Questions and Answers for FICS-SAM.GOV DRAFT 5-30.docx

Questions and Answers for: W91CRB23R5011FICSDRAFT

DATE 30 MAY 2023

1. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Per the requirement 2.2.7.1.4 Are the Digital Terrain Maps GFE or does the offeror need to independently supply them?

Response: Offeror need to provide Digital Terrain Map. The Maps will not be part of GFE for this requirement.

2. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: The Order/Solicitation document (W91CRB-23-R-5011DRAFT.pdf) states: “Planning, monitoring and management of IMSE network elements” while the Requirements (FICS-REQ-WBS Revision I 28 JUNE 2022) states “Planning, monitoring and management of FICS network elements”. Please clarify which document is correct.

Response: SOW is correct. “Planning, monitoring, and management of FICS network elements. Section C of the Solicitation has been updated.

3. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: The SOW is marked For Official Use Only (FOUO). Many, but not all, FOUO documents are now considered to be Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) per DODI 5200.48. Please indicate if the SOW provided in this solicitation is considered CUI, and if yes, please provide the required CUI Control Block information that offerors must include in CUI responses to the RFP. In addition, will the Government please identify which specific sections of the SOW should be considered FOUO or CUI?

Response: The FICS SOW has been updated to indicate (CUI). (FOUO) requirement has been removed.

4. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Please indicate if 11"x17" foldout pages are allowable for large graphics?

Response: Yes

5. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Page 83 of the solicitation states: "At a minimum, the FICS system shall provide:" with bullets following that contain "IMSE" in 4 places. Please confirm IMSE can be interpreted as FICS for all four entries.

Response: The FICS solicitation will be corrected. It should read “FICS” instead of “IMSE”

6. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Given that the Attachment 1 SOW is marked For Official Use Only (FOUO) (or if the standard has changed to CUI in alignment with question 3), will CECOM please confirm engagement with non-US entities for the purposes of addressing the full set of program requirements, is allowable?

Response: The marking has been changed to (CUI). It is allowable to engage with non-US entities for the purposes of addressing the full set of program requirements as long as there is nothing ITAR controlled.

7. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Given that the Attachment 1 SOW is marked For Official Use Only (FOUO) (or if the standard has changed to CUI in alignment with question 3), the submitted response and any questions and comments regarding the Draft materials should be encrypted (password protected). Will CECOM please confirm if these requirements do in fact apply to this solicitation?

Response: The SOW has been revised to reflect (CUI) markings. Any proposal submittals should be encrypted.

8. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Paragraph 2.1.4.1.6 states the planning ranges for the Threshold and Objective requirements are "maximum". Should this be interpreted as "greater than or equal to" the Threshold and Objective ranges?

Response: Yes. The SOW has been updated to read "greater than or equal to".

9. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Paragraph 2.1.4.3 states there are three antenna mast types. The sub-paragraphs appear to only describe 2 antenna mast types: a 25M Antenna Mast and TVAM. Please clarify if there is a third antenna mast type ("portable, fixed-height, base antenna mast") in the subparagraph.

Response: The SOW has been updated to reflect two antenna mast type (25M and TVAM).

10. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT Section M, Factor 4

Question: Referring to B.3 Source Selection procedures, it states "In accordance with FAR 9.505-4(b), Offerors shall obtain Non-Disclosure Agreements with the vendors below and provide a copy of the NDA with their proposal. This requirement shall flow down to all Subcontractors". Please clarify which vendors should be included in this section.

Response: The Government has revised the Solicitation to include the names of vendors.

11. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Is the Government planning to provide a Price Workbook showing the computations for the 5 priced CLINs? Alternatively, will an offeror format be acceptable?

Response: No. An offerors format will be acceptable.

12. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Per SOW section 2.3.1, how many GFE INE's will the Government provide per Shelter?

Response: INE will be Taiwan Furnished/Provided Equipment. One INE per CN will be minimum but could be more.

13. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT, Block 16 and Deliveries or Performance Section

Question: As inspection/acceptance will be handled by DCMA in accordance with the DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE Section of the DRAFT Solicitation, does the Government anticipate that the Contract will also be administered by DCMA? If true, offeror recommends that Block 16 be updated to include the cognizant DCMA information.

Response: Block 16 will be updated to include the DCMA office once the contact is awarded. DCMA will be handling the inspection at contractors’ facility.

14. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Do you have a timeline for when the next RFP For FICS will be released?

Response: Currently all question-and-answer responses are being gathered and revisions to the solicitation are being made. The Government anticipates releasing the formal solicitation shortly. Please continue to monitor Sam.gov for any updates.

15. Ref: SAM.GOV Description

Question: SAM. Gov states "Does the schedule for the procurement process provided in the Procurement Schedule provide sufficient time to maximize opportunities to meet or exceed the overall Project Requirements and Goals?" There is no schedule provided to evaluate. A 30-day procurement schedule is recommended.

Response: The Government anticipates an evaluation time frame that is necessary for a sufficient and thorough evaluation. The Government anticipates an evaluation time from of 30 days or more depending on the complexity of vendors proposals. The Government reserves the right to make award prior to 30 days if a determination is made.

16. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Hardware CLIN 0001 reflects Qty 1 with a Unit of measure of EA (each).

We believe this is in error and recommend the Government change 1 EA to Lot.

Response: CLIN 0001 is for the Field Information Communication System, a hardware deliverable. The deliverable should be “PG” Package. The Solicitation has been revised.

17. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Recommend removing dates from CLINS 0001-0005 and replacing them with number of days from contract award.

Response: Delivery dates to remain as stated.

18. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: The RFP States "…Therefore, all offerors must provide pricing and documentary support for all CLINs/SLINs contained in this solicitation as part of the offeror's price volume." Later on in the same paragraph, the RFP states "Information other than certified cost or pricing data shall not be required..." Will the Government please confirm that it expects adequate competition and therefore does not require cost and pricing data to be submitted with the proposal?

Response: The pricing evaluation will remain as stated.

19. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Under Deliveries or Performance, the Government states "Vendor shall contact cognizant DCMA to arrange for inspection/acceptance and pick-up".

This identifies US Government as the shipper of FICS materials from CONUS to Taiwan. The contractor cannot be responsible for program schedule if it does not control shipping. Recommend the Government delete F001 and add contractor shipping responsibility to SOW paragraph 14.0 "Shipping Costs".

Response: DCMA Transportation will be responsible for shipping. The language in the Solicitation will remain “As Is”.

20. Ref: ATTACHMENT 0001 SOW TW-B-ZDK 5-3

Question: CDRL E002 Small Scale Demonstration (SSD) Plan – There is a CDRL for SSD (E002) but there is no corresponding requirement in the SOW document. Recommend adding SSD requirements definition to SOW Section 6.

Response: SSD is listed in SOW, Section 6.3.

21. Ref: ATTACHMENT 0001 SOW TW-B-ZDK 5-3

Question: 2.1.4.1.1 in the SOW states: “The Broadband Radio(s) shall have a preferred Frequency Range in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) UHF Band III+ (1350-2690 MHz) and Limited C-Band (5250 – 5350 MHz, 5570-5725 MHz) radio frequency spectrum for Wide Area Network transmissions. Alternative radio frequency bands may be considered, with approval from the Taiwan Ministry of National Defiance (MND). Please confirm that both Band III+ and Limited C-Band frequency ranges are required for a compliant FICS Transmission sub-system solution. In addition recommend deleting the word “preferred” and the sentence "Alternative radio frequency bands may be considered, with approval from the Taiwan Ministry of National Defiance (MND)." from the requirement.”

Response: Yes, both Band III+ and Limited C-Band frequency ranges are required for a compliant FICS Transmission sub-system solution.

22. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Section L. a. Technical Proposal lists the page limit as 60 pages maximum.

The USG has provided a SOW with approximately 60 pages of requirements. This is a best value solicitation with a stated emphasis of providing the "how" of compliance (Technical Factors and Evaluation Approach, page 76). Recommend the Government increase the page limitation for technical proposal to 80 pages and confirm that the VCRI as an attachment is excluded from page count.

Response: The Government has evaluated the number of pages and has determined that 60 pages in adequate. VCRI is excluded from the page limit. Section L has been updated to reflect this change.

23. Ref: ATTACHMENT 0001 SOW TW-B-ZDK 5-3

Question: The SOW includes the following tasks as separate requirements:

- 10.4 requires a contractor managed facility for depot,

- 11.0, requires logistic Support for FICS for 2 years after the last fielding, 11.2 Requires Float spares and a 30 day turnaround time for repairs 13 (f) requires a 2 year FICS warranty after the last fielding, and paragraph15, requires Technical Assistance Representatives. Taken as whole, the separate requirements appear to require 2 year depot support and technical services. Recommend the Government consolidate all depot support SOW Requirements (10.4,11.0,11.2,13 (f), and 15) into a single SOW paragraph detailing contractor depot responsibilities, such as: The contractor will conduct depot level support operations in support of the FICS system for 2 years (ref 11.0) after the execution of the Fielding DD250. The contractor will manage a depot facility (Taiwan provided) (ref 10.4) as a central repair/replace facility for FICS. The manager of the depot facility will be the senior contractor representative and primary point of contact for ICEF and USG in-country interface. The depot will provide warehousing and inventory management for all float spares. The contractor will provide logistics personnel, customs and import/export expertise and an automated logistic system that will provide work order status to the USG and Taiwan ICEF on a real time bases. The contractor will provide technicians, tooling and test sets capable of fault isolation and repair of all FICS components to affect the required 30 day turn-around time. (ref 11.2) In concert with depot activities, Technical Assistance Representatives (TARS) will provide support at the unit level, as described in SOW paragraph 15.

Response: Even though the effort is tied into logistics support, however each paragraph spells out a separate responsibility. For clarity the Government will keep each section as is.

24. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Requirements (10.4,11.0,11.2,13 (f), and 15) into a single SOW paragraph detailing contractor depot responsibilities, such as: The contractor will conduct depot level support operations in support of the FICS system for 2 years (ref 11.0) after the execution of the Fielding DD250. The contractor will manage a depot facility (Taiwan provided) (ref 10.4) as a central repair/replace facility for FICS. The manager of the depot facility will be the senior contractor representative and primary point of contact for ICEF and USG in-country interface. The depot will provide warehousing and inventory management for all float spares. The contractor will provide logistics personnel, customs and import/export expertise and an automated logistic system that will provide work order status to the USG and Taiwan ICEF on a real time bases. The contractor will provide technicians, tooling and test sets capable of fault isolation and repair of all FICS components to affect the required 30 day turn-around time. (ref 11.2) In concert with depot activities, Technical Assistance Representatives (TARS) will provide support at the unit level, as described in SOW paragraph 15.

Response: See above

25. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Per the RFP, Page Size is specified as "Width 8.5, Height 11". Please confirm that foldout pages (11x17) are acceptable for detailed diagrams/tables.

Response: Yes

26. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Under Factor I, Technical, the RFP states, "The Technical factor (include sub-factors: Technical Solution, Integrated Logistics Support, Material Fielding, Integrated Master Schedule, and Program Planning) is significantly more important than any other Factors." However, the relative importance of each of the subfactors is not provided.

Will the Government please provide the relative importance/weighting of the subfactors for evaluation purposes?

Response: Solicitation has been updated to include additional narrative:

Factor 1: The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1: Technical Solution Plan

b. Subfactor 2: Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP)

c. Subfactor 3: Material Fielding Pan (MFP)

d. Subfactor 4: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Program Plan

Subfactor 1 is (equal) to Subfactor 2. Subfactor 2 is (equal) to Subfactor 3. Subfactor 3 is (more important) than subfactor 4.

27. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Section L of the RFP states: "The following shall be included in the proposal text:” However, no text follows. The requirement as stated is incomplete. Request that the Government provide the specific requirements to be included in the text or delete the requirement.

Response: Section L has been updated to state “ The following Volumes shall be included in the proposal text.

28. Ref: ATTACHMENT 0001 SOW TW-B-ZDK 5-3

Question: Special Provision H002 states "the warranty shall be for a minimum of (2) years in duration started upon delivery and acceptance at the contractor facility." starts after delivery/acceptance at Contractor facility." SOW Section 13 states "Upon the successful conclusion of the OT&E and restoral period, A US Government representative will sign a Fielding DD-250, signifying acceptance of fielding services, and the beginning of the two-year FICS warranty." The requirements appear to be inconsistent. Please clarify warranty start date.

Response: There would be two warranties. An initial warranty would start at the time the items are inspected and accepted at the contractor’s facility, so that the hardware would be covered during shipment and a second warranty for two years after OT&E and restoral period.

29. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: There is inconsistent section numbering and nomenclature in numerous places in W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT Sections C,L, and M Example: Section L Proposal Submission lists "1. Introduction" and "1. Proposal Files". Will the Government correct the numbering in all affected sections?

Response: Government team has reviewed and corrected.

30. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: In Section M Evaluation Factors for Award, the RFP states "Award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors. Factor 1 - Technical, Factor 2 - Price, Factor 3 - Past Performance, and Factor 4 - Small Business Participation." On page 81 of section M, the government lists Price as " Factor 2 - Price" and Past Performance as "Factor 3 - Past Performance." That same section lists Factor 2 as "Factor 2: Past Performance" and Factor 3 as" Factor 3: Price."

This creates a conflict in nomenclature. Will the Government confirm that Volume II/ Factor II is Past Performance and Volume III/Factor III is Price?

Response: Volume I – Technical, Volume II – Past Performance, Volume III – Price, and Volume IV – Small Business Participation

31. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: The DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/WORK STATEMENT section of W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT includes a reprint of the text of ATTACHMENT 0001 SOW TW-B-ZDK 5-3, which excludes all figures, highlighted emphases and misaligns the table at 2.2.7.1.8. Please confirm that in the event of a discrepancy, ATTACHMENT 0001 SOW TW-B-ZDK 5-3 shall have precedence.

Response: All the required information is included under SOW section 2.2.7.1.8. Due to restraints in the contract writing system the information could not be placed in table form. The Government team has realigned the information to appear more legible.

32. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Based on the information required in the Small Business Participation Plan, it is recommended that the currently stated 5-page limit be increased to 10 pages.

Response: The Government has evaluated the page limit with the Small Business Office and has determined that the 5-page limit is sufficient.

33. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: The goals for Small Business Participation are unstated. Will the Government please specify the goals for Small Business Participation for evaluation purposes?

Response: The vendor is required to provide their organizations current Small Business Goals. The Solicitation has been updated to provide a goal of 5% for each category.

34. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Will the Government please provide the model number of the GFE INE?

Response: Taiwan will provide the GFE INE model number once the contract is awarded.

35. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Will the Government please provide data interface information on the Satellite Systems and MILNET?

Response: Interface information will be provided at the time of award by Taiwan if needed.

36. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Please confirm the Taiwan MND will transport the prime movers to and from the offeror paint/integration facility.

Response: Yes

37. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW Question: Section 10.3 & 10.4: ALC and Depot. Is the expectation that the contractor managed depot should be in the same proximity or building as the FICS Fielding/Maintenance facility and/or ALC?

Response: Currently the Depot and FICS Fielding/Maintenance facility are not in the same location.

38. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Section 20.0: Security Requirements. Will there be a requirement for the contractor and/or support personnel to obtain some level of Taiwanese military clearance for security purposes (i.e. base access, access to military doctrine, classified documents, etc.)?

Response: Section 20.0 of the SOW only speaks to security training required by the Government for contract purposes.

39. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Section 20.0: Security Requirements. Is there an expectation that the contractor will need to provide security reports and/or briefings on personnel to the customer?

Response: The only requirement will be for the completion of CDRLS related to security trainings. Please see CDRLS for further guidance.

40. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: 2.3.6 Rigid Walled Shelter (S-788 Type-III): Will the Government please confirm that the shelters identified in 2.3.6 are included within the 154 shelters referenced in section 19.0. If so, are these shelters part of the CN, NMS or 8 shelters to Taiwan?

Response: Yes. 138 CNs, 8 NMS, and 8 shelters

41. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: For acceptance, does the Government expect to conduct a per shelter inspection or is the expectation to conduct a batch inspection? If a batch inspection is expected, is there a particular batch size and inspection frequency that is preferred?

Response: Per shelter inspection

42. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Does the Taiwan MND have any Enterprise software/equipment licenses that can be leveraged as GFE for the FICS program (e.g. Microsoft enterprise licenses)?

Response: No

43. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Will the Government please clarify IMSE voice and data interoperability requirements? The SOW reads 'FICS shall provide backward compatibility (basic voice and data) with the IMSE Phase II and the EXFOR systems during the incremental FICS fielding'. Will the Government accept the interoperability through an IP gateway? Are the legacy IMSE systems provided as GFE or will access be provided for testing?

Response: The vendor is to propose their solution to interoperability. Once the FICS contract is awarded IMSE GFE will be provided in order to test interoperability.

44. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT Section L

Question: Within Section L, under Section II. Volume II Past Performance, will the Government confirm that only three (3) past performance contracts are required to be submitted, and clarify the requirement to 'submit a list of all Government contracts'?

Response: “no more than three (3) performance contract submissions within the last three (3) years prior to the release of this solicitation” Only Government contracts awarded to the offeror in the past three (3) years for the particular Past Performance submittal.

45. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT Section L/Section M

Question: Will the Government please provide the definition of Quality in similar detail to Recency and Relevancy as it pertains to the evaluation of Past Performance?

Response: See below:

RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For the purpose of this requirement, recency is determined to be within 3 years of contractor’s proposal submission.

RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 2) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

46. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT Section L

Question: Will the Government please confirm that PDF is an acceptable format for all documents being submitted?

Response: Yes.

47. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT Special Requirements

Question: The Special Contract Requirement on Page 45 with regards to data rights indicates that the offeror will grant the foreign government of Taiwan the same data rights to technical data and computer software that is granted to the US Government under the resulting contract. Please clarify how this will be transacted – what will contractually bind the Taiwanese Government to comply with the regulations and what recourse will the US Government and/or offeror have in the event that data rights regulations were violated by the Taiwanese Government?

Response: Yes, Commercial Data Rights will be granted to Taiwan. Recourse would be on a case-by-case basis.

48. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Please confirm the CLIN delivery dates will be updated based upon final contract award date and in accordance with the stated period of performance.

Response: The delivery dates are as stated.

49. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: The title for SOW 3.0.3 is 'Logistics/Maintenance Reviews/Training Meetings'. This scope covers two CLINs - CLIN 0003 Support Services and CLIN 005 Training. The offeror respectfully requests that the Government clearly delineates between the 2 CLINs so the applicable scope can be appropriately priced.

Response: Section 3.0.3 covers meetings only. CLIN 0003 (Support Services) and CLIN 0005 (Training) are separate items.

50. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: CDRL E003 Demonstration Test and Evaluation (DTE) Plan and Report is not accounted for in the SOW. The offeror assumes this scope is captured in SOW 6.3. Please confirm.

Response: SOW 6.4 is for CDRL E003

51. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: CDRL K001 titled TW-B-ZDK is not accounted for in the SOW; CDRL I001 Material Fielding Plan is referenced in the SOW but not in the CDRL attachments. Please confirm these are one in the same? The offeror also requests the SOW be updated with the CDRL Reference of K001, and the title of the DD-1423-1 be updated to Material Fielding Plan.

Response: SOW has been revised to included K001. I001 has been removed.

52. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT Section M

Question: Per Section M 'In accordance with FAR 9.505-4(b), Offerors shall obtain Non-Disclosure Agreements with the vendors below and provide a copy of the NDA with their proposal. This requirement shall flow down to all Subcontractors'. Where in the offeror's proposal should these NDAs be included?

Response: Currently all the personnel involved in the evaluation process are Government employees.

53. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT Part II, Section I Contract Clauses

Question: The draft Request for Proposal (RFP) includes Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.232-30 Installment Payment for Commercial Products and Commercial Services NOV/2011. Would the Government please confirm that its anticipated payment structure for this initiative utilizes installment payments, such that periodic payments will be released with a 30% holdback. Specifically, can the Government also confirm that the installment payment amounts would be computed based on the POP duration of each of the priced contract CLINs, and the holdback for each CLIN would be liquidated upon the satisfactory completion of that CLIN’s period of performance. Furthermore, would the Government be able to define the precise technical or programmatic release criteria that govern the liquidation payments associated with each of these CLINs?

Response: Commercial Payments may be requested by the vendor. If requested the vendor is to submit their schedule to be evaluated by the Government prior to award.

54. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT Part II, Section I Contract Clauses

Question: Would the Government be open to considering alternative suggested payments structures, such as performance-based payments (FAR 52.232-32 Performance-Based Payments APR 2012)? If so, could you kindly specify the timeline by which you would like these proposed payment structures to be submitted, and how these suggested payment mechanisms would be incorporated into the Government’s source selection process/evaluation? For example, if an offeror indicates acceptance of the installment payment structure as reflected on this draft RFP, while another offeror proposes performance-based payments, would this factor into the Government’s evaluation and how so?

Response: No, this is a Commercial contract. Only Commercial Payments are allowed.

55. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT Section M

Question: Is there relative weighting between the Factor 1 Technical: Sub-Factors: Technical Solution Plan, Integrated Logistics Support Plan, and Material Fielding Plan?

Response: Factor 1: The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors: a. Subfactor 1: Technical Solution Plan

b. Subfactor 2: Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP)

c. Subfactor 3: Material Fielding Pan (MFP)

d. Subfactor 4: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Program Plan.

Subfactor 1 is (equal) to Subfactor 2. Subfactor 2 is (equal) to Subfactor 3. Subfactor 3 is (more important) than subfactor 4.

56. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT Section M

Question: Will the Government clarify what 'strength' means as defined in the Section M Technical Factor Ratings chart? Do offerors get incremental credit for exceeding a requirement? Do offerors get incremental credit for exceeding objective requirements?

Response: Yes, Definitions added to section M.

57. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT Sections L & M

Question: Referring to the Technical Volume, Sub-Factor 2 is referred to as both 'Integrated Logistics Support (ILS)' and 'Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP)'. Please indicate which naming convention we should use in our response.

Response: Integrated Logistic Support Plan (ILSP)

58. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT: VOLUME IV

Question: How will the Government assess the acceptability or unacceptability of the Small Business Participation Plan ?

Response: Acceptable and Unacceptable definition added under Small Business.

59. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Will the Government please offer more detail on the available capabilities of the destination fielding site? (e.g. cranes, lifting equipment, forklifts, etc.)

Response: Fielding site will be provided by Taiwan. However, it is the contractor’s responsibility to provide MFP (Material Fielding Plan) to state the available capabilities of the fielding site.

60. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Will the Government please confirm DI-PSSS-81958 is the correct DID reference? Also, it appears a cancellation notice was issued for DI-MGMT-81252. Is there another DID that should be leveraged in its place?

Response: DI-PSSS-81958 is replaced by DI-SESS-81521B. and DI-MGMT-81252 is replaced by DI-MGMT-81797. The CDRL will be updated.

61. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT Question: Will the Government please confirm Section 16.0 Industry Cooperation Program should read 'The contractor shall understand the Ministry of National Defense (MND) of the Republic of China (R.O.C.) requires the implementation of an Industrial Cooperation Agreement (ICA) for this foreign military sales program'?

Response: Industry Cooperation Program (ICP) is mandated by Taiwan Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of China (R.O.C) which requires the implementation of an Industrial Cooperative Agreement (ICA) for this military sales program. The contractor shall consult with the Industrial Cooperation Program Office (ICPO), Ministry of Economic Affairs of the R.O.C. regarding the preferred ICP transactions of the R.O.C. government and the industrial cooperation requirement(s) in details for the program.

62. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011 DRAFT

Question: Will the Government please clarify whether the Industry Cooperation Program per Section 16.0 should be included in the offeror's price volume? If so, should this be a discrete WBS item, a percentage allocation, or some other format that the Government defines?

Response: The contractor shall consult with the Industrial Cooperation Program Office (ICPO), Ministry of Economic Affairs of the R.O.C. regarding the preferred ICP transactions of the R.O.C. government and the industrial cooperation requirement(s) in details for the program.