab to be populated with Year 1 rates only that will be escalated by the proposed escalation factor in row 62 to determine rates for each subsequent year?

47 RFP Section J, Attachment

Does the Government want subcontractor rates for contract types in addition to FFP Subcontractor Rates?

48 RFP Section J, Attachment

Does the requirement to complete the FFP Subcontractor Rate Tab cover only First Tier Subcontractors (those performing more 15% or more of the effort) or all subcontractors proposed?

Required for First Tier Subcontractors, but Offeror may include additional subcontractors.

49 RFP Section J, Attachment H, Cost Price Spreadsheet, Tab 6, CLIN 0010 Tech

Because the scope and level of complexity of a task will vary, our pricing approach for a given CDRL would likewise vary. For example, referencing CDRL A068 “Modification Work Order (MWO)”, we do not know the USG’s anticipated scope of this effort. It could be to develop, validate and verify this MWO (to include all personnel costs associated with conducting the validations, etc.) – or it could be a reduced effort. Without

RFP revised – Section J, Attachment H has been modified to address this concern.

understanding the USG’s intent regarding the scope of the CDRL, we are unable to effectively or accurately price this CDRL. This same challenge remains for the other CDRLS. Can the Government provide the scope of complexity for the 33 CDRLS we are required to price?

50 RFP Section J, Attachment H, Schedule Tab

Is information required in columns G, H, I, J, and K for CLINS 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005?

51 RFP Section J, Attachment

Are columns G, H, I, J, and K entries intended to be unit cost/price entries?

52 RFP Section J, Attachment

Is the "Fully Burdened Rate" in Column K, intended to be populated with the unit price?

53 RFP Section J, Attachment

Are entries in columns G, H, I, J, and K required for CLINs 0011, 0012, 0014, 0015 and 0016?

54 RFP Section J, Attachment H, CLIN0010 Tech Data Tab

We have analyzed the priced CDRLs and believe that some cannot be accurately priced outside of the context of a task order. In our analysis we reviewed the CDRL description and PWS to determine the scope and complexity of each CDRL. In general the level of effort needed to create those CDRLs is dependent on the technical scope, complexity and goals of a specific Task Order. We request that the government reconsider the list of CDRLs to be priced in the CLIN0010 Tech Data Tab of Attachment H as part of the RFP. Our recommendation on which CDRLs should not be priced in Attachment H is contained in the attached spreadsheet file titled CDRL Assessment. Column H of the attached file contains our recommendation with our rational provided in Column I.

RFP revised – Section J, Attachment H has been modified to address this concern.

CDRLs A001, A018, A021, A059, A060, A068, A073, A076 and A086 will be negotiated at the TO level.

55 RFP Page Vol. IV Cost/Price, Section 1 – Cost/Price Workbook

RFP Page Vol. IV Cost/Price, Section 1 – Cost/Price Workbook states that “Subcontractor fully burdened labor rates shall be incorporated into the

IAW the RFP, Subcontractor fully burdened labor rates shall be incorporated into the contract and shall not exceed that of the Prime.

contract and shall not exceed that of the Prime.”

Question: Does that mean that if a Prime has one (1) or more subcontractors on the team, that the highest subcontractor rate (if higher than the prime’s rate) becomes the defacto Prime rate?

For example, Section J, Attachment H (Pricing Spreadsheet) Subcontractor FFP Tab: Test Engineer labor category: Subcontractors Fully Burdened rate = $75.00 per hour.

If the Prime’s fully burdened rate for the same labor category is $50.00, would CLIN 1 (FFP – Prime tab): Test Engineer labor category be $75.00 (plus Prime’s burdens)?

56 CDRL A001

Engineering and Technical Services Accomplishment Report

Scope and detail of the report will be TO specific. Block 16 specifies this deliverable is due 'within 30 days of completion of each task order'.

RFP revised – Section J, Attachment H has been modified to address this concern.

CDRLs A001, A018, A021, A059, A060, A068, A073, A076 and A086 will be negotiated at the TO level.

57 CDRL A005

Contract Work Breakdown Structure

Scope and detail of the CWBS will be TO specific. PWS 3.2.1.3.3 provides TO specific instructions. Structure / content varies based upon which CSDR Plan applies due to scope of the TO.

Government asserts this CDRL can be pre-priced.

The process to do a Work Breakdown structure should be the same regardless of

TO.

58 CDRL A006

Technical Report – Study/Services

Scope and detail of the IMS will be TO specific. TO Specific instructions in

PWS 3.2.1.6.

Government asserts this CDRL can be pre-priced.

The process for creating an IMP is the same regardless of task order complexity.

This is the CDRL for the IMP, not the IMS.

59 CDRL A012

Software Resources Data Reporting - Initial Developer Report and Data

Scope and detail of this CDRL will be TO specific and related to the complexity of the software effort.

PWS 3.2.1.7 states this CDRL is required 'for all software TOs that total $20 million or more'. Appears to conflict with the Block 16 statement pertaining to Blocks 10, 12, and 13 in the CDRL description. Is this a conflict or is the Block 16 direction correct but only for software TOs that total $20 million or more to which the CDRL is applicable?

Government asserts this CDRL can be pre-priced.

CDRL A012 Blk 10, 12 and 13 has been updated to read:

“BLKs 10, 12 and 13: The initial report is due 60 days after contract award.”

SRDR will be required if or when software is greater than $20M. The initial report is due 60 days after TO award.

60 CDRL A013

Software Resources Data Reporting - Final Developer Report and Data Dictionary

Scope and detail of this CDRL will be TO specific and related to the complexity of the software effort. PWS

3.2.1.7 states this CDRL is required 'for all software TOs that total $20 million or more'. Appears to conflict with the Block 16 statement pertaining to Blocks 10, 12, and 13 in the CDRL description. Is this a conflict or is the Block 16 direction correct but only for software TOs that total $20 million or more to which the CDRL is applicable?

Government asserts this CDRL can be pre-priced.

CDRL A013 Blk 10, 12 and 13 has been updated to read:

“BLKs 10, 12 and 13: The final report is due 60 days after contract end.”

SRDR will be required if or when software is greater than $20M. The final report is due 60 days after TO completion.

61 CDRL A014

Technical Report – Study/Services

The initial Configuration Management Plan can be created but changes to the plan will be TO specific. Not TO specific for first delivery since it is due 60 days ACA.

TO Specific for all subsequent deliveries since block 16 states they shall be "as required by the Government and applicable Task Order".

Government asserts this CDRL can be pre-priced.

The CMP applies to the overall contract and should be priced as such.

Subsequent submittals, if required by a TO, to keep the document current and will be charged at the revision unit price.

62 CDRL A017

Engineering Release Record (ERR)

Scope and detail of the ERR will be related to the complexity of the engineering effort for each specific TO. Block 16 states 'submit 30 days after JCCB approval of ECP, and NLT 15 days prior to the end of the PoP unless otherwise specified by the Task Order.'

Government asserts this CDRL can be pre-priced.

Revised CDRL to “BLKs 10, 12 and 13: Submit NLT 30 days after Joint Configuration Control Board (JCCB) approval of ECP, and NLT 15 days prior to the end of Period of Performance unless otherwise specified in the task order.“.

Even for most complex ESMs, ERR submittals should be a straightforward task of copying pre-existing data onto a form.

63 CDRL A018

Specification Change Notice (SCN)

Scope and detail of the SCN will be related to the complexity of the engineering effort for each specific TO.TO Specific based upon PWS language. CDRL only cited in the ECP paragraph (3.2.2.3). We only perform ECP work "pursuant to a Government directed TO". The ECP may or may not require an SCN, so the CDRL is ECP dependent. Only ECPs impacting a baseline specification will require this CDRL.

RFP revised – Section J, Attachment H has been modified to address.

CDRLs A001, A018, A021, A059, A060, A068, A073, A076 and A086 will be negotiated at the TO level.

64 CDRL A020

Configuration Audit Plan

Scope and detail of the Configuration Audit Plan will be related to the complexity of the engineering effort for each specific TO Block 16 states 'submit Configuration Audit Plan as directed by the Task Order.'

Government asserts this CDRL can be pre-priced.

65 CDRL A021 Scope and detail of the Configuration Audit Summary Report will be related

Section J, Attachment H has been modified to address.

Configuration Audit Summary Report to the complexity of the engineering effort for each specific Block 16 states 'submit Configuration Audit Summary Report as directed by the Task Order.'

66 CDRL A025

Data Accession List (DAL)

Scope, details and complexity will be TO Specific. Block 16 states 'submit as required by the Government and the applicable Task Order.' 3.2.2.7 in the PWS states: 'The contractor shall provide a Data Accession List (DAL)

IAW DI-MGMT-81453 (CDRL A025)

of all documentation developed as part of a respective TO'.

Government asserts this CDRL can be pre-priced.

67 CDRL A056

Technical Report – Study/Services / Gauge and Test Equipment Verification Plan w/Repeatability/Reproducib ility Studies

Scope of this plan and associated studies is dependent on the tasking of a given TO. Block 16 states 'submit as required by the Government and the applicable Task Order.'

Government asserts this CDRL can be pre-priced.

68 CDRL A057

Technical Report – Study/Services / Manufacturing & Quality Plan

Scope of this plan and associated studies is dependent on the tasking of a given TO. PWS 3.2.4.3 states it only applies to "Hardware Deliverable TOs". Block 16 states 'submit as required by the Government and the applicable Task Order.'

Government asserts this CDRL can be pre-priced.

69 CDRL A058

ESD Program Control Plan

TO Specific. PWS 3.2.4.4 States: "As directed by the TO...". Block 16 states 'submit as required by the Government and the applicable Task Order.'

Government asserts this CDRL can be pre-priced.

70 CDRL A059

Failure Analysis and Corrective Action Report

The creation of a FACA report is dependent on the scope of the technical change required and hence TO Specific. PWS 3.2.4.5 states:

"every TO shall include a Reliability Improvement Analysis (RIA) Report".

Block 16 states 'submit as required by the Government and the applicable Task Order.'

RFP revised – Section J, Attachment H has been modified to address.

CDRLs A001, A018, A021, A059, A060, A068, A073, A076 and A086 will be negotiated at the TO level.

71 CDRL A060

Test and Evaluation Program Plan (TEPP)

The effort expended in development of a TEPP is TO Specific. Block 16 states 'submit 15 days after IBR for any TO that involves execution or submittal of more than two test events…'

RFP revised – Section J, Attachment H has been modified to address.

CDRLs A001, A018, A021, A059, A060, A068, A073, A076 and A086 will be negotiated at the TO level.

72 CDRL A068

Modification Work Order

(MWO)

The effort to create a MWO is driven by the scope of the effort. TO specific based upon block 16.

Section J, Attachment H has been modified to address.

73 CDRL A072

Technical Manual Validation Plan

The effort to create this plan is driven by the complexity of the associated training manual and hence TO Specific. Block 16 states 'submit as required by the Government and the applicable Task Order.'

Government asserts this CDRL can be pre-priced.

74 CDRL A073

Technical Manual Validation Certificate

The effort to create this plan is driven by the complexity of the associated training manual and hence TO Specific. Block 16 states 'submit as required by the Government and the applicable Task Order.'

RFP revised – Section J, Attachment H has been modified to address.

CDRLs A001, A018, A021, A059, A060, A068, A073, A076 and A086 will be negotiated at the TO level.

75 CDRL A074

Training Program Structure Document

The effort to create this document is driven by the complexity of the associated training manual and hence TO Specific. Block 16 states 'submit as required by the Government and the applicable Task Order.'

Government asserts this CDRL can be pre-priced.

76 CDRL A076

Instructional Performance Requirements Document

The effort to create this document is driven by the complexity of the associated training manual and hence TO Specific. Block 16 states 'submit as required by the Government and the applicable Task Order.'

RFP revised – Section J, Attachment H has been modified to address.

CDRLs A001, A018, A021, A059, A060, A068, A073, A076 and A086 will be negotiated at the TO level.

77 CDRL A086

Health Hazard Assessment Report (HHAR)

The level of effort to create this report is dependent on the complexity of the associated technical effort and hence TO Specific. Block 16 states 'submit as required by the Government and the applicable Task Order.'

RFP revised – Section J, Attachment H has been modified to address.

CDRLs A001, A018, A021, A059, A060, A068, A073, A076 and A086 will be negotiated at the TO level.

78 Reference: Page 10 (PWS

3.2.1.3.1 EVMS)

Question: The Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 11 part 11.3.1 Earned Value Management, states that “For Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) or task order types of contracts, the application of EVM based on dollar threshold is assessed at the computed total contract value and not by each separate order. To determine EVM applicability, anticipated cost or incentive orders should be summed to reach the computed total contract value. FFP orders are generally not included in that summation”. The TUAS PWS paragraph 1.1 Type of Contract states that “The Government intends to issue Firm-Fixed price TOs under this contract but reserves the right to issue

The Government cannot provide the breakout of FFP vs Cost type Task Orders.

Per Table 8 of DoDI 5000.02, EVM on FFP TOs will be evaluated on a case by case basis and needs approval by the Milestone Decision Authority.

Cost type TOs as the procurement situation requires. In implementing the referenced DFARS 252.234-7001 and 7002 guidance for EVMS requirements, what dollar value does the Government estimate will be total dollar value of Cost or Incentive type Task Orders?

Question: Does the government expect the TOs to be of high enough risk to require EVMS regardless of FFP or Cost Type?

79 Reference: PWS 3.4.1

Question: PWS Section 3.4.1 (Hazard tracking) indicates acceptance of hazards will be in accordance with the SSMP also says that the detailed parameters that are tracked are IAW the SSMP. This acronym does not appear to be defined in the solicitation package.

Will the Government please provide a definition for this acronym?

The PWS has been revised to read: “System Safety Management Plan

(SSMP).”

80 PWS 4.5.5, page 44 The PWS distinguishes between GOCO, EPA, and EPA-SAR missions.

The CLIN 0008 refers to all missions as "GOCO". Will the Government reconcile the mission parameters between the PWS and CLINs?

Update the CLIN Titles and definitions to match the PWS.

These missions are all GOCO missions, so the term GOCO is correct. The EPA and SAR are variations of the GOCO. Specific requirements will be identified at the TO level.

81 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees

Can the Contractor provide its Employee Compensation Plan as an attachment to the SFV33 Section

Offerors may provide the documents in Volume 1, Section 2.

Attachments will be incorporated into the contract at time of award.

82 FAR 52.228-7 Insurance - Liability to Third Persons

Requesting inclusion of this FAR clause.

Clause added to the RFP.

83 DFAR 252.219-7003 (DEV) The Government has listed an older versions of the clause in the RFP.

Clause should be updated to the MAR

RFP revised – Updated clause added to the RFP.

84 DFARS 252.204-7008,

7009 and 7012

The Government has listed older versions of the clauses in the RFP.

Clauses should be updated to the

DEC 2015

Updated clauses added to the RFP.

85 DFARS 252.225-7048 -

Export Controlled Items

Requesting inclusion of this DFARS clause

86 DFARS 252.233-7001

Choice of Law (Overseas)

Requesting inclusion of this DFARS clause

87 DFARS 252.229-7999 -

Taxes - Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan (Deviation 2013-O0016)

Requesting inclusion of this DFARS clause

88 H - 15 STATUS OF

FORCES AGREEMENTS

(SOFA) LOGISTICS

SUPPORT AND

PRIVILEGES

Request inclusion of SOFA Language The Government will not include this language at the IDIQ level because in numerous locations a SOFA agreement does not exist between the US Government and the host country.

89 DFARS 252.229-7015 -

Taxes - Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan (North Atlantic Treaty Organization Status of Forces Agreement)

Request for inclusion of this DFARS clause

90 PWS 3.2.3.2.3 Capability Maturity Model Integration

(CMMI)

PWS 3.2.3.2.3 Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) “At a minimum, the contractor’s processes shall comply with the CMMI Institute Software Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI-DEV) Level 3 certification or equivalent. The CMMI- DEV Level 3 certification or equivalent must be maintained for the duration of the contract. The contractor shall flow down the CMMI-DEV Level 3 requirement to subcontractors, as well as other divisions or groups of the contractor’s company performing independent software development or integration.”

Questions :

(1) Is the contractor required to have CMMI-DEV Level 3 Certification or will demonstration that the Contractor’s processes comply with CMMI-DEV Level 3…