HQ0858-21-R-0010 TN-FLE FINAL RFP INDUSTRY COMMENT RESPONSES 5.12.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 38 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TEAMS-Next Facilities, Logistics, Environmental (FLE) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 21MDA107254Mar21
- Issued by
- DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
This document contains industry comments and responses related to a federal solicitation for facilities, logistics, and environmental support services. The solicitation is issued by the Missile Defense Agency to support test and evaluation activities across multiple geographic locations. Key details include: responses are due by April 30, 2021 according to Amendment 0001; services include facility operations, logistics management, environmental permitting and compliance; concerns addressed in the comments relate to evaluation criteria, staffing levels, and definitions in the solicitation; and subcontractor consent and past performance submission processes are clarified.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 35
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
FLE
| # | Document | Page # | Paragraph /Figure | ||||
| Number | Comment/ Rationale | Proposed Resolution(s) | MDA Response | ||||
| 1 | FRFP Section M | Page 5 | Paragraph 2.6 | Section M, Paragraph 2.6 of the TEAMS-Next F/L/E Final RFP states “The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Cost and Price. Mission Capability includes four (4) subfactors: Facilities Management (MCS1), Logistics Management (MCS2), Environmental Management (MCS3), and Human Capital Management (MCS4). The subfactors under Mission Capability (Facilities, Environmental, Logistics, and Human Capital Management) are listed in descending order of importance.” Prior TEAMS-Next RFPs have equally weighted MCS technical elements during proposal evaluation. The TEAMS Next FLE RFP rank orders the three technical Mission Capability Subfactors in a manner that seems inconsistent with previous RFPs and does not match the relative size and complexity of the efforts represented by the MCSs – for example, the Environmental (11) and Facilities (44) components will deliver a combined total of 55 FTEs compared to 108 for Logistics. | Please confirm that MCS evaluations will be weighted unevenly and that the order listed in the M-2.6 parenthetical list (facilities, environmental, logistics, human capital) is correct. | Confirmed. | |
| 2 | FRFP Section L | Page 26 | Paragraph 10.4 Consent Letters Attachment L-03 | Section L, Paragraph 10.4 "Consent Letters, Attachment L-03" of the TEAMS-Next F/L/E states "“Past performance information concerning subcontractors will not be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor's consent. Because a Prime Offeror is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor past performance information to the prime during exchanges. The Offeror shall provide a consent letter for each proposed subcontractor using the format provided at Attachment L3, Consent Letter. This letter allows the release of adverse past performance information on a subcontractor to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information. The Offeror shall provide signed consent letters for each subcontractor and/or joint venture partner. Once the consent letter is received, the Government will discuss past performance only with the Offeror under review. If the Offeror fails to submit consent letters with the proposal, the Government will only be able to notify the Offeror that it has discovered adverse past performance information for one of its subcontractors, but that it cannot disclose or discuss the adverse past performance.” | |||
| Are Letters of Consent required from subcontractors whose Past Performance will not be used in the proposal? | Will the Government clarify that Consent Letters are required from ALL Subcontractors, even from those whose Past Performance is not being used in Vol VI? | Per the RFP, consent letters will be required for all subcontractors. | |||||
| 3 | FRFP, Attachment J-01 (SOW) | Pages 64-65 | 4.1.1 | Paragraph 4.1.1 of Attachment J-01 (SOW), identifies location number 7 as "HAFB, HI." Does the Government intend Hickam AFB in Hawaii to be a location, or did the Government intend for Hanscom AFB in Massachusetts to be the location listed in number 7? | Clarify whether the location in number 7, paragraph 4.1.1 of Attachment J-01 (SOW) is Hickam AFB, HI, or Hanscom AFB, MA. | HAFB is Hickam AFB, Hawaii. The SOW has been updated to reflect this. | |
| 4 | FRFP Sections L and M | Section L Page 22; Section M Page 11 | Section L Paragaph 7.5 (MCS4 Element #1) and Section M Paragraph 4.4 | Section L, Paragraph 7.5 (MCS4 Element #1: Provide Qualified Personnel) states "Addressing processes and timelines for backfilling critical billets…" Section M, Paragraph 4.4 (MCS4 Element #1: Provide Qualified Personnel) states "Addressing processes and timelines for backfilling critical billets..." Are critical billets the positions listed in the MESP, and if not, where in the TEAMS-Next F/L/E FRFP are critical billets identified? | Will the Government please clarify what is meant by "Critical Billets," and where in the FRFP are the Critical Billets identified? | "Critical" billets are those essential to developing, deploying and sustaining the BMDS and its associated infrastructure. | |
| 5 | FRFP Section L | Page 16 | Section L Paragraph 4.16 | Section L, Paragraph 4.16 states "One set of complete electronic volumes shall be submitted in Microsoft Office 2016 (or earlier compatible version). A second set of complete electronic volumes shall be submiteed in Adobe Acrobat DC, with the exception of Volume VII Tab 2 Excel Price Workbook. For the second set of complete electronic volumes, documents originally provided by the Government in Acrobat in the solicitation do not have to be converted back to Microsoft Office." | Since the second set of electronic volumes is required to be submitted in Adobe Acrobat, the conversion statement “For the second set of complete electronic volumes, documents originally provided by the Government in Acrobat in the solicitation do not have to be converted back to Microsoft Office” should not apply to the second set. Did the Government intend for this statement to address the first set of complete electronic volumes in Microsoft Office? | Yes, this is correct. Section L has been corrected to reflect this. | |
| 6 | FRFP Attachment J-01; Section M | Attachment J-01, Page 70; Section M, Page 11 | Attachment J-01, Paragraph 4.3.1.6; Section M Paragraph 4.4 | Section M, Paragraph 4.4 (Human Capital Management MCS4 Element #4: Key Staff Position defined as Contract Program Manager (CPM)) states "The Government will evaluate the resume for the proposed CPM to ensure it includes a current Secret security clearance and meets the qualifications from the SOW 4.3 at time of proposal submission." In Attachment J-01, Paragraph 4.3.1.6, the Functional Description for the Contract Program Manager states "Security Clearance requirements: Top Secret (TS)." | Will the Government correct Section M, Paragraph 4.4 to state “The Government will evaluate the resume for the proposed CPM to ensure it includes a current Top Secret security clearance and meets the qualifications from the SOW 4.3 at the time of proposal submission?" | Section M has been corrected to reflect "Top Secret." | |
| 7 | FRFP Attachment J-18; Attachment L-05; Section L | Attachment J-18, Page 3; Section L, Page 18 | Attachment J-18, Paragraph 4; Attachment L-05 Excel Pricing Workbook; Section L, Paragraph 5.7 | Attachment J-18 lists 54 positions as Mission Essential, however in the transition from Draft RFP to Final RFP, 9 of those positions appear to have been eliminated from the EPW: | |||
| • | 1 Facilities Analyst (Basic) in COS | ||||||
| • | 1 Facilities Analyst (Intermediate, Gov Site) at RSA | ||||||
| • | 3 Facilities Analysts (Basic) at RSA | ||||||
| • | 1 Facilities Engineer (Intermediate) at RSA | ||||||
| • | 1 Facilities Specialist (Basic) at RSA | ||||||
| • | 1 Procurement Analyst (Intermediate) at RSA | ||||||
| • | 1 Environmental SME at RSA | Please update attachment J-18 to reflect current staffing plans reflected in the EPW. | Attachment J-18 Mission Essential Contractor Services has been updated to reflect the changes in the EPW. | ||||
| 8 | FRFP Attachment L-05; Excel Pricing Workbook; Attachment J-01 (SOW); FLE+Draft+RFP+Industry+Comment+Matrix+02.03.2021 | SOW Page 91 | SOW Section 10, Table 10.1; FLE Draft RFP Industry Comment Matrix Question 17 | Topic: Transition timing and labor hour mismatch | |||
| Question: In addressing the industry question 17 regarding transition of the FLSM contract into FLE, MDA adjusted the EPW to remove hours for the first 11 months of contract performance. SOW section 10, Table 10.1, still requires all positions to be transitioned within “28 working days after start of period of performance.” CLIN 0037 period of performance begins on 20 Dec 2021. Is the Government’s intent to delay transition of FLSM efforts into late 2022? | Please confirm that FLSM efforts will not commence until 9 November 2022 and update required transition timelines in SOW table 10.1. | The date is correct. The intent is not for all to start in 28 days. | |||||
| 9 | FRFP Attachment L-05; Excel Pricing Workbook | EPW Rates Tab | The EPW Rates tab has the following table within it regarding CFY and GFY start dates: |
Offeror Input CFY1 start date: 1/1/2022 Days of CFY1 in GFY1: 92 GFY1 start date: 10/1/2022 Days of CFY2 in GFY1: 273
| Since the final RFP states the estimated start date is December 20, 2021, then shouldn’t the GFY1 start date be 10/1/2021? Even though the majority of the work for the first FY will be done in 2022, the GFY1 start date should still be 10/1/2021 to encompass the start date. | Update the table in the Rates tab to match the actual contract start date. | The information is to show that the Governments fical year runs from October to September and the Calander year is from January to December. | |||||
| 10 | FLE Final Section M 30.15.2021 | 14 | P2, M.7.2 | Given the consolidation of contracts and size of this of this work, will the government allow teams to use cumulative total of their past performances to meet the dollar value relevancy requirement? | The Offerors' past performance will be evaluated according to the solicitation. | ||
| 11 | FLE Final Section L 30.15.2021 | 11 | P5 , L.2.10 | The government mentions a bidders library in section L.2.10. The link provided does not contain any additional documentation. Will the government provide an updated link or make the information available in another way? | The Bidders Library was posted with the draft solicitation. | ||
| 12 | Att L-05 EPW | Rates tab | Cells S1 (CFY1 start date) and S2 (GFY1 start date) | Performance is expected to start within GFY2022 (12/20/2021); therefore, GFY1 (GFY2022) should have a 10/1/2021 start date (Cell S2). To enable the appropriate calculation of GFY rates, CFY1 would start prior to (or at the same time as) GFY1 - if the calendar year, it should be 1/1/2021, if standard government fiscal year, it should be 10/1/2021 (Cell S1). With the date currently set at 10/1/2022, the Offerors' rates will be too low by a factor equal to the escalation. | Revise cell S2 to 10/1/2021 and S1 to 1/1/2021. Instruct the offeror that the CFY1 start date is prior to or on the GFY1 start date. Suggest that the offeror adjust cell P4 to properly identify their CFY1 fiscal year. | The information is to show that the Government's fiscal year runs from October to September and the Calender year is from January to December. | |
| 13 | Att L-05 EPW | Labor Category tab; Rates tab | Cell N5 (Benchmark year) on Rates tab | Cell N5 reflects the value in cell E4 but this appears to be inaccurate. Based on the formulas, it appears that MDA expects the CFY1 rate to be reflective of the benchmark rate. Therefore, cell N5 should equal 2021. Companies with a calendar year fiscal year would reflect CFY1 as 2021 in order to calculate GFY1 rates for GFY2022. Since column P presents the offeror's CFY1 rates, cell P4 should reflect the contractor's correct fiscal year. Although this is primarily a labelling issue, its correction will prevent confusion. | Recommend making cell N5 equal to 2021. Instruct the offeror to properly identify the fiscal year associated with CFY1 in cell P4 based on the company's contractor fiscal year. | The calculation accounts for the method the Government uses for Fiscal Years. | |
| 14 | Att L-05 EPW | Level of Effort | There are four positions for Facilities in COS, all at the Intermediate level or below. With the level of support required at this location currently and anticipated future requirements growth, it seems necessary to provide a true lead to manage the overall effort. | Upgrade one of the Facilities Analyst (Intermediate) in COS to a Facilities Analyst (Advanced) | Per the requirements of the RFP, an on-site contractor lead is not required and therefore, is not identified on the EPW. | ||
| 15 | SOW | Page 68, 74 | Table 4.3.1.2.1 and 4.3.1.6 (Facilities Subject Matter Expert) | Education requirements for the Facilities Subject Matter Expert in Table 4.3.1.2.1 lists only MA/MS as the education requirement while the Labor Category functional description for Facilities Subject Matter Expert on Page 74 includes both MA/MS and BA/BS. | Update the education requirements in Table 4.3.1.2.1 to include MA/MS or BA/BS to match the Labor Category functional description on Page 74. | Table.4.3.1.2.1 has been removed. Page 74 of the SOW has been updated to reflect 8 yrs experience and an MA/MS or 10 yrs experience and a BA/BS are required for this labor category. | |
| 16 | HQ0858-21-R-0010_TN-FLE+Draft-RFP+Industry+ Comment+Matrix+ 02.03.2021 | Question 19 | Question 19 in the Industry Comment Matrix states, "The benchmark average labor rate for the Environmental Specialist Advanced and the Environmental SME are the same across locations, but the Environmental SME requires significantly more experience, a higher level of education, and more specialized qualifications than the Environmental Specialist Advanced." The response from the Government was to increase the Environmental SME rate in HSV, but they did not increase the rate in NCR. | Recommend also increasing the benchmark average labor rate for Environmental SME in the NCR by a minimum of 20% to reflect the more demanding requirements of this labor category. | The benchmark average labor rate for the Environmental SME in the NCR has been adjusted. | ||
| 17 | Draft-RFP+Industry+ Comment+Matrix, Section L, and Attachment L-1 PPI Form | Section L | |||||
| 10.8 Relevancy, Section M 7.2, and Attachment 1, PPI | The response to Question 8 in the Industry Comment Matrix indicates that MCS1 Element #4, Facility Support and Services is included in Section L (Paragraph 10.8) and Section M (Paragraph 7.2) as well as in Attachment L-1 PPI. However, in Section L, M, and the PPI/PPQ forms the MCS Elements included are: |
MCS1 Element #1: Facility Operations and Sustainment Planning MCS1 Elements #2 and #3: Procurement Management and Database Management MCS2 Element #1: Product Support Management MCS2 Element #3: Supply Support/Property Accountability MCS3 Element #1: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) MCS3 Element #2: Environmental Permitting MCS4 Element #1: Provide Qualified Personnel
| MCS4 Element #3: Problem Resolution Strategy | Given the Government's listing of Facilities as the most important evaluation factor of all of the Mission Capability Subfactors, recommend including MCS1 Element #4, Facility Support and Services in Section L (Paragraph 10.8), Section M (Paragraph 7.2), Attachment L-1 PPI, and Attachment L-2 PPQ. | The solicitation is unchanged. | |||||
| 18 | Section L | 19 | 6.2 | The FRFP states that "The Offeror shall provide a matrix using the format below (Table L-2) to cross reference its proposal to, at a minimum, the SOW, Section L, and Section M," but the table shown at L-2 does not include a column for offerors to add in SOW references. | Given the Government's assertion that "While an Offeror will be expected to perform the entire Statement of Work (SOW) upon award, for proposal purposes the Offeror shall propose its approach to and understanding of the following Mission Capability Subfactors and Elements...", recommend that the Government remove the requirement for offerors to cross reference their proposal to the SOW. | The solicitation is unchanged. Per Section L, paragraph 6.2, The Offeror shall include and populate additional columns as it sees fit to accommodate a more efficient evaluation. | |
| 19 | Section L | 26 & 27 | Section L 10.3 Contractor Performance Assessment Reports and 10.7 Past Performance Questionnaire | Per Section L 10.3 and 10.7, the Government requires both CPARs and PPQs, which often summarize similar past performance information. | Request offerors provide either the CPARs or PPQ, but not both. | The solicitation is unchanged. | |
| 20 | Section L | 26 | Section L 10.3 Contractor Performance Assessment Reports | Section L 10.3 states, "The Contractor shall provide available Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) for the contracts it submitted in PPI." | Please confirm that offerors providing CPARs should provide the most recent completed CPARs available. | The solicitation is unchanged. | |
| 21 | Attachment L-05 and SOW Table 4.3.1.2.1 – Degree Requirements per Labor Category | Rates Tab | Rates Tab & Table 4.3.1.2.1 – Degree Requirements per Labor Category | Benchmark Rates for Environmental Specialist Basic ($26.91) are nearly half that of Environmental Specialist Intermediate ($53.59) yet only requires two years of experience difference. Therefore there is no upward potential for the Specialist Basic unless there is a vacancy in the Intermediate position. The Environmental Specialist Basic rate is lower than all of the other FLE LCAT Basic rates. | Recommend the Government increase the Environmental Specialist Basic benchmark rate by 20% so the rate is consistent with LCATs at the same level. | Table 4.3.1.2.1 has been removed and updated Benchmark rates have been provided. | |
| 22 | Attachment L-05 & Attachment J-05 TERP | There are no contractor site rates for surge support which has been requested historically by MDA, such as when seeking specialized short-term technical expertise for topics such as FAA and air space usage, GIS, etc. | Request contractor site rates for surge support or in the event Government site space is not available. | Contractor Site Rates are identified J-05 TERP Pricing Model. | |||
| 23 | Section M | 5 | 2.6 | Paragraph 2.6 lists the Evaluation Factors in descending order of importance as Facilities, Environmental, Logistics, then Human Capital Management, but Section 3.0 (Table M-1) appears to list the subfactors as Facilities, Logistics, Environmental, then Human Capital Management. | Please confirm the correct order of factors is Facilities, Environmental, Logistics, and then Human Capital Management, and please update Section 3.0 accordingly. | Yes, this is correct. Sections L & M have been updated accordingly. | |
| 24 | Section L | 26 | 10.3 | Section L 10.3 requires Offerors to provide CPARS for all PPIs/contracts submitted in the Past Performance volume. Some contracts have extended periods of performance and CPARS can be multiple pages resulting in a very large CPAR section of the proposal. Can Offerors only provide the latest CPAR or do they need to provide all CPARS available for each conract. | Recommend the Government allow Offerors to be only required to provide the latest CPAR for each contract/PPI. | Offerors are to provide all available CPARS for each contract. | |
| 25 | Section L | 24 & 26 | 10.0 & | ||||
| 10.3 | CPARs are marked “For Official Use Only/Source Selection Information” and contain sensitive information concerning overall program activity. This information is safeguarded by companies with distribution generally limited to Government entities. |
Under Section L proposal instructions paragraph 10.0 CPARs are not listed as a required document to be provided in Volume VI.
However, Section L 10.3 states “The Contractor shall provide available Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) for the contracts it submitted in PPI.”
| Are CPARs for all contracts submitted in PPI, including Subcontractors, to be included in the delivered Volume IV? Or, due to the sensitive nature of CPARs, can subcontractor CPARs be submitted directly to the Government? | Allow CPARs for required subcontractors (those with PPI forms) to be submitted by the subcontractor directly to the Government with Cost and Price (Volume VII) information or as a standalone item delivered to the Government in a manner similar to Section L paragraph 1.4. | Subcontractor CPARS may be submitted directly to the Government. Section L has been updated to reflect this. | |||||
| 26 | HQ0858-21-R-0010_TN-FLE+Final+Section+L+03.15.2021 | 4 | 1.3 | The subject paragraph states: "the joint venture may be awarded a contract if the lead small business partner has a facility clearance." In a separate sentence in the same paragraph, it then states: "a facility security clearance for the joint venture legal entity (not individual members) must be in place prior to contract award." These statements appear to contradict one and other, as the first statement indicates that a the JV is eligible for contract award if the lead small business partner has a facility clearance, while the second sentence then indicates that the JV itself must have a facility clearance in place prior to contract award. | Propose removing the statement: "Nevertheless, a facility security clearance for the joint venture legal entity (not individual members) must be in place prior to contract award." as it contradicts the earlier language in the same paragraph indicating that the JV may be awarded a contract if the lead small business partner has a facility clearance. | Section L & M have been updated to reflect changes to the FCL requirement. | |
| 27 | HQ0858-21-R-0010_TN-FLE+Final+Section+L+03.15.2021 | 4 | 1.3 | The subject paragraph states: "For additional questions regarding a sponsorship, please contact the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). Failure of the joint venture to make adequate progress towards obtaining a facility clearance may result in your proposal being deemed un-awardable and award to the next Offeror in line as determined by the SSA's best value tradeoff decision." Does this indicate that the PCO for the subject solicitation will sponsor a JV which has submitted a proposal for a facility clearance? | Please clarify if a JV which submits a proposal for the solicitation can be sponsored, in advance, for the required facility clearance in order to make adequate progress toward obtaining the facility clearance and be eligible for award. | Only the apparent successful Offeror will be sponsored by the Government for a facility clearance. Section L has been updated to reflect this. | |
| 28 | HQ0858-21-R-0010_TN-FLE+Final+Section+L+03.15.2021 | 14 | 4.4 | The OCI Management Plan has a maximum page limit of 15 pages. Based on the requirements needed to address in Section L and the importance of ensuring contractors remain OCI free, we recommend alllowing unlimited pages for the OCI Management Plan or incresae the page allocation to 25 pages so Offerors can adequately address these requirements. | Revise the OCI Management Plan to have an Unlimited Page allocation. | Section L has been updated to increase the the Page limitation to 20 pages. | |
| 29 | Final Section L 03152021 | 26 | 10.3 | Section 10.3 requires CPARS for all PPI sheets. If the PPI sheet refers to a subcontract performance, there are no CPARS available. | Request the Government amend the requirement to stipulate CPARS shall be submitted if available or for Prime contracts only. | The solicitation is unchanged. Offerors are to submit CPARs, if available. | |
| 30 | Final Section L 03152021; Attachment L-02 PPQ form R3-03.11.2021 | 27; entire attachment | 10.7 | PPQ formatting in the final RFP is not conducive to efficient completion. | Request the government provide the PPQ form in MS Word for ease of completion by customers. Alternatively, does the government object to the offeror converting Attachment L-02 to MS Word for ease of completion by customers | Offerors are not prohibited from converting the provided document to Word format. | |
| 31 | Final Section L 03152021 | 14, 15; 28 | Table L-1; 4.7; 4.8; 11.00 | The Table L-1, 4.7 and 4.8 require a glossary and Master TOC for each volume. If subcontractors submit their pricing information directly to the government as discussed in Section 11, Does the government require the subcontractor’s glossary and TOC for pricing to be incorporated into the Glossary for all volumes and the Master TOC? | Exclude subconractor pricing from the Glossary for all volumes and the Master TOC. | Subcontractors may submit their pricing information directly to the Government, this would include the table of contents. Section L has been updated to reflect this. | |
| 32 | HQ0858-21-/r-0010 TN FLE Final Section L 03.15.2021.pdf | 15 | Section 4.7, Para. 1 | Section L states "Each volume should contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used for the entire proposal..." | Recommend glossaries only contain abbreviations and acronyms for respective volumes. | The solicitation is unchanged. | |
| 33 | HQ0858-21-/r-0010 TN FLE Final Section L 03.15.2021.pdf | 19 | Section 6.2, Para. 1 and Table L-2 | Proposal Cross Reference Matrix (Table L-2) in the Draft RFP identified SOW references for each MCS and Element; Final RFP no longer references SOW, but still states "The Offeror shall provide a matrix using the format below (Table L-2) to cross reference its proposal to, at a minimum, the SOW, Section L, and Section M." | Recommend reinserting or adding applicable SOW references to Proposal Cross Reference Matrix. | The solicitation is unchanged. | |
| 34 | HQ0858-21-/r-0010 TN FLE Final Section L 03.15.2021.pdf |
and
| HQ0858-21-R-0010 Attachment J-01 Statement of Work FLE 02242021 REV 1.pdf | RFP page 20 |
| SOW pgs. 14 and 23 | RFP Section 7.2 - MCS1 and |
| SOW paras. 3.1.2 & 3.1.4 | Response for MCS 1: Facilities Management |
Elements 1 and 3 align with SOW paras 3.1.1 and 3.1.3.
Elements 2 and 4 align with SOW paras 3.1.4 and 3.1.2 respectively.
| Recommend inverting the MCS1 response requirement for Elements 2 and 4 to align with the numbering of the SOW paragraphs, so MCS1 Element #2 becomes Facility Support and Services and MCS1 Element #4 becomes Procurement Management. | The solicitation is unchanged. | |||||
| 35 | HQ0858-21-/r-0010 TN FLE Final Section L 03.15.2021.pdf | |||||
| 25 | Section 10.2, Para. 3 | Section 10.2 states, "If the referenced contracts contain award fee or performance/schedule incentives, provide copies as an attachment tot he PPI of the Government narrative fee assessments covering the last five years of performance,including the amount/percentage of fee and the Government Fee Determining Official's FDO assessment (to include the FDO briefing, if applicable) of contractor performance (award fee assessments and FDO briefings are not included in the page count for PPIs)." | Recommend allowing subcontractors to submit applicable FDO assessments directly to the Government. | IAW Section L, 10.2, Subcontractors may submit their Government Fee Determining Official’s (FDO) assessment (to include the FDO briefing, if applicable) directly to the Government as an attachment to the corresponding PPI. | ||
| 36 | HQ0858-21-/r-0010 TN FLE Final Section L 03.15.2021.pdf | 26 | Section 10.3, Para. 1 | CPARS are now required for Vol VI: Past Performance. CPARS are considered highly proprietary and subcontractors may not wish to submit them to the Prime. | Recommend allowing subcontractors to submit CPARS as "sealed packages." | Subcontractors may submit their CPARs directly to the Government. Section L has been updated to reflect this. |
| 37 | HQ0858-21-R-0010_Attachment L-01 PPI Form R3 03.11.2021.pdf | All | Sections C, F, G and H | Instruction text included on for the referenced sections on Attachment L-01 PPI Form limits page count. Section F of the PPI requires offerors to illustrate how their experience applies to the relevant MCS elements and then lists required MCS elements. The instructional text for this section constitutes 6 lines of text within each PPI. Over the course of 7 PPIs, this equates to almost an entire page of instructional text for just this one section. | Recommend allowing the offeror to delete or abbreviate instructional text for sections C, F, G, and H on the PPI form, or allow an additional 10 pages total. | The solicitation is unchanged. |
| 38 | HQ0858-21-R-0010_TN-FLE Final Section M 03.15.2021.pdf | 14 | Section 7.2/ Para. 1 and Table M-7 | Section 7.2 states (emphasis added), " Relevancy as it pertains to past performance information is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontractor(s)." In addition Table M-7 also references complexities as part of the relevancy ratings for past performance. | Recommend defining the "complexities" MDA will evaluate against. Is this support to mission-critical facilities, logistics, and environmental factors across geograhically dispersed locations? | The solicitation is unchanged. |
| 39 | HQ0858-21-R-0010_Attachment L-01 PPI Form R3 03.11.2021.pdf | 25 | Section 10.1, Para. 1 | Final RFP removed the reference to “major subcontractor” and its definition of 10% or greater and replaced it with "critical subcontractor." The RFP does not define "critical subcontractor.” | Recommend defining the criteria a subcontractor must meet to be considered a "critical subcontractor." | Per Section L, para 10.1, a critical subcontractor is one the Offeror considers critical to their overall success and will help establish recency and relevancy. |
| 40 | FRFP Section L | Page 18 | Paragraph 6.1 | The TEAMS-Next FLE Final RFP Section L, paragraph 6.1, requires the Offeror to provide the name, telephone, and fax numbers for the “Government Paying Office." The Government Paying Office is a contractual item which the government normally provides, usually in block 12 of the SF26. This information identifies the responsible DFAS Entitlement Center which varies depending on the government customer. Since an SF26 was not part of the TEAMS-Next FLE Final RFP documents, the information regarding the identity of the DFAS Entitlement Center is not available to offerors. | Suggest the Government identify the responsible DFAS entitlement center for the TEAMS-Next FLE contract. | The Government will complete this information upon issuance of the final award document. |
| 41 | FLE EPW v4 | Labor Resources tab | On the Labor Resources tab, cell V3 contains an incorrect cell reference which then affects the GFY5 and GFY6 FBLRs populating the pricing model. Cell V3 should contain the formula "=U3+8", but instead refers to cell S ("=S3+8"). This will cause a significant pricing error if it is not caught and corrected, as the wrong FBLRs will populate CLINs 1xxx, 2xxx, and 7xxx. | Please alert potential offerors to correct the formula in cell V3 to "U3+8". If MDA releases a new version of the EPW with that one change, please state that this is the only change, so offerors do not have to completely re-populate a new pricing model they may have already started. | A corrected EPW has been provided. | |
| 42 |
FLE Draft RFP HQ0147-21-R-0010 MDA Government Comment Matrix Compilation
Approved for Public Release 21-MDA-10725 (4 Mar 21)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .