MODIFICATION
A -- Nuclear Enterprise Tracking System (NETS)
- Notice Date
- 12/6/2010
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 541712
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, AFNWC PKE, BLDG 20604 CP 505 846 9516, 2000 WyYOMING BLVD DE, KIRTLAND AFB, New Mexico, 87117-0001, United States
- ZIP Code
- 87117-0001
- Solicitation Number
- NEST
- Point of Contact
- Donna Heinz, Phone: 505-846-9516, Francine M. Chavez, Phone: 505-853-2483
- E-Mail Address
-
donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil, francine.chavez2@kirtland.af.mil
(donna.heinz@kirtland.af.mil, francine.chavez2@kirtland.af.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- SUBJECT: FA9422-11-R-0002 AMENDMENT 3 NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE TRACKING SYSTEM (NETS) CS/Phone: Francine M. Chavez / 505-853-2483 Date: 06 December 2010 Amendment 3 is issued in response to questions received regarding the Draft RFP, dated 9 Nov 10, and the 23 Nov 10 acquisition strategy change posting on FedBizzOpps. CONTRACTING RFI #1: Comment: In attachment 3 Addendum to FAR 52.212-01 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items (June 2008) there are some inconsistencies with Table 2.2- Proposal Organization (Page 3 of 24) and the written instructions in the rest of this portion of the document. Specifically, the table lists Volume III as the Cost/Price volume and Volume IV as the Relevant Past Performance volume. In the text of the same attachment, (Page 9 of 24) Section 5.0 lists Volume III as Past Performance whereas (Page 11 of 24) Section 6.0 lists Volume IV as Cost/Price. Question: Will the Air Force clarify the ordering of the Volumes for the response in the Final RFP? Answer: Based on our change in acquisition strategy, Table 2.2 is updated to reflect Vol. III and Instructions to Offerors (ITO) paragraph 5.0 as Cost/Price. Contract documentation becomes Vol. IV and ITO paragraph 6.0. The Past Performance volume is deleted. RFI#2: Comment: Attachment 3 Addendum to FAR 52.212-01 Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items (June 2008) Table 2.2 Proposal Organization (Page 4 of 24) lists the Relevant Past Performance as being limited to 3 citations, 5 pages per citation (plus questionnaires). In section 5.3.4 Past Performance Volume Contents the wording is "(3 relevant contracts, limited to 3 pages each)" with no mention of the questionnaire forms. Question: Please provide the corrected requirements for Past Performance citations. Answer: Past Performance requirements are deleted in their entirety. RFI#3: Comment: In reference to the Past Performance Volume Contents, section 5.3 Relevant Contracts states that industry is to "...include information on no more than three (3) recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors..." Question 1: Will these additional relevant contracts be limited to 5 pages per citation plus questionnaires in the same manner as the prime vendors' relevant contracts? Answer: Past Performance requirements are deleted in their entirety. Question 2: Is there a limit to the total number of Past Performance contracts (3 for the Prime and 3 for each partner/significant subcontractor)? Answer: Past Performance requirements are deleted in their entirety. RFI#4: Comment: In reference to the same section (Past Performance Volume Contents, section 5.3 Relevant Contracts), if the AF's intent that the number of past performance citations for the Prime and any teaming partners be limited to three (3) in total, Praeses respectfully requests that the total be increased to five (5). Answer: Past Performance requirements are deleted in their entirety. RFI#5: Question: Organization of CDRLs due at proposal submittal not provided. What are the DiDs for the CDRLs (Demo & Dev Plans)? DI-MGMT-80004(?) Answer: The CDRLs and corresponding DiDs are presently under construction. RFI#6: Question: There seems to be a typo. Should section 5.3 refer to Vol III instead of Vol IV? Answer: Based on our change in acquisition strategy, Table 2.2 is updated to reflect Vol. III and Instructions to Offerors (ITO) paragraph 5.0 as Cost/Price. Contract documentation becomes Vol. IV and ITO paragraph 6.0. The Past Performance volume is deleted. RFI#7: Question: There seems to be conflicting instructions. Should there be a delivery of all volumes on one CD or one CD per volume? Answer: All volumes may be placed on a single CD, space permitting, and each volume shall be in a different directory on the CD. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. If there is not adequate space on a single CD then clearly identify on each CD the Volume number(s) located within the CD. RFI#8: Question: The FedBizOps web page for the NETS solicitation indicates this acquisition is not a set aside, whereas the draft SF 1449 (page 1 of the draft RFP package) indicates this is 100% set aside for a small business. Please clarify which of these is correct. Answer: Based on change in acquisition strategy, this will be "full and open" competition with preference given to qualified small businesses. Small business proposals will be evaluated first using technically acceptable criteria to rank order them. Contracts will be awarded in succession to all technically qualified small business offerors, dependent on availability of funds. Once the small business list of proposals is exhausted, large business proposals will be evaluated and rank ordered according to the same technically acceptable criteria. Again, contracts will be awarded in succession to all technically qualified offerors, dependent on availability of funds. RFI#9: Comment: Considering that this solicitation is looking for an existing commercial device that can be modified/updated to provide the desired capabilities in such a short time span, it would be advantageous to the Air Force to release this acquisition as ‘Unrestricted', allowing large businesses with the commensurate internal resources and Quality Assurance/Quality Control capabilities to ensure a successful solution. Answer: As stated above, based on change in acquisition strategy, this will be "full and open" competition with preference given to qualified small businesses. RFI#10: Question: Can you please clarify the statements bolded below? If we deliver the development plan after the demonstration, why is the development plan needed, if the demonstration is over? Is this just a simple developmental plan that is something for ya'll to be aware of, if at any time in the future, there may be carried out in another round of funding, which you stated clearly as was not coming? Answer: Since we do not expect any one contractor will be able to satisfy all product outcomes or objectives, the development plan will explain how the demonstrated technology can be further developed/improved to fulfill the areas the technology demonstration did not address (activities, cost, and schedule). The development plan is in intended to help us to potentially build a requirement should there be follow-on funding. RFI#11: Question: What is the timeline for "after the receipt of the demo"? Does this mean, we conduct the tech demo and then hand you immediately a rough-order-of-magnitude demo plan? The development plan will be required after receipt of the demonstration vice being due at the time of the proposal. The development plan will be a rough-order of-magnitude on what activities, cost and schedule would be required to further develop the technology. Answer: The primary proposal submission will consist of the demonstration plan. The demonstration report and development plan will be during the course of the contract. The demonstration report will be due no later than 30 days after the formal technology demonstration. The development plan (a rough order of magnitude including activities, cost and schedule required to further develop the technology) will be required no later than 30 days after the technology demonstration report is delivered. The total period of performance is 210 days. RFI#12: Question: Does the statement that this contract will be 100% small business set aside mean 100% of the effort must be done by a small business, or just that 100% of the multiple awards will be to small businesses? Answer: The acquisition will be "full and open" competition with preference given to qualified small businesses. Small businesses must demonstrate performance of 50% or more of the effort in order to be considered qualified and awardable. Large businesses will be considered for award after the small business proposal list has been exhausted. RFI#13: Question: The current posted statement of objectives (SOO) is dated 22 September 2010 yet we have downloaded another dated 09 November 2010 from a different posting. What is the latest date for the Statement of Objectives? Answer: Most recently posted version is the SOO, dated 9 Nov 10, posted in the Draft RFP. TECHNICAL RFI#1: Question: Are these the only requirements for a bio-metrically secure handheld computing device? Answer: Yes, the handheld device will have to demonstrate biometric security to safeguard information but there is no predisposition on a possible solution. Demonstration of any and all capabilities the device can currently perform is acceptable. RFI#2: Question: What is considered to be "local command and Control"? Answer: This refers to on-the-scene munitions squadrons, groups, numbered AF, MAJCOMs, COCOMs, etc. RFI#3: Question: Does the government need visibility into asset location while they are in flight or in transit? TAV 24/7 or something less? Answer: Yes, we have to be able to track when and on what they are associated with. The Air Force in interested in ultimately being able to track any and all components 24/7. RFI#4: Question: Is the government presently using UID/RFID technologies to track/monitor nuclear assets? Answer: RFID is not used, unique serial numbering is used. RFI#5: Question: Is the government looking for Cradle to Grave Total Asset Visibility? Answer: The Air Force is interested in ultimately being able to track any and all components. RFI#6: Question: What does the Air Force nuclear enterprise consist of? i.e., Land based as well as Aircraft. Answer: The Air Force nuclear enterprise consists of a number of weapons systems, nuclear policies, procedures, and processes affecting nuclear operations. This includes the management, sustainment, and logistics of nuclear weapons-related material. RFI#7: Question: How many items will be an acceptable number for the demonstration? Answer: We have no predisposed solution so demonstration of any and all capabilities is acceptable. Offerors may demonstrate multiple solutions during their technology demonstration and the demonstration in its entirety shall not exceed a single day. RFI#8: Question: Does SIPRNET interface well with the AF-GIG? Is the AF-GIG classified? Answer: Parts of AF-GIG are classified (SIPRNET aspect) so SIPRNET does interface with AF-GIG. RFI#9: Question: If there a requirement to transmit data from a classified to unclassified (SIPRNET/NIPRNET) environment? Answer: No RFI#10: Question: Are the CAS and DIAMONDS systems NOT NOW considered subject to interfacing for the demonstration? Answer: Correct, there is no requirement to demonstrate CAS and DIAMONDS interface. Demonstrations are to be conducted in a relevant environment at contractor facilities to demonstrate capability offered. RFI#11: Question: What are the general characteristics of the anticipated/specific ‘Trigger Points' that will send applicable data in the data tracking/monitoring process? Answer: The general characteristics of the trigger points will be hand-off and transition of accountability from one entity to another (i.e. any movement must be tracked). RFI#12: Question: What are the existing data systems (and associated detailed characteristics/'Trigger Points') from which the information required to satisfy the "...verify user credentials, personnel reliability status and currency/training qualifications"? Answer: Since current knowledge of Air Force systems is not a contract requirement, this information will not be provided. RFI#13: Question: What percentage of nuclear assets is presently marked with UID? Answer: Since current knowledge of Air Force systems is not a contract requirement, this information will not be provided. RFI#14: Question: Are nuclear legacy assets being marked during maintenance activities commonly referred to as "Trigger Points"? Answer: See the answer to RFI#11 above. RFI#15: Question: Are all assets currently maintained using the Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS)? Answer: Multiple systems are used to include IMDS. RFI#16: Question: Is the IMDS currently being used to capture UID data/information? Answer: No, not for all items. RFI#17: Question: Will all existing/known issues discussed in Para 1.0 of the Instructions to Offerers Attachment be disclosed as part of the final RFP? Answer: No, based on change in acquisition strategy, this is no longer relevant and it will be deleted from the final RFP. RFI#18: Question: Please clarify how the Intellectual Property rights for any existing tool/capability that is used as the basis/foundation for the selected IT solution would be protected, ie, remain with the originating company? Answer: The appropriate intellectual property clauses are currently under consideration and will be clearly delineated in the final RFP. RFI#19: Comment: Instructions to Offerors, page 23 of 24, paragraph 2, requiring a comment for "...each and every response..." appears extremely burdensome for evaluators to complete; recommend comments for evaluation responses that are B/E (Blue/Exceptional) as well as responses that are R/U (Red/Unsatisfactory). Answer: Noted. RFI#20: Comment: The Statement of Objectives included as part of the Draft RFP states in section 6.0 Place of Performance (Page 2 of 2) that the "Performance under contract will take place at contractor facilities." Question: Will the AF allow the contractor to conduct necessary requirements gathering at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, to ensure the best alignment of the demonstration's functionality with the needs of the end users and other interested parties? Answer: Since current knowledge is not required, there will be no access to Air Force personnel or facilities during the competitive proposal process. AFGSC and AFNWC personnel (approximately 5-10) will attend the technology demonstrations. Between the date of award and the actual demonstrations, AFNWC will publish the rules of engagement for government information exchange during the demonstration. RFI#21: Question: Paragraph 3.0 Objectives of the 09 Nov SOO states: "Contractor technology demonstrations shall provide a system that decreases data input time, increases data reliability, increases security, reduces transcription issues, improves reporting timeliness, and improves command and control while supporting the Air Force's nuclear enterprise". Would you please explain further what is meant by increasing data reliability? Answer: Increasing data reliability refers to:..."the accuracy and completeness of computer processed data, given to intended purposes for use. Computer-processed data include data (1) entered into a computer system and (2) resulting from computer processing. Computer-processed data can vary in form from electronic files to tables in published reports". RFI#22: Question: Paragraph 3.1.3 of the 09 November 2010 SOO states: "Demonstrate which of the following capabilities your technology currently addresses:" Subparagraph 3.1.3.3 further states: "Ability to continuously download, store, upload, view, report and print data to a secure portal and data repository". Does the word "print data to" mean "print data from" (i.e., has a command to send to printer), or does it mean to otherwise send/transmit/publish? Answer: Good point. Should be "print data from"...
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/20a9695df6d7ba4bbd2690ae24eeedde)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center (AFNWC), Contracting Division (PKE); Mail to: AFNWC/PKE; Attn: Francine M. Chavez; 8150 'F' Ave., Bldg 20226, Rm. 9, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117 or electronic submissions acceptable to e-mail address: Francine.Chavez2@kirtland.af.mil., Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87117, United States
- Zip Code: 87117
- Zip Code: 87117
- Record
- SN02339066-W 20101208/101206234001-20a9695df6d7ba4bbd2690ae24eeedde (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |