FTUAS_Questions_and_Answers_-_FINAL_-_20181015.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Future Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems (FTUAS)
- Solicitation number
- W911QY-18-R-0048
About this file
This is a combined synopsis and solicitation issued by the Department of the Army seeking proposals for Future Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems. The Army intends to award multiple IDIQ contracts to provide Group 2/3 UAS, field service representatives, contractor logistical support, new equipment training, and contract data requirement list deliverables. Proposals are due by October 29, 2018. The ordering period will be from the estimated December 2018 award date through December 2021. There is no set-aside designated. The North American Industry Classification System code is 336411 with a small business size standard of 1,500 employees.
Answers to questions submitted regarding this RFP.
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| # | Date Received | RFP Document | Section | Question | Answer |
| 48-001 | 29-Sep-18 | Attachment 003 - System Requirements | 1.2.1 | In the Tech sheet, Objective is calling for 96-hour endurance on station. Is that 96-hours straight, with no re-fuel capability? Or can a window be programmed into the UAS where a re-fuel window can be assumed? | The requirement is for a system that provides 96 hours of continuous coverage. Systems may have multiple Air Vehicles to meet the requirement. |
| 48-002 | 2-Oct-18 | Attachment 003 - System Requirements | 1.9.3 | In the Tech Requirements 1.9.3, it talks about being able to “host multiple interchangeable payloads”. Can you elaborate on what kind of munitions can be expected to be used (to calculate maximum weight) and how will they be mounted (BRU-32A, SUU-63A, SUU-63A/A, etc.)? | Payload is a generic term used to describe sensors. There is no weaponization requirement for this effort. |
| 48-003 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 1.1 | Please confirm if the Proposals are due 29 October 2018 as stated in section 1.1, as this conflicts with the Combined_Synopsis_FTUAS_Solicitation_Final document that has a 28 October 2018 submittal date under XV SUBMISSION? | Proposals are due 1700 on 29 October 2018. This corresponds with the notice response date listed in FBO and RFP Posting itself. The attachment has a clerical error. |
| 48-004 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 1.2.2.1 | Under Format there is no Font or Font Size given, is there a required font & font size? | Proposals shall be written using Times New Roman size 12 font, with one (1) inch margins. |
| 48-005 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 1.2.2.2 | In section 1.2.2.2 it states that "Files shall be in read-only format, using MS Word and word-searchable PDF files. All price breakdown information to aide in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007 or later. Text-searchable PDF versions shall also be submitted." is the statement "Text searchable PDF version shall also be submitted" referring to submitting a second PDF file for the Price volume only? | No, all volumes shall be delivered in both PDF and MS Office Format. |
| 48-006 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 1.2.2.4 | It states in Section 1.2.2.4 that Offerors shall submit four volumes, while in the text it lists five volumes, with Volume V being Past Performance. Is there a Volume V Past performance that per section 1.2.2.5 has a 50 page limit, or per page 4 section 2.1.1 and page 6 section 2.3.4.1.4 is Past performance a sub factor under Volume III, and within that volumes page limit, and if so should section 2.3 be updated to say five sub factors, as listed within section 2.3.1 to 2.3.5? | There are five (5) volumes as shown in the exhibits. |
| 48-007 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.1.2 | It sates in Section 2.1.2 "Subcontracting Plan: No Page Limit, Include as Appendix to Administrative Volume" yet in section 1.2.2.5 "Volume Limitations" it states that the Subcontracting Plan has a 10 page limit. Is the Subcontracting plan limited to 10 pages or does it have no page limit? | The clerical Errors in the page limite of the SB Participaton Commitment Plan (20 page limit) and Subcontracting Plans (No Limit, Include as Appendix to Volume I) shall be revised in the document to avoid confusion. |
| 48-008 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.1 | It states in section 2.1 that the page limit is 20 pages, yet 2.1.1 Administrative Summary is limited to 10 pages and 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 have no page limit. Please clarify what the Volume 1 Page Limit is in total and per subsection? | Volume I Page Limit is 10 pages. This is comprised by the following: |
Admin Summary - 10 Pages Subcontracting Plan - No Limit (Include as Appendix) Reps and Certs - No Limit (Include as Appendix)
A correction to the instructions will be posted to avoid confusion.
| 48-009 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.2.1 | It states that "Offerors shall submit their written solution to the items listed in the PWS and associated technical documentation not addressed in the sub factors". Is it the intention that this section only include the System Requirements identified in section 3.0 of the PWS? | No, offerors shall submit technical volumes that address both PWS and System Requirements. |
| 48-010 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4 | It states in section 2.3.4 that the Small Business Participation Commitment Document has a page limit of 20, yet in section 2.3 it states 10 pages for this document. Please clarify is the Small Business Participation Commitment Document limited to 10 pages or 20? | The clerical Errors in the page limite of the SB Participaton Commitment Plan (20 page limit) and Subcontracting Plans (No Limit, Include as Appendix to Volume I) shall be revised in the document to avoid confusion. |
| 48-011 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4.1.2 | It states in section 2.3.4.1.2 "The Offeror may use and submit the provided Excel template for calculation purposes." Will the Excel template be provided? | The Excel Template will be posted with Amendment I to the RFP. |
| 48-012 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4.1.3 | States: It is recommended that the offeror use the provided template to address this section”. Where is the attachment provided? | It will be attached with Amendment I. |
| 48-013 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | para 1.0 | After the Competitive range Determination and Fly-Off event will there be another down select of vendors based on the fly-off event results? | Awardees will be determined based on proposals and fly-off results. |
| 48-014 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | para 1.0 | Is the Fly-off event included in the best value evaluation and if so how will it be evaluated? | The final technical rating will be used for award determination, with the written technical rating and fly-off rating being equally important. |
Add detail and break it down barne style
| 48-015 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.2 | States that aural noise will be assessed at standard and operational altitudes. How are the standard and operational altitudes determined or are they already pre-set? If predetermined what are they? | Standard altitude is defined in para 1.7.1 within the System Requirements. Operational altitudes are system specific. |
| 48-016 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 3.0.1.1 | States evaluation factors are Technical, Price and Program Management. This does not coincide with paragraph 2.1 which also included Past Performance, which is correct? | Technical is the most important factor followed by Price then Program Management then Past Performance. Non-Price factors, when combined are significantly more important than price |
| 48-017 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 3.0.1.2 | Is a SB participation plan required if the prime is an SB and there are no other contractors on the team, small or large? | Small businesses do not submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. |
Small businesses do submit a Small Business Participation Commitment document.
| 48-018 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 3.0.1.2 | Are suppliers which are SB’s need to be reported in the SB participation plan? | Yes. |
| 48-019 | 2-Oct-18 | PWS | para 1.0 | Will the 2 NDI UAS be GOGO Government owned and Government Operated upon acceptance? | Yes. Government will purchase and own the systems. The equipment will be operated by the U.S. Government. |
| 48-020 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | para 5.0 | Will the NDI UAS be delivered, tested and supported with only an optical payload? Is the optical payload to be an EO-IR camera or some other specified configuration? | Please see system requirements for stated Thresholds and Objectives. |
| 48-021 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 5.1 | Does the SB Plan need to include suppliers if any are qualified small businesses? | Instructions are listed in the RFP and a template for the SB Participation Commitment Document will be posted. |
| 48-022 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 5.2 | Is the Quality Control Plan or any other CDRL’s due before contract award or at proposal submission? | Vendors invited to the Fly-Off may be asked to provide additional technical information to coordinate demonstration activities. Technical data requirements will be included in the Fly-Off invitation. |
| 48-023 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | para 5.2 sub 3 | “The contractor shall implement best suppliers….” Is the prime required to identify all raw material suppliers and apply and report quality metrics for each materiel supplier? | Offerors shall implement best commercial and industry practices to control product and processes. |
| 48-024 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 5.9 | Will the Wide Area Workflow tool be provided GFE? | Awardees may be required to utilize the online Wide Area Work Flow. |
| 48-025 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 7.1 | When are all the checklists, procedures, manuals and reports listed in this section due to the Government? | Vendors invited to the Fly-Off may be asked to provide additional technical information to coordinate demonstration activities. Technical data requirements will be included in the Fly-Off invitation. |
Awardees will be required to deliver IAW CDRL A015.
| 48-026 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 7.1 | When will the TIM at the contractors facility be required, before or after award? | TIM will be conducted post contract award. |
| 48-027 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 11.0 - 12.2 | The customer requires a significant amount of spares, maint, and operational documents, are these due upon contract award or TO/DO award? | CDRL deliveries will be stipulated within TO/DO award. |
| 48-028 | 2-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | para 13.0 | What type of interface or host does the Nessus plugin require to support a security scan of the UAV systems? | Nessus is a software vulnerability scanner, applicable hardware and software requirements are available at the following website https://www.tenable.com/ |
| 48-029 | 2-Oct-18 | Systems Safety Management Plan for Unmanned Aircraft Systems. | - | Who is responsible for developing the initial SSMP and when is it due? | Please see CDRL A014 for delivery requirements. |
| 48-030 | 2-Oct-18 | Systems Safety Management Plan for Unmanned Aircraft Systems | 2.1 | Is the SSWG consist of all Government personnel? Is there are required member from the contractor side and from what contract position? | A cognizant system safety representative from Awardees will be required to participate in the SSWG. |
| 48-031 | 2-Oct-18 | Systems Safety Management Plan for Unmanned Aircraft Systems | 2.3.4 | What does the: AMC Office of the Surgeon” do and what support from the contractor is required? | Requirements within para 2.3.4 of attachment 4 are government conducted activities. Support required will be included with in CDRL A014. |
| 48-032 | 2-Oct-18 | Systems Safety Management Plan for Unmanned Aircraft Systems | 2.3.4 | Is there a specific Risk tracking tool (software) that the contractor is required to have or be familiar with? Will it be GFE if required for the contract? | Awardees will submit data IAW CDRL A014. |
| 48-033 | 2-Oct-18 | Systems Safety Management Plan for Unmanned Aircraft Systems | Appendix B | Is the contractor required to edit Appendix B Table as part of the FTUAS RFP and SSLOR table response? | Awardees will submit data IAW CDRL A014. |
| 48-034 | 3-Oct-18 | General | - | The Ordering Period is estimated to be Dec 2018 through Dec 2021. Does that mean that an order could be placed in Dec 2021 and that the execution of that order would carry over into calendar year 2022? If yes, do I need to provide FFP rates for CY 2022 for CLINs 0004-0006? | Its not anticipated that TO/DO will extend beyond the IDIQ period of performance. |
| 48-035 | 3-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4.1.2 | In paragraph 2.3.4.1.2 of the Instructions to Offerors, it states an Excel template would be provided for calculation purposes. Can you provide that Excel template? I do not see that it was included with the Solicitation and related documents. | Template added to the first modification posted on 15 October 2018. |
| 48-036 | 3-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | Para 13.0 | Is the Nessus plugin an interactive device that must be plugged into the UAV at all times or is the plug-in and assessment a single event? | Vulnerability scan is conducted as a single event for each configuration. |
| 48-037 | 4-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.2.2 | Is the required system safety assessment report to be included in the Volume II 50 page limit or should it be submitted as a separate appendix and will not be counted towards the page count. | Please reference the second Note under para 1.2.2.5 Volume Limitations, W911QY-18-R-0048 – Instructions to Offerors. |
| 48-038 | 4-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.2 | Since Location will have an impact on hourly rates, can the Government please provide CONUS and OCONUS locations to develop hourly rates for standard Full Time Equivalent for CLINS 0004, 0005 and 0006? Also for pricing purposes for CLIN 0005 does the Government expect CLS support to be located OCONUS? | Please refer to CLIN 0008-0010, travel will be billed separate from CLINs 0004-0006. Please reference para 2.2.5: Sub factor 5: Schedule, W911QY-18-R-0048 – Instructions to Offerors for notional location for price volume. |
| 48-039 | 4-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4 | It states in section 2.3.1 of instructions to offerors that CLIN 0001 is for the purchase of complete systems, and in the System Requirements section 1 it states Group 2/3 Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) includes all equipment and consumables needed to provide 24-hours a day of continuous Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (RSTA) support during first 96-hours of operations. Can the Government Confirm that CLIN 0001 Pricing should include all equipment and consumables needed to provide 24-hours a day of continuous Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (RSTA) support during first 96-hours of operations? | Yes. One system shall include equipment sufficient to meet the requirements stipulated within the System Requirements defined in T3 - Attachment 002 FTUAS Tech Requirements for RFP (4 SEP 18). |
| 48-040 | 4-Oct-18 | Combined_Synopsis_-_FTUAS_Solicitation | (xi) | The section includes DFARS 252.212-7002, Pilot Program on for Acquisition of Military- Purpose No developmental Items (JUN 2016). Can the Government please clarify that this clause only applies to/for the benefit of a nontraditional defense contractors or small business and confirm that it does not apply to Traditional Defense Contractors? | The Government intends to procure Military-Purpose Non-Developmental Items as a part of this effort. |
| 48-041 | 4-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3 (Volume IV) | Should Volume IV: Price start with paragraph 2.4, vs 2.3 which is used for Volume III? | The document will be revised and reposted to correct this clerical error. |
| 48-042 | 4-Oct-18 | PWS | 10.1.1 | The contractor SHALL develop a CLS support strategy to cover the training, operation, maintenance, sparing, and shipping for all supported systems based on an estimated 200 flight hours per system for a period of 6 months. In developing our CLS support strategy, should we assume 300 flight hours per system for basic six month contract, then 300 hours per system of operation in additional 6 month increments for options to provide 2 years of total CLS? | CLIN 0004-0006 should be based on the 200 hours per 6 month period at an 85% Operational Readiness Rate as defined within para 10.1.1 of the PWS to establish a fixed price. TO/DO's will specify requirements for duration. |
| 48-043 | 4-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4.1.2 | The Small Business Participation Commitment Document SHALL include Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) dollar and percentage calculations (TOTAL DOLLARS ALLOCATED TO EACH SOCIOECONOMIC CATEGORY divided by TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE) for all business concerns: Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone Concerns (HUBZone), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), and Other Than Small Business (OTSB). The Offeror may use and submit the provided Excel template for calculation purposes. |
| Please provide the Excel template for MQR calculations. | Template added to the first modification posted on 15 October 2018. | ||||
| 48-044 | 4-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4.1.2 | The Small Business Participation Commitment Document SHALL address the offeror’s extent of commitment to utilize Small Business concerns, to include specifically identifying each subcontractor and providing the subcontractor’s address, cage code or DUNS number, socioeconomic business status(es), principal supplies and services to be subcontracted, applicable NAICS, estimated dollars to be subcontracted, extent of commitment (signed teaming agreements), referenced Statement of Work/Statement of Objectives section, and business status verification (i.e. www.SAM.gov, certified letter). It is recommended that the offeror use the provided template to address this section. |
| Please provide the template to indicate commitment to utilize Small Business concerns. | Template added to the first modification posted on 15 October 2018. | |||
| 48-045 | 4-Oct-18 | Attachment 002 Tech Requirements | The Group 2/3 UAS EO/IR payload should have a search and target capability with sufficient resolution to detect, recognize, classify and identify a man-sized target from acoustically survivable operational altitudes and standoff ranges from the imaged target (Objective). |
| Will the Govt please define "acoustically survivable"? | "Acoustically survivable" altitudes will be system dependent. Please refer to requirement 1.12.1 within the System Requirements to define altitude for "acoustically survivable" for each system. | ||||
| 48-046 | 4-Oct-18 | PWS | Para 1.0 | Section 1.0 Scope states "...CLS activities commence at time of system(s) delivery and are limited to operations inside the Continental United States (CONUS)." |
| Page 6 in the Instructions to Offerors requests hourly rates in CONUS and OCONUS locations. Please confirm an OCONUS rate is required. | Please refer to CLIN 0008-0010, travel will be billed separate from CLINs 0004-0006. Please reference para 2.2.5: Sub factor 5: Schedule, W911QY-18-R-0048 – Instructions to Offerors for notional location for price volume. | ||||
| 48-047 | 4-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.2 | CLIN 0007 CDRL -included in Reserved and NSP CLINS |
| No cost or price data for CLIN 0007 - For CDRLs called out in the PWS, is the intent to award these CLINs with Delivery Orders as required? If not, where would the government prefer the price for required document preparation be provided? | Each TO/DO would request applicable CDRLs. | ||||
| 48-048 | 4-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4 | Pricing Scenario to Develop TEP, CLIN 003 |
| Elsewhere in the RFP documents, the requirement has been changed to 200 hour of usage, is the 300 hours stated here correct? | Requirement should match 200 hours at 85% Operational Readiness Rate as stated within the PWS. | |||||
| 48-049 | 5-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_52_212-2_Evaluation_-_Commercial_Items | 3.0, Figure 1 | The system requirements identified in Attachment 3 include threshold and objective requirements. For the evaluation, is it necessary to meet all threshold requirements in order to receive an acceptable or above rating. | Offerors must meet all threshold system requirements to be deemed technically acceptable. Offerors must meet a minimum rating of “ACCEPTABLE” on all non-Price Factors to be considered for award. | |
| 48-050 | 5-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.2 | Within 2.3.2 for CLIN 0006 it asks for a rate for a standard 1 week NET event for 30 people. If a contractors NET is greater than/or less than 1 week, can the government clarify that it would like the contractor to provide an average ceiling price for one week of NET for 30 people, regardless of actual NET duration? | For TEP evaluation purposes, the Government will be evaluating NET Training with an average of 1-week. It is understood NET Training can be multiple weeks for which offerors shall submit what their true NET Training is for technical portion and price, but also include the average for the multiple weeks as a single week to allow for a direct comparison in the TEP to determine best value. | |
| 48-051 | 5-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4 | Within 2.3.4 for CLIN 0006 it states to price "2x NET at Ft. Bragg for 30 Soldiers each NET " is this for two 1-week Events as discussed in Section 2.3.2, or should it be based on the Contractor's expected NET duration which could be less than or greater than 1-week? | For TEP evaluation purposes, the Government will be evaluating NET Training with an average of 1-week. It is understood NET Training can be multiple weeks for which offerors shall submit what their true NET Training is for technical portion and price, but also include the average for the multiple weeks as a single week to allow for a direct comparison in the TEP to determine best value. | |
| 48-052 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.2 | In the Instructions to Offerors, page 6, para 2.3.2 Price Proposal for CLINs 0004 and 0005, can the government please clarify the purpose of asking for T&M FTE rates on Fixed Priced CLINs? | Each CLIN will be FFP based on the requirements defined at the Delivery Order (DO) level. Currently, those items are not defined in such detail that would be able to conduct a fair evaluation of all parties on this Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity Contract. Therefore, a standardized baseline was established to allow offerors to submit proposals. Rates requested are to establish a baseline comparison at the IDIQ award and to assist in determining a Fair and Reasonable Price at the time of the Delivery Order awards. At no time is this to be treated as a T&M contract of actual costs. |
| 48-053 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.2 | In the Instructions to Offerors, page 6, para 2.3.2 Price Proposal for CLIN 0006, can the government please clarify the meaning of a "standard 1-week NET?" For nearly all UAS systems that we are aware of on the market, NET is a multi-week process with some weeks requiring only ground school (with a small instructor footprint), other weeks only flying events (with a large instructor footprint for added safety) and other weeks a mix of both. Please clarify your intent for having bidders quote a single week out of context from a fully articulated NET syllabus. | For TEP evaluation purposes, the Government will be evaluating NET Training with an average of 1-week. It is understood NET Training can be multiple weeks for which offerors shall submit what their true NET Training is for technical portion and price, but also include the average for the multiple weeks as a single week to allow for a direct comparison in the TEP to determine best value. |
| 48-054 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4 | In the Instructions to Offerors, page 7, para 2.3.4 Pricing Scenario to Develop TEP, is the government going to use their own assumptions / calculations or are bidders expected to provide their own assumptions in Vol IV? | If offerors stipulate assumptions above what is provided within the instructions to offerors and Performance Work Statement, it is requested they state these assumptions within the Price Volume. |
| 48-055 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4 | Continuing in that same section, please clarify the statement "conduct foreseeable New Equipment Training" with regard to the TEP. In other words, how will the government determine how many weeks of NET is "foreseeable" for each vendor? | Forseeable is defined in CLIN 0006 – 2x NET at Ft. Bragg for 30 Soldiers each NET |
| 48-056 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4 | Continuing in that same section, if the government is to make their own assumptions for the TEP, will "Anticipated attrition vehicles" be normalized across all bidders (e.g., 1 ea.) or be based on analysis of each bidders System Safety Assessment Report (or some other analysis)?" | Vendors may price 1 attrition vehicle. |
| 48-057 | 8-Oct-18 | PWS | para 8.0 | With regard to the PWS, para 8.0 Initial Spares Package, who does the government expect to maintain custody of the spares package - the operational unit that "owns" the system or the bidders FSR / CLS team? | Please reference PWS para 10.2.1 Supply Support, "The contractor shall serve as the hub for parts and equipment replacement and for receipt, storage, and shipment of parts throughout the period of performance of this PWS." |
| 48-058 | 8-Oct-18 | General (PWS) | - | No DD254 was released with the RFP. Some PWS requirements suggest that there will be security requirements on this contract. |
| Is a DD254 required for this contract, and if so, when does the Government intend to release it? | At this time, a DD254 has not been deemed required for this effort. | ||
| 48-059 | 8-Oct-18 | Combined Synopsis, (xv) SUBMISSION; | |
| Instructions, Section 1.1 General | - | Section xv states that, “All proposals shall be submitted by 1700 (5:00PM) Eastern Time on 28 October 2018.” |
Section 1.1 states that, “Proposals are due by 1700 eastern time on 29 October 2018 to the Points of Contract (POCs) listed below.
| Please correct Section xv in the Combined Synopsis document to reflect the due date of 29 October 2018 to be consistent with Instructions to Offerors document and the FBO posting. | Proposals are due 1700 on 29 October 2018. This corresponds with the notice response date listed in FBO and RFP Posting itself. The attachment has a clerical error. | ||||
| 48-060 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 1.1.1 | Section 1.1 states that, “Proposals are due by 1700 eastern time on 29 October 2018 to the Points of Contract (POCs) listed below.” Section 1.1.1 states that, “Answer to questions received are expected to be posted 15 October 2018 following receipt of final questions on 08 October 2018.” |
| Given the complexity of some questions, and the answers’ likely significant impact on the proposal response, we respectfully request an extension of the proposal due date until 11 November to enable full consideration of the answers and proper incorporation of the refined requirements into the proposal response. | Proposals are due 1700 on 29 October 2018. This corresponds with the notice response date listed in FBO and RFP Posting itself. The attachment has a clerical error. | ||||
| 48-061 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 1.1.1 | Section 1.1.1 states that award is estimated in December 2018. That date appears to be unlikely due to the solicitation release slip based on the schedule / timeline slides presented at Industry Day (adjusted for the solicitation slip). |
| For planning purpose, can the Government confirm that the estimated award date is still December of 2018? | At this time, award is expected in December 2018 - January 2019. A revision will be posted to the RFP. | ||||
| 48-062 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 1.2.1 | Section 1.2.1 states that, “The use of secure digital drop boxes (e.g. AMRDEC Safe Access File Exchange) may be used if submissions are too large to email.” |
| What is the maximum size for email attachments? | 20 MegaBites is the listed limitation for email attachments. Although this is the listed limitation, past errors have occurred as attachments approached this limit. It is encouraged to keep this in mind. It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure their proposals are submitted and received by the due date and time specified in the RFP. | ||||
| 48-063 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 1.2.2.2 | Section 1.2.2.2 states that, “All price breakdown information to aide in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007 or later.” |
| Does the Government intend to provide Offerors with an Excel spreadsheet template for pricing purposes? | No template for pricing will be provided. | ||||
| 48-064 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 1.2.2.3 | Section 1.2.2.3 states that, “Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion.” |
| Please clarify if “file” is referring to the proposal volumes. | Each File refers to each volume. Each volume will be a separate file. | ||||
| 48-065 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 1.2.2.4 - 1.2.2.5 | Sections 1.2.2.4 and 1.2.2.5 refer to Volume III as Project Management. Section 2.3 refers to Volume III as Program Management. In document 3. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, all references regarding Factor 3, is Program Management. |
| Please confirm the title of Volume III is Program Management, not Project Management. If it is “Project Management”, please update all references in 3. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD from “Program Management” to “Project Management”. | Program Management, Project is a clerical error. | |||
| 48-066 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 1.2.2.4 - 1.2.2.5 | |
| 2.3.5 | Sections 1.2.2.4 and 1.2.2.5 identify past performance as Volume V. Section 2.3.5: Sub factor 5 Past Performance identifies past performance as part of Volume III. |
| Please clarify if past performance should be submitted in Volume III, or as Volume V. | Past Performance will be a separate volume (Volume V). An update to the RFP documents will be posted to avoid confusion. | ||||
| 48-067 | 8-Oct-18 | Instructions, Section 1.2.2.5 Volume Limitations, Asterisk *; T.1 PWS, Section 7.1 System Airworthiness; T.5 CDRL, CDRL A015 | - | The asterisk * states that, “Supporting documentation submitted to obtain an airworthiness release is excluded from the page count. These shall be included as appendices or attachments to the technical portion.” T.1 PWS Section 7.1 defines the requirements for airworthiness and references CDRL A015. CDRL A015, Block 12. Date of First Submission states “45 DAC”. |
| Please clarify the apparent inconsistency between the solicitation instructions and PWS regarding delivery of the airworthiness documents with the proposal versus the CDRL delivery date of 45 DAC. | Offerors may provide data concurrent with their proposal to assist with assessing Airworthiness qualification. Vendors invited to the Fly-Off may be asked to provide additional technical information to coordinate demonstration activities. Technical data requirements will be included in the Fly-Off invitation. Awardees are required to submit the documentation listed within the PWS IAW CDRL A015. | ||||
| 48-068 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4 | The asterisk * states the SB Participation Commitment Document is limited to 10 pages under the notes section of Section 1.2.2.3 and 20 pages under Section 2.3.4. |
| Please clarify the page limitation for the Small Business Participation Commitment as 10 pages in Section 2.3.4. | The clerical Errors in the page limite of the SB Participaton Commitment Plan (20 page limit) and Subcontracting Plans (No Limit, Include as Appendix to Volume I) shall be revised in the document to avoid confusion. | ||||
| 48-069 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 1.2.2.5 | The asterisk ** states that, “Manpower charts are excluded from the page count, but must be included as an appendix or attachment.” |
No other mention of manpower charts appears in anywhere else in the instructions or in any other solicitation document.
1. Please confirm manpower charts are required.
| 2. If required, please define the content requirements for the manpower charts and provide a template. | Manpower charts are no required and the language will be removed from the RFP. | ||||
| 48-070 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3 - 2.5 | The numbering of the sections appears to be incorrect. |
| Please renumber Section 2.3 Volume IV: Price to Section 2.4 Volume IV: Price and Section 2.4 Fly-Off to Section 2.5 Fly-Off to correct the document numbering. | A revision to the document to update the clerical errors will be posted to avoid confusion. | ||||
| 48-071 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.2 | Section 2.3.2, CLIN 0003 states that “Offerors shall submit pricing for each item or established spares package.” |
| To avoid disparate pricing between offerors, we recommend that pricing for spares be provided as the spares package for one 96-hour mission given that the number of NET events and fieldings is to be determined. | The price for an entire spares package as directed within para 8.0 of the PWS is required as a part of the TEP. | ||||
| 48-072 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.2 | Instructions Section 2.3.2, CLINS 0004 (FSR), 0005 (CLS), and 0006 (NET) require pricing for CONUS and OCONUS locations. T.1 PWS Section 1.0 states that, “CLS activities commence at time of system(s) delivery and are limited to operations inside the Continental United States (CONUS).” T.1 PWS Section 12 states that, “The contractor shall conduct NET to Army operator and maintenance personnel at a CONUS Government location. |
| Please confirm that OCONUS pricing is required for CLINS 0004, 0005, and 0006. | OCONUS is a clerical error and will be corrected. | ||||
| 48-073 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4.1.2 | Section 2.3.4.1.2 says that, “The Small Business Participation Commitment Document shall include Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) dollar and percentage calculations (TOTAL DOLLARS ALLOCATED TO EACH SOCIOECONOMIC CATEGORY divided by TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE) for all business concerns…” |
| Given the nature of the FTUAS procurement, which includes aircraft manufacturing as an element of cost, we recommend that the Small Business Participation Commitment be limited to a small business percentage only (no subcategories), based on TOTAL SUBCONTRACTED DOLLARS vice TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE, and / or that the application of the goals be limited to certain services-related CLINS (CLINS 0004, 0005, and 0006). | Government (based on MR) determined that these percentages are appropriate. If there are no opportunities to subcontract to other categories, then the offeror's proposal should specifically state and justify why the other percentages cannot be achieved. The justification should include the company's market research results in attempts to locate these SB sources. Proposals may be rated acceptable if valid justification is provided. | ||||
| 48-074 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.3.4.1.2 | Section 2.3.4.1.2: states that, “The Offeror may use and submit the provided Excel template for calculation purposes.” No Excel template was released with the final RFP. |
| Please provide the Excel template. | Template added to the first modification posted on 15 October 2018. | ||||
| 48-075 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.4 | There is little detail provided relative the scheduling of the demonstration. |
| There is little detail provided relative the scheduling of the demonstration. For planning purposes, can the government provide more information about how the demos will be scheduled and the amount of lead time vendors will be provided? | Vendors in the competitive range will be offered an invitation to the fly-off demonstration. Start dates will be assigned at random to offerors. The first offerors will be provided approximately 15 days notice to ship materials. Anticipated durations will be provided within the invitation, but are anticipated to be approximately one week. | ||||
| 48-076 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.4 | The location of the demo is not provided in the RFP. In the answers to questions, FTUAS-08, the Government stated that, “…For the demonstration, the test site is currently designated as Dugway Proving Ground UT.” |
| Please confirm the demo location of demo which is needed to plan for logistical and resource support for the demo. | The planned location for the flight demonstration is Dugway Proving Grounds, UT. However, the Government reserves the right to change location based on the number of offerors within the competitive range and potential flight issues with the facility. All offerors will conduct the flight demonstration at the same facility. | ||||
| 48-077 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | 2.4 | Section 2.4 states that, “Systems proposed are to be the systems demonstrated at the Fly-Off event.” |
| If an objective requirement for aircraft capability is anticipated in time for system delivery, but not necessarily at the time of the demo, how will that be evaluated from a rating card perspective? | Systems proposed must be demonstrated at the Fly-off event. Offerors may provide separate proposals for different configurations. | ||||
| 48-078 | 8-Oct-18 | T3. System Requirements, Section 1.1 Rapid Deployability | 1.1 | This section defines one threshold and multiple objective requirements for rapid deployability. |
| Please confirm if the rapid deployability requirements will be validated as part of the fly-off demonstration. | Please refer to para 2.2 of Instructions to offerors "The Fly-Off will be used to evaluate the system's loadout size/weight, single vehicle endurance, system and antenna range, and aural (noise) detection at operational and standard altitudes in accordance with the PWS and supporting technical documents." Additionally, "Rating cards will be provided to Offerors who are invited to the event on the day of the event to ensure equal preparation to all participants." | |||||
| 48-079 | 8-Oct-18 | RFP | - | The Instructions to Offerors document indicates the proposal is “due by 1700 eastern time on 29 October 2018” (pg. 1) while the Solicitation document states “by 1700 (5:00PM) Eastern Time on 28 October 2018” (pg. 5). What is the correct date and time of the deadline for proposal? | Proposals are due 1700 on 29 October 2018. This corresponds with the notice response date listed in FBO and RFP Posting itself. The attachment has a clerical error. | |
| 48-080 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | - | The Instructions to Offerors document list the past performance as a standalone volume with page limit of 50 pages (Pg. 2). This document also states that “Past Performance shall be included in the Volume II: Program Management” (Pg. 4). Due to the length of compiled past performance information, we recommend including past performance information in a separate volume with a 50-page limit. Should the past performance information be included as part of Volume III, “Program Management” or as a sperate volume? | Past Performance will be a separate volume (Volume V). An update to the RFP documents will be posted to avoid confusion. | |
| 48-081 | 8-Oct-18 | PWS | Pg 10 | The “Performance Work Statement” states that “The contractor shall develop a CLS support strategy to cover the training, operation, maintenance, sparing, and shipping for all supported systems based on an estimated 200 flight hours per system for a period of 6 months (Pg. 10).” The offeror needs to know the expected number of flight hours and duration of operations to effectively determine the field service and logistics support concepts. What total amount of flight hours and duration of time for each FTUAS system does the Army expect? | Please refer to para 10.1.1 of the PWS "an estimated 200 flight hours per system for a period of 6 months" and System Requirements 1.11.4 "A single Group 2/3 Unmanned Aircraft (UA) should have a minimum endurance of four hours". | |
| 48-082 | 8-Oct-18 | PWS | - | The Army concept of operations (CONOPS) is required to develop and estimate the cost of the field support required, the most appropriate maintenance support concept and the number and type of spare parts to include | ||
| in spare package. Offerors needs to know the amount of flight hours the Army expects for FSR only operations, soldier operation with FSR oversight and soldier operation without FSR oversight. What types of contractor, civilian or military occupational specialties (MOSs) will be expected to operate the FTUAS system during contract execution? | The awarded systems will go to current Shadow Platoons consisting of 15E and 15W Army Military Occupational Specialties. | |||||
| 48-083 | 8-Oct-18 | PWS | pg 8 | The Performance Work Statement (PWS) states that “The contractor shall conduct NET to Army operator and maintenance personnel at a CONUS Government location” (pg. 8). However, the PWS does not provide sufficient | ||
| description of the expected participants to effectively design a NET Training Package. What is the expected MOSs, MOS-level(s), years of experience and level of proficiency for the soldiers that will participate in the New Equipment Training? | The awarded systems will go to current Shadow Platoons consisting of 15E and 15W Army Military Occupational Specialties. | |||||
| 48-084 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | - | The Instructions to Offerors document states that “The Offeror may use and submit the provided Excel template for calculation purposes”. Can you provide the Excel template for calculation of small business | ||
| participation? | The Excel Template will be posted with Amendment I to the RFP. | |||||
| 48-085 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | ||||
| PWS | - | The Instructions to Offerors document states that “Offerors shall submit a system safety assessment report in accordance with (IAW) MIL-STD 882E, dated 11 May 2012” (Pg. 4) as part of the proposal Volume II (Technical), Sub factor 2. However, the Performance Work Statement states that “The contractor shall prepare the [Safety Assessment Report] IAW DI-MISC-80508 (CDRL A015) in order to obtain an Air Worthiness Release (Pg. 6).” Due to the significant amount of data required to constitute and support the Safety Assessment Report (SAR), we recommend provision of the SAR as part of the CDRL 45 days after award. Is the Safety Assessment Report due as part of the FTUAS proposal or as part of CDRL A015 45 days after contract award? | Offerors may provide data concurrent with their proposal to assist with assessing Airworthiness qualification. Please reference the second Note under para 1.2.2.5 Volume Limitations, W911QY-18-R-0048 – Instructions to Offerors as it refers to supplemental technical data. Vendors invited to the Fly-Off may be asked to provide additional technical information to coordinate demonstration activities. Technical data requirements will be included in the Fly-Off invitation. Awardees are required to submit the documentation listed within the PWS IAW CDRL A015. | |||
| 48-086 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | ||||
| PWS | - | The current solicitation identifies the general technical report DI-MISC-80508B as the primary reference for preparation of the Safety Assessment Report (SAR). However, DI-SAFT-80102C is a more prescriptive reference generally used for SAR development. Should the Data Item Description (DID) listed for preparation of the Safety Assessment Report (SAR) be the general technical report DI-MISC-80508B or the more prescriptive DI-SAFT-80102C? | CDRL A014 includes data beyond that required by DI-SAFT-80102C. Offerors may use the format within DI-SAFT-80102C for data specifically related to the SAR as long as additional data required is provided. | |||
| 48-087 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | ||||
| pg 6 | Page 6, CLIN 0004, we need to clarify a Full Time Equivalent of 2080 hours. 2080 hours of direct labor in a year will require more than 1.0 FTEs. Normally a 2080-hour year results in about 1800 to 1920 direct labor hours. Does the FTE stated amount offer CLIN 004 of 2080 hours include both direct labor hours and indirect labor hours for such time as holiday and vacation? | 2080 represents fully burdened, which includes indirects, directs, profit, etc… | ||||
| 48-088 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | ||||
| - | Are offerors that are qualifying small business required to complete the Small Business Participation Commitment Document? | Small Business Participation Commitment Document applies to all offerors. |
Small Business Subcontracting Plan only applies to Other than Small Businesses.
| 48-089 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions |
| 3.0.1.2 | Section 3.0.1.2, Small Business Participation Commitment Document and Subcontracting Plan, does not provide specific information to determine if an offeror that is a small business entity will be evaluated on this sub factor and, if so, how to correctly represent the participation of the offeror. Do the small business goals described in section 3.0.1.2 of the Instructions to Offerors document apply to offerors that are small business entities? If so, how should the offeror represent its participation in the reported goals? | Instructions are listed in 2.1.2.1.2, "TOTAL DOLLARS ALLOCATED TO EACH SOCIOECONOMIC CATEGORY divided by TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE." |
Example: If a WOSB proposes as the prime offeror, and it subcontracts out 25% of TCV to a large business, then the prime contractor's SB goal is 75% and its WOSB is 75%.
| 48-090 | 8-Oct-18 | General | - | What is the date range for the fly-off? | Vendors in the competitive range will be offered an invitation to the fly-off demonstration. Start dates will be assigned at random to offerors. The first offerors will be provided approximately 15 days notice to ship materials. Anticipated durations will be provided within the invitation, but are anticipated to be approximately one week in duration per offeror. Estimated start dates are dependent upon the number of proposals received and number of offerors within the competitive range. |
| 48-091 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | |||
| - | Paragraph 2.1.2: Subcontracting Plan list “No Page Limit, Include as Appendix to Administrative Volume” yet paragraph 1.2.2.5 provides a limit of 10 pages. Which is accurate? | The clerical Errors in the page limite of the SB Participaton Commitment Plan (20 page limit) and Subcontracting Plans (No Limit, Include as Appendix to Volume I) shall be revised in the document to avoid confusion. | |||
| 48-092 | 8-Oct-18 | Addendum_to_FAR_Clause_52_212-1_Instructions | |||
| 3.0.1.2.0 | Paragraph 3.0.1.2.0 SB Participation Commitment plan provides a breakout of the recommended small business goals. Given the relatively small amount of required personnel to support the service component of this contract, is it really the government’s intent to require the stated percentages of each socioeconomic category in order to achieve an “acceptable” rating? | Government (based on MR) determined that these percentages are appropriate. If there are no opportunities to subcontract to other categories, then the offeror's proposal should specifically state and justify why the other percentages cannot be achieved. The justification should include the company's market research results in attempts to locate these SB sources. Proposals may be rated acceptable if valid justification is provided. | |||
| 48-093 | 8-Oct-18 | PWS | - | Given the small number of aircraft and flight hours in the requirement, and that the aircraft are NDI, does the government really expect to conduct weekly IPTs for program management, production/engineering, and logistics support functions? | Offerors are requested to bid to the requirements of the PWS and the Request for Proposal. Task Orders/Delivery Orders will stipulate requirements for each awardee. |
| 48-094 | 8-Oct-18 | PWS | - | What cargo bay dimensions should be assumed for the CH-47 and HMMWV? | CH-47 Cargo Compartment: 7.51 ft wide x 30.17 ft deep x 6.49 ft tall |
| 48-095 | 8-Oct-18 | Attachment 3, System Requirements | 1.6.1 | 1.6.1 Please elaborate on what is meant by “point to point voice communications”; what radio devices will be in use and for what range? | Offerors are to provide details of any current existing point-to-point voice communications relay capabilities (i.e. waveform, range, etc.). |
| 48-096 | 8-Oct-18 | Attachment 3, System Requirements | 1.12.1 | 1.12.1: Given that the scenario for this requirement is to be flying at an acoustically survivable operating altitude, wouldn’t that negate the need to verify a low noise signature of 65 dBA or less? If the intent is to determine the altitude for a 65 dBA or less signature, what background noise should be assumed for either urban or rural? | Systems should have a noise signature of 65 dBA or less in an Urban environment at an acoustically survivable operational altitude as required within para 1.12.1 of the system requirements. "Acoustically survivable operational altitude" should be defined as the altitude at which the UAS can meet requirement 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 as listed in the notes under the System Requirements. |
| 48-097 | 8-Oct-18 | RFP | - | It appears the Submission Dates are inconsistent between RFP documents. Kindly request the Government clarify required submission date. | Proposals are due 1700 on 29 October 2018. This corresponds with the notice response date listed in FBO and RFP Posting itself. The attachment has a clerical error. |
| 48-098 | 8-Oct-18 | Evaluation Factors for Award | 2.0-2.1 | When all non-price factors are combined, they are more important than price. Non-Price factors, when combined are significantly more important than price. |
Inconsistent definition of weighting of non-price factors and price factor. Kindly request the Government clarify weighting of non-price factors when combined as compared to price Clerical Error, in both locations, the RFP should read:
"Non-Price factors, when combined are significantly more important than price."
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .