NOTE: Please be aware that information you furnish as a result of this questionnaire will be on a voluntary basis and will be for informational purposes only. Information that you feel is proprietary shall not be furnished, since this is not a solicitation.

It should also be understood that the Government may use some of the information, ideas and recommendations you provide as an aid in developing the solicitation/contract. The Government will not be liable for any information obtained as a result of this questionnaire.

INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE

COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT STRATCOM ARCHITECTURE (CESAR) CONTRACT

1. It is envisioned that the scope of this contract will encompass multiple missions, multiple services, hardware/software purchases, and maintenance. Please comment on the scope.

2. What approach to a total system responsibility contract performance do you envision? For example: Can this be done by a single contractor, or would it involve several contractors in a teaming arrangement? What could be done to provide opportunities for Small Business?

3. We believe you will be required to have relationships with our application contractors. What kinds of subcontractor/associate/teaming arrangements do you anticipate being necessary to implement the integration aspect of this acquisition? Are there potential pitfalls with this type of arrangement? What would be the best means to formalize this relationship?

4. You will be provided some AS-IS architectures. We are also developing high level short term (1997 - 1999) TO-BE architectures.

a. What would you recommend we include in these "TO-BE" physical architectures?

b. How complicated will it be for the contractor to develop solutions?

c. Is the scope too broad? Would it be difficult to manage?

d. What type of architectural questions would you see addressing?

5. What key standards and technical issues are involved in implementing a seamless, highly-integrated system?

6. What are the critical success factors for this program, and why? What can the Government do to ensure success?

7. We envision the contractors of this effort to be an integral part of our Integrated Product Teams (IPTs). What do you foresee as your role and responsibility on these teams?

8. Do you view contractor provided demonstrations as a feasible part of the selection process? How does the Government reduce contractor incurred costs and provide better feedback on how we evaluate these demonstrations?

9. What avenues do you suggest to ensure open communication with potential bidders from pre-RFP through the award debriefing (electronically and face-to-face)?

10. Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) and NonDevelopmental Items (NDI) - What guidelines should the Government use in defining and evaluating these items? What problems do you foresee with COTS/NDI support in integration?

11. Which acquisition strategy would be best suited for this type effort? Traditional (X-1) or Fly-Off (X-2-1)? (Refer to Information for Industry Background paper).

12. Proposal/Evaluation Criteria - (Fly-Off and Traditional Contract award approach) What do you recommend as the proposal evaluation factors, are they weighted, how should they be verified, and what is their relative importance? How do we measure and evaluate "past performance"? What are the critical components and processes that each bidder must address in their proposals?

Please answer the above questions for both types of contract award approaches.

13. Given a Traditional approach, the Government would expect a detailed technical, management and cost proposal for the planning and performance phases from the contractor. With a fly-off approach, the government would expect a fly-off proposal (planning phase), contractor references, and contractor qualifications. What is the estimated amount of time and cost it would take to prepare a proposal in each of the two scenarios?

14. The potential fly-off will be for a six to twelve months performance period with a budget of no more than $1M per each of the two fly-off contractors. Knowing that we expect a design solution and services plan that would be implemented immediately at the conclusion of a fly-off period, do you foresee problems with this approach? What adjustments would you make to either the length of the fly-off performance period, money apportioned, or product expectations? What advantages/disadvantages do you foresee with the fly-off approach (focus on areas of risk)?

15. In light of a potential fly-off approach, (knowing that immediately after the fly-off the continued contractor will be expected to begin implementing their solutions), what data requirements do you feel would be necessary? (The intent is to keep data to a minimum.)

16. We expect continuity between the potential fly-off and implementation phases. We expect personnel qualifications in the performance phase to be as good or better than those personnel working the planning phase, and we expect some (most?) portion of the work to be done locally. Please comment on these assumptions (let us know what is realistic).

17. Are you aware of a similar contract as this? (used Lightning Bolt, SOO vs. SOW, two-stage downselect, infrastructure, complexity, etc.)

18. What type of contract would you recommend (fixed price, cost reimbursement, incentive, award fee, other), and why? What parts of the CESAR Contract would you recommend be incentivized, and what criteria would be used for the incentive? How would you structure a good incentive plan/award fee? What would be examples of poor incentive plans/award fees?

19. We are considering a seven year contract. Please comment.

20. How would you recommend the Schedule, Section B, be structured? For example: CLIN to requirement, (SOO-IMP-SOW) traceability.

21. What Special Contract Requirements clauses would you recommend? (Technology Enhancement, Economic Price Adjustment, Award Fee, Incentives, etc.) Furnish samples, if available.

22. Are you aware of any DOD mission-critical, TOP SECRET SIOP/ESI or SCI computer shops that are contracted out? If so, how were the following security issues resolved that limit contractors:

a. Access to production environments.

b. Unescorted access to restricted areas.

c. From having super-user or root privileges.

d. Providing network support for WAN's in other government contractor's facilities (proprietary information issues).

23. When should an Industry Day be scheduled and what should be on the agenda?

24. What types of information would you want to see in an electronic bidders library? How could we make documents and information more accessible?

25. Are there any other areas that we should seek your comments on to insure success of this endeavor?

NOTE: Responses to this questionnaire are due NLT 1 July 96 to 55 CONS/LGCXS, 901 SAC Blvd STE 1E16, Offutt AFB, Ne. 68113-5640.