00 - Government Responses to Industry Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Air Base Air Defense Synopsis - USAFE Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- ABADS1
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 20
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Reference | Comment / Question | Government Response |
| 3.2 Orals Presentations and 3.5 Table 1, and 5.2.1 Subfactor One (Scenario) | Sections 3.2 and 5.2.1 state that the maximum number of slides allowed is 25. Please confirm that Section 3.5 Table 1 Subfactor One (Scenario) was intended to be 25 slides. | Table 1 has been updated to state 25 slides. |
| 3.1 Proposal Due Date | Is there a file size limit for email submissions? | No. However, it is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure their proposal is received, by the deadline, by the Government. An e-mail sent a minute prior to the deadline but received a minute after the deadline equates to a late proposal. The Government intends to always send confirmation e-mails of receipt. The Contracting Officer is also able to provide a 'DODSAFE' link for contractor's to submit their proposal in (safe.apps.mil), should the offeror request DODSAFE access IAW the solicitation guidelines. |
| 2.13 Organizational Conflict of Interest and 3.5, Table 1 | Table 1 identifies section 4.4 in the ITO for Organizational Conflict of Interest however there is no Section 4.4. There is a Section 2.13 that discusses OCI, is it the Government's intent that we refer to Section 2.13? | References to a section 4.4 in Section L have been removed. |
| 4.9.1.1. Facility Clearance and Industrial Security | Please advise where the DD Form 254 for Task Order 0001 should go in the proposal response. | The Government does not require this document with the proposal, however guidance in AFFARS provision 5352.204-9000 requires it 30 days prior to beginning of operations. |
| 3.2 Oral Presentations | Given the scope and integration of multiple systems would the government consider allowing more than 3 presenters for the oral presentation? The result would provide a more in-depth presentation of the approach to each of the attacks scenarios. | The Government will keep it to the current 3 presenters. |
| Attachment 6, IDIQ PWS | There are several references to Attachments in the IDIQ PWS that appear to have the wrong reference. See Recommended Changes to Attachment References table below. | Corrections have been made as appropriate. |
| Attach 2 Section M | What criteria will the government use to asses quality per the sentence below? "The Government will consider the experience quality of recent and relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts)." If CPARs or in discussion with government POC's, what measure of effectiveness determines quality (e.g., timeliness, successful hiring/retention, achieving ATO, overall CPAR rating is more important than other factors, etc.). | Recency will be determined IAW Section M, 3.1.1.1, 3.1.2.1, and 3.1.3.1. Relevancy will be determined based on whether or not the description of work provided by the contractor and the SOW/PWS provided to the Government contain work as described in Section M, 3.1.1.2, 3.1.2.2, and 3.1.3.2. |
| Attach 2 Section M | “There is conflicting guidance in how many objectives are needed to get an excellent rating. We assume the Government meant to say that “to meet the five objective requirement” instead of “to meet the three objective requirement”. | The language has been updated in Section M section 3.3.5-3.3.9, to state what is required to achieve each rating. |
| Attach 1 Section L | The following sentence from 3.2 is in conflict with Table 1 regarding total number of slides allowed. "No presentation shall exceed 90 minutes, and each will be limited to 25 PowerPoint Slides." | Table 1 has been increased to show 25 slides. |
| Attach 2 Section M | What criteria will the government use to determine an 'adverse factor' and what qualifies as a 'minimal change' for mitigation (e.g. what factors does the government consider necessary for successful execution and what factors will jeopardize that?)? Please include examples of both for clarity and understanding. Recommend Government provides criteria and examples of adverse factors and minimal changes so industry can understand how 'risk' will be assessed. | 'Adverse factor' and 'minimal change' have been removed from Section M. Please see Section M Table 4M for the new risk rating method for the scenario. |
| Attach 1 Section L | Where in the proposal should the contractor insert 2.11 (b)(1) and (b)(2)? Recommend inserting into the contracts volume. | The Government concurs. Language has been added in the form of updating Table 1 and adding in 'Section L 7.2.' |
| Attach 1 Section L | Row 111 of the Industry Questions and Responses file confirms offerors should be accounting for DoS allowances (Relocation, HOLA, COLA, HN taxes, etc.) in a cost reimbursable ODC CLIN. In Section L the following CLIN structure is given for Task Order 0001: |
o CLIN 0001 – Labor (CPFF) o CLIN 0002 – Travel (CR) o CLIN 0003 – Material (CR) o CLIN 0004 – Relocation (CR) o CLIN 0005 – Data (NSP) Relocation is the only allowance directly referenced in the CLIN structure. It is unclear where offerors should propose other oversea allowances. Where should offerors propose costs for housing, COLA, etc.? Recommend allowing CLIN 0004 to include all OCONUS allowances and clearly detail plug numbers as appropriate. More recent answers will supersede those previously given, as the documents have evolved. The ODC CLIN was meant for when the Government was going to use FFP labor rates, since binding a contractor to FFP labor rates that included those variables for the life of the contract would not be reasonable. Now that those FFP rates are gone, in response to Industry feedback, and this is just CPFF, the ODC CLIN is inapplicable for this purpose. As of now there is no ODC CLIN. Contractors will only be reimbursed for cost that are Allowable, Allocable, and Reasonable. This is relevant in terms of taxes, COLA, and more.
Offerors should include all applicable labor costs in their CPFF labor rates with the exception of any costs that are paid in ‘lump sums’ as a result of an employee or an employee’s family’s relocation or travel.
| Attach 6 Draft IDIQ | The language states “The Contractor shall maintain a program management structure with a Program Manager (PM) as a single point of contact (POC) responsible for program control and oversight to include establishing processes and administering all ABAD ID/IQ requirements. The Contractor’s POC shall work with the ABAD CO and Government PM as a single focal point for all ABAD Contractor and Government correspondence.” | ||
| Per Section 2.2.1, can the Government please clarify of the PM is the only POC expected to the primary interface with the KO? Typically industry mimics government relationships whereby they have a contracting office responsible for providing official correspondence and binding agreements, responses, etc. on behalf of the company, which is separate and distinct from that of the PM role. Recommend the Govt modify "single" to "lead," "primary" or something else that ensures acknowledgement on contracts' role to bind and commit the company. | Updates made to Section 2.2.1 of the IDIQ PWS to remove the single focal point language | ||
| General Question | Will the USG support the successful offeror in signing their completed Abwicklungsschein form in order for the Contractor to receive VAT exemption for work performed in Germany? The Abwicklungsschein process was agreed to by both US and German governments and it is considered a necessary process under German National law provisions (§73 UStDV) to receive VAT exemptions and will require Government signature. | The USG will endorse the Abwicklungsschein forms if they comply with the requirements of the program. | |
| Attach 1 Section L | What proof does the Government require for meeting objective and threshold criteria (e.g. Cruise missile capabilities)? Section L 5.2.1.1 indicates acceptable capabilities that might be available in the next 3 years. This includes systems with very limited or no data which might prove a systems abilities to meet the evaluation criteria. Recommend the USG clearly define data and technical proof requirements for capabilities listed in Section L 5.2.1.1. and Section M 3.1. | The Government SME will evaluate the proposed solutions IAW section M and assign a Technical Rating and Risk Rating. The Offeror will be responsible for ensuring enough data is provided for the government to properly evaluate the solution and give it an appropriate rating. | |
| Attach 14 Draft IDIQ LCAT list | Attachment 14 header footer indicates "KBR Proprietary information". Does this create an OCI for KBR as it gives the perception of them creating proposal criteria. | The Government is unable to find any such references in any attachments. | |
| General Question | Will the Government accept offeror teaming with foreign-owned companies? | Yes, provided said companies meet all other criteria such as employee security clearance requirements. | |
| Attach L Section L | Would the Government be willing to accept, review and provide feedback in response to offeror's OCI Mitigation Plans prior to proposal submission? | Yes. The Government made the offer to review OCI Analysis documents at Industry Day and has been taken up on that offer by multiple companies. The Government will accept OCI analyses and, if necessary, mitigation plans. The Government extends this offer only as a courtesy and as time/resources are available. Any feedback given by the Government, whether positive or negative, should not be considered binding in the event the actual RFP criteria changes successful OCI Analysis / Migitation Plan criteria, or further investigation reveals the provided OCI analysis/ mitigation plan to be insufficient. It will be up to the offeror to ensure their proposal meets the terms of the solicitation. Additionally, the production of any analyses/plans prior to the proposal are not to be considered at cost to the Government. | |
| General Question | Can the Government please confirm both SOFA and TESA status will be provided to the Contractor and that the associated FAR clauses will be incorporated into the model contract? Recommend that the USG provide SOFA and TESA status and associated FAR clauses to Prime vendor. | The Government cannot gurantee SOFA and TESA status, but that is the intent of this contract. The Government will work with the Prime contractor to obtain SOFA and TESA status. | |
| Attach 2 Section M | What does the government consider proof of a SOFA agreement? Recommend the USG define acceptable proof documentation. | The Contract Experience section of Section M (3.1.3) requires the contractor to provide contracts that validate the SOFA requirmenet. Additionally, the burden of proof for SOFA expereience in the Task Order PWS Section 3.1.1. will be on the Offeror to provide as part of their proposal. No specific format will be required by the Government. | |
| Attach 14 Appendix 1 | Work Load Estimates do not list the Operations Manager. Should the Operations Manager position be listed and if so would the RADSIL workload estimate consist of 9 primary task positions? Recommend adding the Operations Manager to Attachment 9 Appendix 1. | The Operations Management section in Task Order PWS requires a "Site Manager" Position to fill. In the workload estimate that "Site Manager" position can be referenece in the ABAD RADSIL System Maintenance task or is up to the discretion of the Offeror how they will meet the scope of the Task Order PWS. | |
| Attch 6 IDIQ PWS | States that the contractor shall not exceed 90 days to become fully operational. If the requirement is to get all equipment on a Task Order delivered, configured, installed and operational within 90 days of award this in not a realistic requirement. Often procurement lead times may drive the schedule past 90 days. Will the government consider changing the wording in 4.10.1.1.? Recommend the contractor will provide projected schedule in the Task Order proposal with a realistic date to become fully operational based on Task Order requirements. | Section 4.2.2 of the IDIQ PWS states, "Unless otherwise specified in the TO, the Contractor shall not exceed 90 calendar days to prepare and become fully operational to assume complete contract responsibility after award of each TO" The Government will work with the contractor for each Task Order to make sure there is a realisitic timeline. Also, the transition is not focused on the technical scope within the Task Order but rather the admin and manpower needs to start to execute the scope of the Task Order. | |
| Attach 1 Section L | Regarding the scenario, will the USG provide techincal specifications, aircraft and flight characteristics of adversary capabilities? | No. The Government is looking for an offeror that understands what capabilities are available. The Government provided example threats within the Scenario section 5.2.3.2. | |
| Attach 1 Section L | What is meant by a "DJI variant"? Should we assume that the UAS has a conventional active C2 link, or should we assume that the attacker might be flying by GPS waypoints or using more advanced, RF silent, "Dark Drone" techniques? | DJI is a commercial vendor of drones and the Government provided this as a reference for the type of drones that would be employed. This is provided to help bound the threat. | |
| Attach 1 Section L | DJI drones vary from 249g to more than 5kg in size - what model should be assumed for radar detection distance purposes? | The Government is looking for an offeror that understands the possible threats. No model will be specified. | |
| Attach 1 Section L | Will the UAS be carrying a significant IED payload that affects their performance? | The UAS will not be carrying a payload. | |
| Attach 1 Section L | Some DJI drones can fly 6000m high but the Scenario mentions 1000m - is the goal to defeat UAS flying at 6000m? | The Government defined the threat box to as 100M horizontally and 1000M AGL per base perimeter section. Proposed capabilites must be able to counter UASs within this threat box. Outside of this is not required for purposes of the scenario. | |
| Attach 1 Section L | What is the minimum distance that the UAS will be launched from the fenceline - for instance, could all 15 be launched simultaneously from a van 50m from the fence, or should we assume a launching location of kilometers away? | The UAS can be launched from any distance from the base. This is representative of real world posibilities. | |
| 00_-_Draft_Solicitation_FA564120R0007 | |||
| Attachment 00 Industry Day Questions and Responses, Line numbers #23, 128, 129 | The government's answers to Questions on Rows 23, 128 and 129 state that "The scenario assumptions have been updated to state, "There is no Government Furnished Equipment available for this system." If we bring all required hardware to access known data feeds that exist in Germany today, can we utilize these existing data feeds in Germany for our scenario solutioning, only including the cost of accessing the feed? | This is generic scenario and assume no GFE or data feeds will be accessible. | |
| 00_-_Draft_Solicitation_FA564120R0007 | |||
| Attachment_1_-_Draft_Section_L_ABAD; Section L para 2.9.4, Page 3, Table of Contents and Section L para 3.5, Page 8, Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits | Para 2.9.4 Table of Contents states: Tables of contents do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes. Para 3.5 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits states - The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1. Request the Government designate the tables of contents, acronym list, and other front matter materials as not counting against the page limitation. | Section L, 3.5.1 states the following, "Each page or slide in a proposal shall be counted towards its respective limitation except the following: Title Pages, Tables of Contents, Statements of Work or Performance Work Statements, Glossary of Abbreviations or Acronyms." | |
| 00_-_Draft_Solicitation_FA564120R0007 |
Attachment_1_-_Draft_Section_L_ABAD 00 Industry Day Questions and Responses, Page 4 00_-_Draft_Solicitation_FA564120R0007 Page 4 prescribes the CLINS as follows:
o CLIN 0001 – O&M Labor (FFP) o CLIN 0002 – Integration (FFP) o CLIN 0003 – Materials (FFP) o CLIN 0004 – Logistical Support (FFP) o CLIN 0005 – O&M (FFP) Attachment_1_-_Draft_Section_L_ABAD Section 6.2 (5) states the CLINS as follows:
o CLIN 0001 – Labor (CPFF) o CLIN 0002 – Travel (CR) o CLIN 0003 – Material (CPFF) o CLIN 0004 – Relocation (CPFF) o CLIN 0005– Data (NSP) Also Reference Row 126 of the 26 Aug Questions and Responses
| Which document contains the correct definition of CLINS 0001 thru 0005? | The associated numbers of each CLIN will be reworked for the final RFP, but both the solicitation CLIN structure for the base award and the TO CLIN structures were correct. The base contract CLINS and TO CLINS are not required to directly match- the TO CLINs are just derived from an associated IDIQ CLIN. |
| 00_-_Draft_Solicitation_FA564120R0007 |
Attachment_1_-_Draft_Section_L_ABAD;
Section 5.2.1.2 Subfactor One (Scenario), Page 11;
| 00 Industry Day Questions and Responses, Line number 15 | The scenario prescribed by the Government specifies a theoretical Main Operating Base (MOB) in Germany. Currently there are only two USAF MOBs in Germany, Ramstein and Spangdahlem. Natural and man-made terrain has major impact on where attacks can come from and terrain and weather impact sensors dramatically. For evaluation purposes, does the Government intend for contractors to assume a notional MOB resting on bare earth with only the curvature of the earth affecting sensors' line of sight and no weather impacts on sensors? | The Government has provided more details on the terrain within Section 5.2.3.2 Figure 1. The Offeror should assume the weather conditions present within Germany when proposing their solution. |
| FA5641-20-R-0007 Attachment 1, Draft Section L ABAD | ||
| Section 6.2 (5), Page 15, Ramstein RADSIL Task Order 0001 | Other government contracts traditionally capture OCONUS allowances and Defense Base Act insurance on an ODC CLIN. Will the Government consider adding CLIN 016, Other Direct Costs, to the RADSIL TO? | Any additional applicable cost should be accounted for against the proposed Labor Rates. |
| 00_-_Draft_Solicitation_FA564120R0007 | ||
| Attachment_2_-_Draft_Section_M_ABAD, Page 4, Section 3.1; Attachment 00 Industry Day Questions and Responses, Line number #69 | Regarding the pricing of the scenario: The government states "The system proposed must be an end to end system that fits within the dollar requirements in 3.1 of Section M (Attachment 2 (between $15M - $20M)). The dollar requirement does not define what the final ABAD solution will be when the contract is awarded. Its purpose is to provide a common foundation for all contractors to propose to. " Would the government consider adding a price realism evaluation of the scenario pricing to eliminate the possibility of teams that are offering their own in-house solutions to offer them at highly discounted prices that they will not be held to in execution? | The Government will be evaluating the risk with each proposed solution to ensure the proposed solution is realistic and could be implemented. The Government will not be doing a price realism. |
| 00_-_Draft_Solicitation_FA564120R0007 |
Attachment_2_-_Draft_Section_M_ABAD; Page 4; Section 3.1, Subfactor 1 Scenario Technical Approach
| There are 3 performance objectives that apply only to the counter cruise missile (CCM) scenario. The other 2 performance objectives appear to apply to both cruise missiles and counter small UAS (C-sUAS). To earn an outstanding rating a bidder must meet a minimum of 4 performance objectives. Given that there are more cruise missile performance objectives (5) versus counter UAS objectives (2), it appears that the importance of the CCM solution is more heavily weighted than C-sUAS (i.e., 5 of 5 criterion are unique to CCM; 2 of 5 criterion are applicable for C-sUAS). Can the government confirm it was the government's intent to make CCM scenario relatively more important than C-sUAS? | The Government will be rating the proposal based on the criteria within Section 3.3 of Section M. There is no need to define if CCM is more important or not for the RFP. | |
| 00_-_Draft_Solicitation_FA564120R0007 | ||
| Attachment_2_-_Draft_Section_M_ABAD, Page 9; Section 3.3, Subfactor 3 RADSIL Task Order | The offeror must demonstrate, with reasonable confidence, how they will meet all requirements within sections 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.1.6, and 3.5 of the RADSIL TO 0001 PWS. Section 3.1.6 of the RADSIL TO 0001 PWS is indicated as reserved. Please clarify if this reference is in error or please provide the Government's intent. | The RADSIL Task Order PWS, 1.1, states, "Paragraphs listed as Reserved indicate the basic ABAD IDIQ PWS language takes precedence. Paragraphs listed as N/A do not apply to this TO. In the event of a conflict between the two documents, this PWS takes precedence." Therefore in this instance, the 'reserved' would indicate a need to reference the IDIQ PWS. 3.1.4, 3.1.5, and 3.5 are not marked as 'reserved' because the text in the RADSIL Task Order PWS is intended to supplement that of the IDIQ PWS for those sections. |
| 00_-_Draft_Solicitation_FA564120R0007 | ||
| Attachment_2_-_Draft_Section_M_ABAD, Page 9, Section 3.3, Subfactor 3 RADSIL Task Order | The second to the last paragraph in Para 3.3. includes the following sentence:"The offeror must demonstrate, with reasonable confidence, a maintenance and sustainment plan that include a description on how the offeror will meet sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the RADSIL TO 0001 PWS." The ABAD Operations Support Plan paragraph appears to have inadvertently re-used the phrase "a maintenance and sustainment plan" from the paragraph above vs "an ABAD Operations and Support Plan." We recommend the government modify the wording to "an ABAD Operations and Support Plan" to avoid confusion with "maintenance and sustainment plan" referenced in the paragraph above. | This language has been corrected. |
| Attachment_1_-_Draft_Section_L_ABAD, 5.2.2 Subfactor Two (Past Experience) | 5.2.2.1 Integration: The Offeror shall submit evidence of at least 2 years of contracting experience (instances where the Offeror performed as a key subcontractor or a prime) within the previous 5 years from the date of issuance of the solicitation, where the Offeror is or was responsible for at least 2 instances of integrating radar, electro-optical, mobile sensing, and/or multimodal sensor systems into a larger architecture, with a contract value greater than or equal to $10,000,000. The 2 instances of integration experience do not have to be from one contract. |
| Most Single Award Task Order Contracts (SATOCs) issue task orders annually for the same work to refresh funds and should be combined to equal total value, similar to what is expected under ABAD. Since the ABAD contract will be a SATOC, will the Government allow offerors to submit a similar SATOC where the combined value of multiple task orders is greater than or equal to $10,000,000 for the Integration past experience requirements? | The Government will allow for multiple task orders over a period of time to be combined to meet the requirement as long as they are on the same contract. | |
| Attachment_1_-_Draft_Section_L_ABAD, 5.2.2 Subfactor Two (Past Experience) | 5.2.2.2 Program Management: The Offeror shall submit evidence of at least 3 years of contracting experience (instances where the Offeror performed as a key subcontractor or a prime) within the previous 5 years from date of issuance of solicitation, where the Offeror is or was responsible for performing Program Management duties on an operation and maintenance contract on a $20,000,000 program or greater. |
| Most Single Award Task Order Contracts (SATOCs) issue task orders annually for the same work to refresh funds and should be combined to equal total value, similar to what is expected under ABAD. Since the ABAD contract will be a SATOC, will the Government allow offerors to submit a similar SATOC where the combined value of multiple task orders is $20,000,000 or greater for Program Management past experience requirement? | The Government will allow for the for multiple task orders over a period of time to be combined to meet the requirement as long as they are on the same contract. | |
| Attachment_1_-_Draft_Section_L_ABAD, 5.2.2 Subfactor Two (Past Experience) | 5.2.2.3 EUCOM SOFA Experience: EUCOM SOFA Experience: The Offeror shall submit evidence of at least 2 years of overseas service contracting experience (instances where the Offeror performed as a key subcontractor or a prime) within the previous 5 years from date of issuance of solicitation, where the Offeror is or was responsible for successfully obtaining SOFA, or equivalent agency, (e.g., Department of State) in EUCOM on a $5,000,000 or greater program. |
| Most Single Award Task Order Contracts (SATOCs) issue task orders annually for the same work to refresh funds and should be combined to equal total value and duration, similar to what is expected under ABAD. Since the ABAD contract will be a SATOC, will the Government allow offerors to submit a similar SATOC where the combined value of multiple task orders is $5,000,000 or greater and the duration is at least 2 years for the EUCOM SOFA past experience requirement? | The Government will allow for the for multiple task orders over a period of time to be combined to meet the requirement as long as they are on the same contract. | |
| Attachment 2 – Draft_Section_M_ABAD.docx. | Section M 3.3 paragraph 3 states that the “system engineering plan shall show the contractor’s understanding of the Ramstein Air Defense System Integration Laboratory (RADSIL)”. |
| Will the Government confirm that the offerors are required to explain their approach to understanding the RADSIL? | That is the Government's intent and language has been added to Section M for clarity. | |
| Attachment 2 – Draft_Section_M_ABAD.docx. Section M 3.3 paragraph 6 states: | Attachment 2 – Draft_Section_M_ABAD.docx. Section M 3.3 paragraph 6 states: |
An ABAD operations support plan shall include how the contractor will support threat system/equipment modifications, upgrades, modernizations, additions, replacements, and removals. The offeror must demonstrate, with reasonable confidence, a maintenance and sustainment plan that include a description on how the offeror will meet sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the RADSIL TO 0001 PWS.
| Question: Will the government provide clarification on inconsistent references to “operations support plan” in line one and “maintenance and sustainment plan” in line two of this paragraph? | This language has been corrected. | ||
| Attachment 7 Draft PWS Task Order Appendix 1 – TO001 Workload Estimates; Logistics Support and Services, Task Name Logistic Support Control Materials | Attachment 14 – Draft IDIQ Labor Category List doesn’t contain any Logistics Support labor categories. Will the government add a Logistics Support LCAT to cover tasks in Attachment 7 Draft PWS Task Order, Paragraph 3.5 Logistics Support and Services? | Attachment 7 Para 3.5 states, "The Contractor shall provide a Material Controller with qualifications including…" Attachment 14 has a labor category for Material Controller. | |
| Attachment 6 – Draft PWS IDIQ | 2.4.1.1 states “Contractor shall ensure the labor categories as defined in Attachment 4, labor category list, and man-hours utilized in the performance of each TO (PWS line item) issued hereunder shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the tasks.” |
| Will the Government confirm they intended to reference Attachment 14? | This reference has been corrected. | |
| Section L, 3.2 Oral Presentations | 3.2 Oral Presentations states “All representatives shall be employees of the offeror and will be employees on the RADSIL Task Order.” |
| Will the government narrow the requirement for just the PM being an employee on the RADSIL TO but all three will be employees of the offeror? | All three presenters must be employees of the offeror. The Government expanded upon this by adding language allowing subcontractors/partners to count as offerors if the contractor shows there is an agreement between the offeror and the subcontractor/partner guaranteeing those employee's participation in the event of a successful proposal. | ||
| Attachment 7 Draft PWS Task Order, Appendix 1 – TO001 Workload Estimates | In Attachment 7 Draft PWS Task Order, Appendix 1 – TO001 Workload Estimates don’t address the requirement for the contract to provide an Operations Manager as required in 3.1.2 Operations Management. Question: Will the Government please add the operations manager to the Appendix 1 - TO 001 Workload estimate? | The Operations Management section in Task Order PWS requires a "Site Manager" Position to fill. Attachment 14 has a labor category for Site Manager. | |
| Attachment 1 Draft Section L ABAD | It is understood that the Government wishes to ensure Task Order 0001 is able to be awarded and executed as bid. However, since the offeror has to use RFP provided values for Travel, Material, and Relocation, there may become a need for additional non-labor resources other then the fixed amounts in Task Order 0001. Will the Offeror be able to propose the actual expected costs in these additional non-labor categories prior to offerer's acceptance and execution of the Task Order? | The offeror cannot propose the actual expected cost to the Cost Reimbursable CLINS. | |
| Attachment 1 Draft Section L ABAD | Are the Request for Proposal (RFP) provided values for TEP evaluation purposes only? | In terms of the scenario, they are just thresholds to ensure a system is affordable. They will not be used for the actual price portion of the evaluation. | |
| Attachment 1 Draft Section L ABAD | The Draft RFP references a requirement that when proposing a composite labor rate to provide "a separate worksheet that identifies the individuals, their rates, and the weighting assigned to each rate to arrive at the single composite rate shall be provided". The composite labor rates used by many Contractors may be composed of several thousand individuals - but these rates are audited and governed by DCAA/DCMA. Will a description of how these composite rates are derived and documentation of adequacy from DCAA/DCMA suffice for this requirement? | If offerors have current DCAA/DCMA information, that will suffice for the actuals the Government needs to support their rates. The Government does not need multiple historical years of information from DCAA/DCMA, only what is current and and future, if available. | |
| 00 Draft Solicitation | All Draft Solicitation Material CLINs carry a Product Service Code of (R425), which is for Engineering and Technical Services ONLY. Can the code on Fixed Price CLINs 0003, 0013, and 0017 be left blank until the CLIN is used in a task order? If not, given that Attachment 6 Draft PWS IDIQ contains scope that allows for the Contractor to provide delivery of platform systems and equipment (section 3.2), will CLIN codes reflecting a Product Service Code(s) appropriate for ABAD platform systems delivery (for example, (1230), Fire Control Systems) be provided to accommodate procurement of those systems and execution of that scope? | ABAD is a service contract for engineering and technical services. Therefore the given PSC will be applicable to all TOs regardless of service or products be acquired. | |
| Attachment 6 Draft PWS IDIQ | This section says the contractor will "assist with…. operating" base defense operational sites. To clearly establish that the winning contractor's employees will not be considered combatants under the Law of Armed Conflict, suggest adding an additional sentence that says, "Contractor Duties shall not include activity that qualifies them as combatants under the rules of the Law of Armed Conflict." | Clarifying language has been added to the IDIQ PWS, 1.3, "Contractor duties shall not include activities that would qualify the contractor personnel as combatants under the rules of the Law of Armed Conflict." | |
| Attachment 7 Draft PWS Task Order | Please advise how the Contractor shall propose against labor categories not referenced in the TO 0001 Workload Estimates for Program Support and Contract management functions and reach back support services required to execute the PWS scope successfully? | The contractor is welcome to propose any labor categories necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS. The workload estimate is not intended to be binding. It is the Government's best estimate as to the amount of work currently projected (noting that it may well change, hence the cost type contract structure). | |
| Section L | In Attachment 1 it now says, "The system will be employed on a Main Operating Base…." If adavangeous to the Defense architecture, may some of the equipment be resident outside of the physical footprint of the MOB? | The system can have components outside of the MOB. | |
| Section L | Please be advised that the 25 page limit to Table 1 scenario has not been changed in accordance with the revised Draft RFP. | Table 1 has been updated. | |
| Attachment 6, IDIQ PWS | Does the Systems Engineering requirement include new capability development for the "Procurement, Integration, Operations, & Maintenance (O&M), and systems engineering of ABAD equipment and infrastructure throughout the EUCOM and AFRICOM combatant commands." | The system engineering requirement could include new capability development for this effort. | |
| Section L | The Government received comments in regards to concerns over the pricing thresholds of the scenario. The Government was asked to consider raising these thresholds. | The Government has completed market research and determined these cost values are reasonable. Also, the Government addded the option for leasing to give industry more flexibility. | |
| Section M | Does the Government consider ‘the solution’ separate attack scenario capabilities (i.e. a counter UAS solution and a counter Cruise solution) or a single holistic item (counter UAS, counter Cruise, C2, OM&S, and personnel associated) in a ‘plug and play’ fashion? | It is up to the offeror to meet the criteria of the solicitation and propose a solution that meets every factor. It is up to the offeror to determine how to best to break up its solution within the thresholds and objectives provided. | |
| Section M | Do criteria not called out specifically for cruise missiles apply to individual components of ‘the solution’ (i.e. a counter UAS solution and a counter Cruise solution) or to ‘the solution’ as a whole? For example, does the Government expect a PK Threshold of 90% aggregated across both attacks or a PK Threshold of 90% for each attack? | It must meet the requirements idividually for each threat e.g. PK of 90% for UAS and Pk of 90% for cruise missiles. | |
| Section M | Does the procurement cost threshold of $20M apply to (1) all components to meet both attacks, (2) only to components to meet a single attack, or (3) only to components of the C2 solution (i.e. $20M for all, $20M procurement for counter drone solution and an another $20M for counter cruise solution, or $20M only for the C2 system)? If all components are to meet both attacks & C2, we respectfully suggest the $20M acquisition figure is unrealistic without the assumption of GFE for key sensor and/or effector components, especially in the counter cruise missile realm. Current open source information indicates a Rafael Iron Dome system might cost $50M/battery, a single Patriot PAC-3 battery might cost $800M, and a SMAP/T battery may cost $500M. These are the currently operational systems with the most potential to meet the scenario PK criteria. | Adjusted the threshold requirements to be higher to accommodate other solutions. | |
| Section M | Was it the Government's intent to increase the "Excellent" and "Outstanding" evaluation criteria by increasing the number of objective criteria required for each from the July 2020 Draft RFP to the August 2020 Draft RFP? | The technical ratings in IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures. The criteria to meet each rating have evolved due to market research, but the team believes them to be as intended. | |
| Section M | Should offerors ‘double count’ the cost of a capability used in both the counter UAS and counter cruise solutions? For example, a single radar might cost $3M but be able to provide coverage and sensor warning/detection/identification for both attacks. Would this be reflected as a single $3M cost or a $6M cost as an effeciency in the technical response? | No, there would not be a need to double count the cost in this case. The scenario is for one system. The Government is looking for a solution that can meet the entire scenario. | |
| Section M | Section M Para 3.1 states The scenario components "Must cost less than $20M (Threshold), $15M (Efficiency Objective), to procure, and $10M (Threshold), $7M (Efficiency Objective) to operate and maintain the capability per location each year or cost less than $20M (Threshold), $15M (Efficiency Objective) to lease, operate, and maintain each year." The government's answers to Questions on Rows 23, 128 and 129 state that "The scenario assumptions have been updated to state, "There is no Government Furnished Equipment available for this system." |
Therefore, please confirm that in order to meet the cost threshold/efficiency objective, any equipment or products currently supporting the DoD (e.g. a developmental sensor, effector, or C2 system) must be included in the bidder's cost estimate so the government can assess cost reasonableness against the cost threshold/efficiency objective.
| The offeror should propose an end to end solution to include all pieces necessary to deliver a system to meet the scenario requirements. The threshold requirements has been adjusted to allow for flexibility of not having any GFE. | ||
| Section M | Regarding the pricing of the scenario: The government states "The system proposed must be an end to end system that fits within the dollar requirements in 3.1 of Section M (Attachment 2 (between $15M - $20M)). The dollar requirement does not define what the final ABAD solution will be when the contract is awarded. Its purpose is to provide a common foundation for all contractors to propose to. In order for all offerors to provide the most advantageous solution to the Government, please confirm that all OEM vendors of products, including developmental products, are required to provide pricing to all offerors to be able to substantiate the cost threshold/efficiency objective. | The Offeror solution will be given a technical rating and also a risk rating. The Government will evaluate the solution proposed, to include the cost provided, and then give a risk rating. It is advantageous to the contractor to provide realistic prices to get a good risk rating. |
| Section M | Regarding the pricing of the scenario: The government states "The system proposed must be an end to end system that fits within the dollar requirements in 3.1 of Section M (Attachment 2 (between $15M - $20M)). The dollar requirement does not define what the final ABAD solution will be when the contract is awarded. Its purpose is to provide a common foundation for all contractors to propose to." If companies have not leased a product they or others currently sell, can we assume notional leasing terms for the scenario solutioning (i.e $1M lease for 10 yrs for a component that historically sells for $10M)? | It is up to the offeror to convince the Government of their scenario elements in a way that provides the Government a reasonable assurance that it is true. |
| Section L | 3.2.1 Classified Information The Oral Proposal, to include the PowerPoint and the briefing, may include content up to but not to exceed the Secret No Foreign classification level” A bidding contractor that provides a classified response requires a valid, signed solicitation DD-254 with (insert the facility names as provided by each bidding contractor) in blocks 6A and 8A. The solicitation DD-254 is solely for the purpose of bidding. The solicitation DD-254 (a sample can be provided upon request) is a different and separate document than the DD-254 provided with the draft RFP, which appears to be a sample of the DD-254 that will be provided to the winning bidder after contract award. Will the government issue a valid, signed solicitation DD-254 allowing Secret information to be processed and handled for bidding purposes at each contractor’s (named) facility? | We would provide an individual DD254 for the solicitation if we were providing you with classified information to use in your proposal. However, in this case we are leaving it up to the offeror to decide whether they wish to include classified information that they already have available in the proposal. Therefore it just comes down to ensuring the Government is aware of your intent to present classified material (IAW the solicitation guidelines) so that we can agree to an appropriate communication method and ensure only those with appropriate clearances are able to participate in the call (all members of the ABAD evaluation team do have at least the clearance in the solicitation). It will be up to the offeror to ensure they are complying with facility clearance and any other applicable guidelines. |
| Section L | 3.2.1 Classified Information The Oral Proposal, to include the PowerPoint and the briefing, may include content up to but not to exceed the Secret No Foreign classification level” What process does the government intend to use for contractors can have access to appropriate classification guides and access to the requested classified information (e.g. SIPR bidder’s library, or classified reading room) to ensure proper classification authorities are cited and that there are no competitive barriers to contractors obtaining/using relevant classified information? | It will be up to the offeror to ensure they are following the correct procedures, including alerting the Government to the fact they plan to present classified information, ensuring an appropriate method of communication is selected, and all guidelines are followed. If the offeror cannot guarantee they are in compliance, they will be free to present at an unclassified level and this will in no way be held against them as long as they are still able to effectively communicate their scenario approach IAW solicitation guidelines. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .