3IS III_Consolidated QA from Industry_v3.0.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 51 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Innovation, Integration, and Information Support (3IS) III Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2518-22-R-0023
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 21
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
Q&A_DRAFT_15 Oct
| Q # | DRFP Document/Section | Page | Reference | Question | Answer | |
| 1 | Cost Price Workbook | The Cost_Price_TO_0002_Summary formulas error. Both TO_0002 and TO_0003 Summary both are linked to the TO_0003 Summary Cost by CLIN tab. The “Plug” for travel CLINS is causing an error in the period totals. Can the Government please provide corrected reference formulas? | Added the Government provided amounts for Travel/ODC. | |||
| 2 | Cost Price Workbook | The Workbook does not contain formulas for the Price by CLIN tabs. Does the Government intend to provide formulas or are the Offerors expected to provide their formulas? | Will provide update with FRFP. | |||
| 3 | Cost Price Workbook | Does the Government intend to provide separate instructions for Offerors to complete the workbook? | Updated Attachment 15, Section L, Paragraph 8.3.6.1 | |||
| 4 | Section M | Pg 2 | Attachment 16 Sec M, 1.1.6 | The NAICS is listed as 54175. To confirm the NAICS should be 541715? | 541715 is the correct NAISC. Updated Attachment 16, Section M, Paragraph 1.1.6. | |
| 5 | Section L | Pg 34 | Attachment 15 Sec L, 9.8.7.1 | The Government is permitting the physical submission of financial statements for teaming partners performing more than 10% using sealed envelope. What address are partners to use when submitting? Will the government also allow electronic submission alike what is outlined under 8.2.7.2 for cost information? | Removed the reference that teaming partners performing 10% of the work will need to submit financial data. Only the prime or each of the companies who comprise the joint venture will need to submit financial data. See updated Attachment 15, Section L, Paragraph 9.8.7.1. | |
| 6 | Section L | Pg 34 | Attachment 15 Sec L, 9.8.7.1 | How will the government use the financial statements to determine responsibility? Will the government evaluate the Prime and all team partner financials as a whole or individually against the proposed work of each partner? | Deleted statements. See updated Attachment 15, Section L, Paragraph 9.8.7.1. | |
| 7 | Cost Price Workbook | Are the ODC lines placeholders for NTE or Plug Numbers? | ODC/Travel CLINs will be NTE. The Government added the plug numbers to Cost/Price Workbook. See Updated Attachment 12. | |||
| 8 | DRAFT Solicitation - FA251822R0023.pdf (June 27, 2022) | 1 to 118 | Sections A - K | Could the Government confirm that the DRAFT Solicitation document released June 27, 2022 includes the latest applicable versions of Sections A through K? | Draft Solicitation has been updated from the previous Question & Answer received from industry. Posted updated DRAFT Solicitation A-K. | |
| 9 | DRAFT Solicitation - FA251822R0023.pdf (June 27, 2022) | Attachments 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, and 17 | Could the Government confirm that the June 27, 2022 DRAFT Solicitation attachments 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, & 17 are the latest applicable versions? | Attachment 3,4,5,6,14, and 17 are documents in which the offeror needs to provide if applicable. Attachment 13 is the Professional Employee Compensation Plan. See Attached Section J for a list of Documents. See Attachment 13 for the Professional Employee Compensation Plan. | ||
| 10 | CDRLs A001 – A017 (June 27, 2022) | CDRLs A001 through A017 were provided with the June draft. | Could the Government confirm that the June 27, 2022 CDRLs A001 through A017 are the latest versions? | DRAFT CDRLS have been updated from the previous Q&A received from industry. Posted the updated DRAFT CDRLs. | ||
| 11 | Attachment 1, PWS (October 14, 2022) | 51 of 52 | CDRLs A004, A008, and A011-A017 | 1) | In June-provided CDRL A004, the DID was DI-MGMT-81468. Could the Government please clarify whether DI-MGMT-81468A is correct, or if the A should be removed? | |
| 2) | In June-provided CDRL A008, the title is Management Plan – Phase In. Could the Government please clarify whether Phase-In should be added to distinguish from A005 Management Plan? | |||||
| 3) | In the last column PWS Para for A011-A017, should the paragraph be 1.4.4.1 (as it is for A009) to match the current PWS (not 1.4.4)? | See Answer to Question 10. | ||||
| 12 | Combined Labor Categories.xlsx (June 27, 2022) | The header of labor categories spreadsheet is labeled: “FA2550-16-R-8001, Attachment 9.” | ||||
| Could the Government confirm that the Combined Labor Categories spreadsheet released June 27, 2022 is the latest version? If not, could the Government please provide an updated Labor Category spreadsheet? | Previous Attachment 9 posted in DRAFT in June is OBE. | |||||
| 13 | Attachment 7, IT PWS |
Attachment 8, Wargaming PWS Attachment 9, 392 CTS PWS
| Attachment 10, SBMW PWS | In the 2016 RFP, these task order-specific attachments were labeled “Task Proposal Request (TPR).” In 2022, they are labeled as “Task Order ###” in the page header and titled as “Performance Work Statement” on the cover page. Can the Government clarify the correct term for task order related requests: “Task Proposal Request (TPR)” or Task Order Request (TOR)? | Will remove all references called "Task Proposal Request" from Attachments 7-10 and will substitute it with PWS and /or Task Order when necessary. | ||
| 14 | Attachment 8, Wargaming PWS, Section 10, 10. SERVICE SUMMARIES (SS) |
Attachment 1, PWS 15 of 18
| 18 of 18 | Service Summaries | Could the Government please clarify/confirm its reference to Section B “The contractor shall perform to the specific SS items in Section B of the 3IS III PWS,” given that there is also a Service Summary on p. 18 (Attachment C) specific to this TO? | The Service Summary Items listed in the IDIQ PWS flow down to the individual Task Order PWS. | |
| 15 | Attachment 1, PWS, | |||
| 3 SECTION C – GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY AND SERVICES | 37 | 3.2 Facilities | Will contractor be permitted to connect contractor-provided computers to AF network at government-designated facilities? | No. |
| 16 | Attachment 8, Wargaming PWS, | |||
| 3. SPECIFIC WORK TO BE PERFORMED | 9 | Para 3.a.2) Deliverables | Are items Section e) and g) also part of deliverable CDRL A009, since the deliverable is not specified for these two items? | Both items are covered by CDRL A009. Updated Wargaming PWS, IDIQ PWS, and CDRLs |
| 17 | Attachment 8, Wargaming PWS, |
3. SPECIFIC WORK TO BE PERFORMED
Attachment 1, PWS 8
| 18 of 52 | Para 3.a.1).w) Information Technology (IT) Support | |
| Section 1.4.5 Information Technology (IT). | Could the Government please clarify item w) IT support to STARCOM Wargaming. Are these requirements (i – vi) in addition to the IT support task specified in Attachment 1 PWS, Sec 1.4.5 Information Technology? | Yes. It is in addition to the IT task order. |
| 18 | Attachment 15, Section L |
Attachment 16, Section M 2 through 34
| 2 through 10 | Section L & M page header | Beginning on page 2 of both Section L & M, the header includes RFP# “FA2518-22-R-0027.” Would the Government please update the header with the 3IS III RFP number? | Re-word Header to state Attachment 15, Section L and Attachment 16, Section M. See posted Updated Attachment 15 and Attachment 16. |
| 19 | Attachment 15, Section L, 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION TO OFFERORS |
Attachment 16, Section M, 2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS 2 of 34
| 3 of 10 | Two-Phased Evaluation Approach | Could the Government please provide clarification on the Two-Phased Evaluation Approach. Are Phase I and II submissions due on the same date? | Yes. Para 3.1. | |
| 20 | Section L, 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION TO OFFERORS; | |||
| 9.6 Attachment 4, Continuance of Performance/Mission Essential Services | 2 of 34 | Submit all information required by DFARS clause 252.237-7024 “Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services (Oct 2010)”, contained in Attachment 1 – Section L Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors. | Will the Government confirm, per previous Q&A and the PWS, that Mission Essential Support requirements will be established at the Task Order level (CDRL A010 - Mission Essential Support) and a plan is not required with the Phase II submittal? | Mission Essential Plan(s) are not required for Phase II submittal. |
| 21 | Attachment 15, Section L, |
Section 2.2.1, Table 1 Proposal Organization Section 6.1.3 Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment E1) 8 of 34
14 of 34 Phase II, Volume II Executive Summary – Attachment E1: Cross Reference Matrix “shall be completed and submitted with the Technical and Cost/Price Volumes.”
| Could the Government confirm that the Cross Reference Matrix shall only be completed with Volume III Technical and Volume IV Cost/Price and not with the Volume II Executive Summary? | Correct. A cross reference matrix is only required for Volume III & Volume IV. This will updated in the FRFP | |||
| 22 | Attachment 15, Section L, | |||
| 2.2.2. Pages | 8 of 34 | Will the Government allow the use of 11x17 page size for charts, tables, and graphics? If so, could these pages be counted as one page? | See updated Section L to allow the use of 11X17. | |
| 23 | Attachment 15, Section L, | |||
| 2.2.3 Text | 8 of 34 | Section 2.2.3 states “All type size, including charts and tables, will not be smaller than Microsoft Word 11 point font, normal proportional spacing.” |
| Will the Government allow a smaller but readable font size for graphics/charts and tables, including figure/table titles and captions? | No change. | |||
| 24 | Attachment 15, Section L, | |||
| 2.2.4 Table of Contents, Indexing, and Glossary | 9 of 34 | Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. | Will the Government confirm that tab indexing is not required since this proposal is an electronic submission? | See updated Section L. Removed "tab" and added "table contents". |
| 25 | Attachment 15, Section L, 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION TO OFFERORS; 4.1 General Information for Phase 1. | 10 of 34 | Offeror must provide | |
| examples of their own experience that demonstrate their ability to support each of the 12 elements listed below | Will the Government confirm that the guidance of Section 3.1.6.1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated August 20, 2022 regarding the use of affiliate and/or sister companies contract experience is applicable to this solicitation? | Answer is yes. Experience means the experience of the prime, Joint Venture, affiliate company, sister company, divisions, and teammates/subcontractors who will be working on this effort. See updated Attachment 15, Section L. | ||
| 26 | Attachment 15, Section L, 4.1 General Information for Phase I |
Attachment 16, Section M, 3.0 Phase 1 Technical Qualification Gate 10 of 34
3 of 10 Section L: To pass, an Offeror must provide examples of their own experience that demonstrate their ability to support each of the 12 elements listed below.
Section M: To pass an element, an Offeror must provide at least one example of prior experience, ongoing, or completed within the past 3 years from the date of the solicitation, that meets the criteria outlined in Table 1 below. Examples needs to be from the Prime (Joint Venture) or Major Subcontractor where they were the Prime contractor. Regarding examples of experience demonstrated in Phase I Volume I Technical Qualification Gate, DRFP Section L 4.1 states that “To pass, an Offeror must provide examples of their own experience that demonstrate their ability to support each of the 12 elements listed below. Offeror needs to provide at least one example but no more than three examples per element. Failure to provide at least one example to demonstrate their ability to support each element, will be determined by the Government as does not pass. (NOTE: Experience means the experience of the prime or Joint Venture and subcontractor/teammate who will be working on this effort.).” Section M 3.0 Phase I -Technical Qualification Gate states “Examples needs to be from the Prime (Joint Venture) or Major Subcontractor where they were the Prime contractor.”
This requirement unnecessary restricts competition by disadvantaging offerors with multiple divisions or wholly-owned subsidiaries, even where the resources and/or experience of other divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliated companies will be available to support the Offeror’s performance. The Government would benefit from making clear that an offeror’s citations may include the past performance of an offeror’s parent and sister companies, often referred to as affiliate past performance (“APP”). Crediting APP increases competition and makes available to the Government the broadest range of capabilities from an offeror’s enterprise.
The procurement rules specifically endorse the Government crediting an offeror with APP where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the affiliated company (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will be meaningfully contributed to contract performance. See, e.g., GM–Bulltrack, B- 414591.6, B- 414591.7 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 30, 2018). As GAO held in the Bulltrack case:
However, an agency properly may consider the experience or past performance of an offeror’s affiliated companies where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the affiliated company will affect the performance of the offeror…. The relevant consideration is whether the resources of an affiliated company - its workforce, management, facilities or other resources - will be provided or relied upon for contract performance, such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.
The following is language from a recent Government RFP specifically addressing APP:
If applicable, Offerors may provide the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company to an Offeror (including Joint Venture prime partner companies and/or a parent or affiliated company that is being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort) where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor will affect the performance of the Offeror. The Offeror shall demonstrate that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (its workforce, management, facilities or other resources) shall be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate or predecessor will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.
| We respectfully request that the Government consider including this kind of language in the RFP. | See Answer to Question 25. | |
| 27 | Attachment 15, Section L, 4.1 General Information for Phase I |
Attachment 16, Section M, 3.0 Phase 1 Technical Qualification Gate 10 of 34
3 of 10 Section L: To pass, an Offeror must provide examples of their own experience that demonstrate their ability to support each of the 12 elements listed below.
Section M: To pass an element, an Offeror must provide at least one example of prior experience, ongoing, or completed within the past 3 years from the date of the solicitation, that meets the criteria outlined in Table 1 below. Examples needs to be from the Prime (Joint Venture) or Major Subcontractor where they were the Prime contractor. Regarding examples of experience demonstrated in Phase I Volume I Technical Qualification Gate, DRFP Section L 4.1 states that “To pass, an Offeror must provide examples of their own experience that demonstrate their ability to support each of the 12 elements listed below. Offeror needs to provide at least one example but no more than three examples per element. Failure to provide at least one example to demonstrate their ability to support each element, will be determined by the Government as does not pass. (NOTE: Experience means the experience of the prime or Joint Venture and subcontractor/teammate who will be working on this effort.)” However, Section M 3.0 Phase I -Technical Qualification Gate states “Examples needs to be from the Prime (Joint Venture) or Major Subcontractor where they were the Prime contractor.”
| With respect to examples of experience, the DRFP makes reference to “Major Subcontractors” in Section M 3.0, but states in Section L 4.1 that references can come from “subcontractor/teammate who will be working on this offer.” Will the Government please clarify its requirements for subcontractor experience references, and, if subcontractors must be considered “Major Subcontractors” to submit experience examples, provide a definition for “Major Subcontractor”? | See Answer to Question 25. | |
| 28 | Attachment 15, Section L, |
1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION TO OFFERORS,
| 4.1.1 Instructions on Submission of Examples | 11 of 34 | Explain how the submission meets one or one of the areas listed below. | Will the Government please confirm this should read “one or more of the areas below”? | See Answer to Question 25. | |
| 29 | Attachment 15, Section L, 6.0, Volume II Executive Summary | 14 of 34 | A letter of transmittal or executive cover letter shall be included in this volume. This cover letter shall not be counted against the page limitations of the volume. The cover letter and Executive Summary shall not exceed the page limit address above under Paragraph L-4, 2.2.1, Table 1. | The requirement state that the cover letter and Executive Summary should not exceed the page limit of 3 pages. However, it also states the cover letter shall not be included in the page count. |
| Would the Government clarify if the cover letter is outside of the 3 page limit for the Executive Summary? | Removed Cover Sheet from Table 1. Reword Cover Letter to Cover Sheet in Executive Summary. Cover sheets do not count against page count. | |||||
| 30 | Attachment 15, Section L 6.1.2 Organization and Management | 14 of 34 | 6.1.2 Organization and Management. The Offeror shall describe its organization, management, roles, and responsibilities. The Offeror shall indicate agreements that have been executed (e.g., Joint Venture, subcontracts, interdivisional effort, partnering agreements) to allow work to begin at contract award. The Offeror shall provide an organizational chart that shows prime (or Joint Venture), subcontractors, and interdivisional transfers, and which includes key positions for responsibility and authority to respond to performance concerns and to affect change. The Offeror shall provide another organizational chart that depicts how the Offeror’s program fits within the company, and includes titles, division names and locations. | The DRFP Section L Phase II Organization and Management section makes reference to offerors utilizing “interdivisional efforts” and requires that any such agreement be indicated in the proposal. However, the experience requirements in the DRFP in Section L, 4.1 General Information for Phase I And Section M, 3.0 Phase 1 Technical Qualification Gate do not clearly allow offerors to leverage such interdivisional experience in their proposals. For the Government to fairly and adequately evaluate the benefit of any interdivisional or similar efforts, please revise the language to indicate that affiliate past performance can be included for pass/fail evaluation in Phase 1 technical qualification gate where an Offeror demonstrates that the affiliate/division will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. | See Answer to Question 25. | |
| 31 | Attachment 15, Section L, | |||||
| 7.1.4, Technical Volume Organization | 15 of 34 | Bullet: Table of Contents, Index, Glossary | Would the Government clarify what it means by Index? What specifically is being asked for? | Removed index. | ||
| 32 | Attachment 15, Section L, | |||||
| 8.3 Cost/Price Volume Organization | 23 of 34 | Bullet: Section 5 – Cost/Price Workbook | Would the Government specify if a copy of the Excel Cost/Price Workbook shall be included as a section in the Cost/Price Volume as well as being submitted as a separate Excel file? | The Government does not want the Cost/Price Workbook to be added, included, or embedded in the Volume IV. Cost/Price Workbook should be Attachment C2. | ||
| 33 | Attachment 15, Section L, | |||||
| 8.3.2.4 Other Cost/Price Models | 26 of 34 | If the offeror submits additional cost/price models, the offeror shall submit them as part of its electronic submission in formats readable by MS Excel 2010. | In Section 2.3.3, the Government specified that “all price tables and spreadsheets shall be provided in MS Excel 2010.” |
| Would the Government confirm that additional cost/price models shall also be submitted in MS Excel 365? | Updated. Reference Microsoft 365. | ||
| 34 | Attachment 1, PWS (October 14, 2022) | 30 of 52 |
51 of 52 1.5.12.4 Quality Control Program.
| 4.4 Appendix D - CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LISTING (CDRL) | Could the Government please provide CDRL A018, Quality Program Plan, DI-QCIC-81722? | See Answer to Question 10. | |||
| 35 | Attachment 15, Section L, | ||||
| 8.3.6.7 CFY Rates Worksheet | 31 of 34 | Could the Government confirm this is the correct number, or should it be Section 8.3.6? | Renumbered CFY Rate worksheet is now 8.3.6.7. | ||
| 36 | Attachment 16, Section M, 3.0 Phase I – Technical Qualification Gate | 3 of 10 | 3.0 Phase I – Technical Qualification Gate states that: “Examples need to be from the Prime (Joint Venture) or Major Subcontractor where they were the Prime contractor.” The term Major is used inconsistently and is undefined. | ||
| Could the Government confirm that experience examples can come from the Prime and all subcontractors? | See Answer to Question 25. | ||||
| 37 | Attachment 16, Section M, 3.0 Phase I – Technical Qualification Gate | 3 of 10 | REQUESTED RFP UPDATE: Section M, 3.0 Phase I – Technical Qualification Gate. “Examples need to be from the Prime (Joint Venture) or Major Subcontractor where they were either a Prime Contractor or Subcontractor.” |
| RATIONALE: The Government should not limit its bidders ability to bring the best technical support to 3IS III. Many businesses who provide Simulation, Integration and advanced Training solutions support are niche technical companies that focus on technical solutions rather than prime contracts. | See Answer to Question 25. | ||||||
| 38 | Attachment 16, Section M, 3.0 Phase I – Technical Qualification Gate | 3 of 10 | “Examples need to be from the Prime (Joint Venture) or | ||||
| Major Subcontractor where they were the Prime contractor.” | Will the Government consider allowing examples from Major Subcontractors to be from efforts where they were not the Prime contractor, i.e., where they filled a role similar to their proposed role on 3IS III? | See Answer to Question 25. | |||||
| 39 | Attachment L. Sec 4.1.1 | Since the current 3IS contract has maintained a 5 year period of performance, would the government be willing to allow example experience from ongoing or completed task orders/contracts within the same 5 year period? | No. | ||||
| 40 | General | The Cost Price Matrix states the Period of Performance is 5 years (1 base 4 option years) with an NTE of $150M. Will the government confirm this is correct? Previous draft stated Period of Performance was 7 years (5 year base with 2 option years) with an NTE of $350M. | The Government confirms that 3IS III will have 5 year Base Period, plus, 2 year Option Period for Total Ceiling Amount of $350M. | ||||
| 41 | Section M | page 4 | 4.2.4 | If you get an unacceptable for Factor 2 (Transition), are you still able to get an award or is your proposal "unawardable?" | See Attachment 16, Section M, 4.2.4. | ||
| 42 | Section M | page 6 | 1st paragraph after Table | States: Definitions for significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies are as follows...There is no definition below for Significant Strengths. Will the government include the definition for significant strength? | See Attachment 16, Section M, 4.3.2 for update. Included definition for significant strength. | ||
| 43 | Section M | Page 6 - 8 | 4.3.3. 1, 4.3.4.1, 4.3.5.1 and 4.3.6.1 | The current draft does not include the evaluation of the bidders IDIQ and program management approach. Due to the complex nature of the requirements, the need to recruit and retain a fully qualified workforce, and need to manage and balance resources across multiple concurrent projects, excluding IDIQ program management from the proposal evaluation introduces significant performance risk to the government. Please consider adding an additional Factor or Sub-Factor to evaluate the offeror's overall program management approach, staffing plan, and quality assurance methodology. The addition of an evaluated program management plan will reduce the government's risk of performance by ensuring the the successful offeror has an adequate approach to managing requirements, balancing resources, and ensuring overall quality performance. Including a staffing approach within the management plan will also simplify the government's evaluation by addressing recruiting, retention, and personnel management in a single factor/subfactor, allowing the existing Technical Subfactor narratives to focus on the technical approach. This could be accomplished by expanding Factor 2 to a Program Management Plan that includes the stated transition elements, with the addition of staffing and quality. | Government considered industry recommendation but has chosen not to change its approach. | ||
| 44 | Section M | Page 8 | 4.4.3, Table 4 | The government defines an Acceptable and Unacceptable Transition In Rating in relation to 3IS III Transition In objectives. Will the government confirm that 3IS III Transition In objectives are identified and described in paragraphs 4.4.1, 4.4.2 and 4.4.3? | Government confirms that the objectives listed in 4.4.1, 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 are correct. | ||
| 45 | Section L | Pages 21, 22, 29, 31 | Section 8.2.1, 8.3.4,5 paragraph 6, 8.3.6.7 | Section 8.2.1 directs the Offeror shall base its proposal on the Government Fiscal Year (GFY) which begins 1 October and ends on 30 September. Sections 8.3.4.5 and 8.3.6.7 relating to BOE and CFY Rates Worksheet require the Offeror shall provide labor hours and labor rates by Contractor Fiscal Year. Will the government clarify requirements? | The Government confirms that we are requesting the Offeror submit their cost/work book on a Government Fiscal Year except for CFY Rate Worksheet. Updated Attachment 15, Section L to reflect change. | ||
| 46 | Section L and Section M | All | Multiple | In evaluation of offeror Total Evaluated Price, price Reasonableness, and Phase I experience, will the government require and consider from offerors all 3IS III Teaming Agreement/Exhibit A's that outline workshare agreements and designated areas of teammate/partner Scope performance? This information will enable government analysis and scrutiny necessary to support stated government intentions relating to Section M evaluation. | Government does not understand the question. | ||
| 47 | Section L | 33 | 9.7 (Attachment 14, JV Agreements) | Section 9.7 (Attachment 14) includes, "…...however, the (JV) agreements must be approved by SBA prior to contract award…....". This issue was raised previously in Draft RFP release (see recent Draft RFP QandA Combined, Line 31) that identified this as an out-dated requirement as SBA no longer pre-approves JVAs for competitive 8(a) awards. The government answer indicates agreement and intent to correct Section L. Will the government review and consider edit to this most recent Draft RFP Section L requirement? | Removed this language. See updated Attachment 15, Section L. | ||
| 48 | Section M | 3 | Section 3.0 and Table 1 | Phase I Technical Qualification Gate establishes requirement to provide experience for a "pass" on 12 elements that demonstrates the Offeror's understanding of the element and that they will be successful in performing the work. Given the demonstrated historical complexity of 3IS technical requirements and demands of successfully executing this Single Award IDIQ contract, will the government add some Phase I elements that address an Offeror's experience, understanding and success relating to program management necessary to meet the existing 12 technical elements? | No. | ||
| 49 | Section M | 4 and 6 | 4.2 and 4.3 | Given demonstrated, historical scope, scale, and complexity of the 3IS family of single award IDIQ contracts, shouldn't the government include a Phase II, Factor 1 - Technical Subfactor focused specifically on Program Management, and include that TO as part of an Offeror's Total Evaluated Price? History demonstrates that the government places significant importance and emphasis on successful program management for current and previous 3IS contracts. Not suitably evaluating program management for this contract raises strong possibility of increased Risk and failure to meet requirements in the areas of performance, cost and schedule.In an added benefit, allowing for a Program Management Subfactor / TO, would allow treatment of Offeror's Staffing understanding and approach, and removal of that requirement from the 4 other Subfactor's/TO proposals, preserving the dedicated 10 pages to address Offeror understanding and approach in response to technical requirements | Program Managment Task Order will not be part of the initial evaluation. | ||
| 50 | RFP section L | 21 | 8.1.2 | In order for the government to get a clearer picture of TEP will the government include all proposed Task Orders in TEP to include a Program Management task order. | Program Managment Task Order will not be part of the initial evaluation. | ||
| 51 | Section M | 8, 9, 10 | 4.5 | As part of the Cost Realism assessment, does the government intend to make pricing adjustments to Offeror's total evaluated prices, if the government deems that is warranted? If so, will the government explain its intended methodology? | Total Evaluated Price will be analyzed for reasonableness and balanced not cost realism. However, Cost Realism will be conduct on the Sum of the Cost and Fixed Fee of the Task Order 0002 and 0003 IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). | ||
| 52 | Section M | page 2-3 | section 1.1.6 | States if a Joint Venture the 8(a) company needs to perform at least 51% of the work | 51% has been changed to 50% to reflect what is stated in 52.219-14(e). See Updated Attachment 16, Section M. IAW FAR 52.219-14(e), By Submission of an offeror and execution of a contract, the Contractor agrees that in performance of a contract assigned...(1)Services...it will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government..." | ||
| 53 | Section L | page 32 | section 9.2 | Limitations on Subcontracting, Prime (or Joint Venture) shall submit certification and demonstrate how they intend to perform at least 50% of the 3IS III PWS | Unchanged. 50%. | ||
| 54 | Section M | page 3 | section 1.1.7 | States "This also includes being an 8(a) company under the NAISC [sic] Code Listed above, and not | |||
| graduating from the 8(a) program before award. | Updated. See Attachment 15, Section L. | ||||||
| 55 | Section L | 14 | 6 | Point of clarification: Does the cover letter count against the three pages allocated for the executive summary? The below paragraph is misleading. "A letter of transmittal or executive cover letter shall be included in this volume. This cover letter shall not be counted against the page limitations of the volume. The cover letter and Executive Summary shall not exceed the page limit address above under Paragraph L-4, 2.2.1, Table 1. The Executive Summary Volume shall include the following sections:" | See Q&A 29 for answer. | ||
| 56 | RFP section L | 23 | 8.3 | In the case of joint ventures, are the joint venture parent companies required to supply the same level of detail as the joint venture, or can the joint venture narrative relating to estimating approaches etc. suffice? | Managing or main partner of the joint venture should be using their estimating system if they have one. | ||
| 57 | RFP section L | 31 | 8.3.7.1 | In the case of unpopulated joint ventures, are each of the parent companies required to submit compensation plans? | Each joint venture partner is required to submit a compensation plan | ||
| 58 | Atch 7 IT PWS | 10 | 3.8.3 | IS the contractor who develops the training tracker database expected to perform training management duties? In the PWS it states: The contractor | |||
| shall maintain individual training folders for squadron personnel. | The IT Core PWS language has been updated to remove the requirement to maintain individual training folders for squadron personnel. | ||||||
| 59 | Section L & M | Are the task orders listed as Subfactor 1 - 4 awardable or are they being used for proposal purposes only? | At a minimum the Government intends to award Task 0001 with the basic IDIQ. Task Order 0002 & 0003 could be awarded at the discretion of the Government. | ||||
| 60 | Reference: Section K, Offeror’s Representations (Prime) | Section K, Offeror’s Representations (Prime) states in part “. . . if any FAR or DFARS representations and certifications required are not included in SAM, submit the completed representation or certification as part of this chapter. Additionally, include any FAR, DFARS, or AFFARS clause requiring fill-in information, as well as any other acknowledgments required.” | Would the government please specify exactly which FARS/DFARS representations and certifications it would like offerors to complete in addition to those already contemplated by FAR 52.204-7 System for Award Management (OCT 2018) and FAR 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications (MAY 2022)? Also, please confirm that fill-in information already contained in an offeror’s SAM registration need not be repeated. | FRFP will reflect the required provision/clauses. | |||
| 61 | Section M / Section L 4.1 | p. 3 / p. 10 | Phase I… Offeror must receive a "pass" rating on all 12 elements to receive an overall "pass" on Phase I/ 12 elements listed below | Will the Government clarify specifically the 12 elements referred in the requirement? Are the 12 elements 4.3.3.1 - 4.3.6.2 (Factor 1 Subfactors)? | Updated Attachment 15, Section L, Paragraphs 4.3.1-4.6.3 to reflect the12 elements. | ||
| 62 | Section L | p. 12 | 4.2.1 Demonstrate…for "levels I, II, and III" on Unclass, Secret, and… | Will the Government clarify what kind of "levels" are being referred to - IAT level? | Change 4.3.1 to read "Demonstrate your ability to provide information technology levels I, II, and III maintenance (to include troubleshooting, technical solutions and installation) on Unclass, Secret, and TS/SCI/SAP networks, systems, and VTCs at local and off site locations (CONUS and OCONUS)." | Chris: Change Section L, 4.2.1 |
Q&A_DRAFT_Jun 22
| Question # | DRFP Document / Section | Page | Reference | Question/Comment | Government Response | |
| 1 | General | QUESTION: Will the Government accept the offeror’s proposal with all documents digitally signed? | Yes | |||
| 2 | B - Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs | Page 3 of 118 | L.5.D.3.c Total Evaluated Price (TEP) states: “Phase-in shall be proposed in Section B for a 30-day period of performance” | QUESTION: Will the 30-day Phase-In be priced in a separate CLIN in Section B? If so, could the Government please add the CLIN? | Phase in will be its own separate task order. | |
| 3 | G - Contract Administration Data | Page 12 of 118 | G.f: “DUNS Number:” | QUESTION: As of April 4, 2022, the authoritative identifier is the Unique Entity ID from SAM.gov. Should “DUNS Number” be changed to: “Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)”? | Changed to UEI | |
| 4 | L.5.B PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS | Page 90 of 118 | L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions | QUESTION: Due to potential impacts of a COVID-19 resurgence, would the Government consider requiring a fully digital submission in lieu of bound hard copies and CD-ROMs? | Solicitation revised to ask for only electronic copy of the proposal | |
| 5 | L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions | Page 91 of 118 | L.5.B.2.a.iv, Page Size and Format: “Use Times New Roman, with a font no smaller than 12-point with normal proportional spacing.” | QUESTION: Would the Government allow smaller but readable font size to be used in headers and footers? | Headers and footers font size will remain 12 point Times New Roman | |
| 6 | L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions | Page 91 of 118 | L.5.B.2.a.iv, Page Size and Format: “Use Times New Roman, with a font no smaller than 12-point with normal proportional spacing.” | QUESTION: Please confirm a cover letter is excluded from page count. | There is a cover sheet identified in the RFP but no cover letter. | |
| 7 | L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions | Page 91 of 118 | L.5.B.2.a.v, Charts and Tables: “Charts, text in graphics, tables, headers and footers shall be in black or blue Times New Roman font (no variations), and shall not be smaller than Microsoft Word 12 point font, normal proportional spacing.” | QUESTION: Would the Government allow a smaller but readable font size to be used in charts, graphics, tables, including figure/table titles and captions? | This will stay 12 point font | |
| 8 | L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions | Page 91 of 118 | L.5.B.2.a.v, Charts and Tables: “Charts, text in graphics, tables, headers and footers shall be in black or blue Times New Roman font (no variations), and shall not be smaller than Microsoft Word 12 point font, normal proportional spacing.” | QUESTION: Would the Government please confirm that screenshots/photographs are excluded from font requirements, as these are typically used to reference an example/sample and not intended to be read/legible? | Any thing not legible/readable will not be considered. Screenshots are not exempt from the 12 font requirement | |
| 9 | L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions | Page 91 of 118 | L.5.B.2.a.v, Charts and Tables: “Charts, text in graphics, tables, headers and footers shall be in black or blue Times New Roman font (no variations), and shall not be smaller than Microsoft Word 12 point font, normal proportional spacing.” | QUESTION: Would the Government please confirm that callout boxes and focus boxes may follow the same font size instructions as those for tables and figures? | Yes, confirmed | |
| 10 | L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions | Page 91 of 118 | L.5.B.2.a.v, Charts and Tables: “Charts, text in graphics, tables, headers and footers shall be in black or blue Times New Roman font (no variations), and shall not be smaller than Microsoft Word 12 point font, normal proportional spacing.” | QUESTION: Would the Government please consider removing Header and Footer specs from paragraph L.5.B.2.a.v, Charts and Tables? | 12 font will be used for header/footer | |
| 11 | L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions | Page 91 of 118 | L.5.B.2.a.i, Binding and Labeling: “A cover sheet shall be bound in each book, clearly marked with the offeror’s name, volume number and title, solicitation identification (e.g., RFP number and title), and the copy number (e.g., copy 2 of 5) (e.g., Company A, Vol I, Technical Proposal, RFP FA251822XXXX, 3IS III, copy 2 of 5)” | QUESTION: Could the Government please confirm the required cover sheet is excluded from font requirements? | Yes it is excluded | |
| 12 | DRAFT SECTION L TABLES | Page 3 of 4 | Table 3: Total Cost/Price Summary by Cost/Price Element/Year each Task Order 002 to 006 – Subcontractors | COMMENT: Column 8 is mislabeled as OPTION PERIOD “FY27” and should be Should be “FY29”. | need to correct | |
| 13 | M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION | Page 114 of 118 | Section 2, Volume 2 - Present/Past Performance (Factor 2) | RATIONALE: The vision and guidance from USSF leadership (i.e., Gen. Saltzman, Gen. Thompson) is for STARCOM to develop a more collaborative and sustainable architecture for a more realistic simulated environment. The technical merit of the 3IS III contractor is significantly important. The technical evaluation of 3IS III being Acceptable/Unacceptable restricts the Government’s ability to leverage a team’s technical capability and contradicts the USSF leadership vision and guidance. | ||
| QUESTION: Will the Government consider the Best Value Trade-off be between Technical Approach and Cost/Price with Past Performance rated as Acceptable/Unacceptable where an offeror has achieved a Satisfactory Confidence rating. We recommend that Technical Factor 1 be evaluated using an adjectival approach identifying Significant Strengths, Strengths, and Weaknesses to arrive at an aggregate score ranging from Outstanding to Unsatisfactory. | No | |||||
| 14 | M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION | Page 114 of 118 | Section 2, Volume 2 - Present/Past Performance (Factor 2) | RATIONALE: The 3IS III Evaluation Criteria does not clearly state whether a company teammate’s past performance relevancy will be a single rating determined by the aggregate of citations submitted by that company for a mission focus area. | ||
| QUESTION: Will the Government clarify how past performance relevancy is aggregated across all citations within a mission focus area submitted by a bidder? | Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated | |||||
| 15 | M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION | Page 114 of 118 | Section 2. Volume 2 - Present/Past Performance (Factor 2) | RATIONALE: The 3IS III Evaluation Criteria does not clearly state how the Government develops a team’s confidence rating with respect to relevancy. | ||
| QUESTION: Specifically, does a team with 3 Highly Relevant references rather than one Highly Relevant reference in one focus area earn a higher confidence rating? Conversely, if a team has 2 Highly Relevant references and 1 Somewhat Relevant references, does that team have a lower confidence rating than a team with 2 or 3 Highly Relevant references? | Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated. | |||||
| 16 | M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION | Page 114 of 118 | Section 2. Volume 2 - Present/Past Performance (Factor 2; b. Relevancy Assessment) | RATIONALE: Section states: “In determining relevancy for individual submissions, consideration will only be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror or subcontractor, teammate and/or joint venture partner if identified to perform that effort in the relevancy matrix.” One would assume that if an offeror proposes staff in IT, but only one area, that they would not be assessed against all the relevancy criteria set forth in Section M Tables, i.e., if a company proposes staff to support Information Assurance (#3 Information Technology), then that company’s past performance should only be assessed for Information Assurance and not the other 4 evaluation requirements for a Highly Relevant evaluation. | ||
| QUESTION: Please clarify and confirm an offer’s Past Performance will only be evaluated for the staff they propose, i.e., if a company proposes staff to support Information Assurance under the Information Technology focus area, then that Past Performance should only be assessed for (3) Information Assurance requirements and not the other four evaluation requirements and can still achieve a Very Relevant rating. | Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated. | |||||
| 17 | M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION | Page 114 of 118 | Section 2. Volume 2 - Present/Past Performance: Table 10 Relevancy T&E | RATIONALE: The 3IS III past performance relevancy requirements in Table 10 may unduly restrict competition. We have assessed multiple test programs and discussed T&E programs with numerous experienced individuals specific to the “Test Director” requirement. We have concluded that the Test Director is almost always a government position, and may be rather unique as a contractor position on 3IS II, and as such, this requirement may only be achievable by the incumbent. | ||
| COMMENT: Please remove program-specific position titles the requirements within the Section M Evaluation Criteria. | Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated. | |||||
| 18 | M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION | Page 114 of 118 | Section 2. Volume 2 - Present/Past Performance: Table 10 Relevancy T&E | RATIONALE: Table 10 T&E: Very Relevant item (3) Used statistical software tools such as MATLAB JMP, Design Expert, etc. The use of words like “such as” and “etc.” introduces risk to a non-incumbent bidder as we may use a similar test tool; however, we don’t know how the Government will evaluate the relevance of our similar tools. This requirement unduly restricts competition as only the incumbent can avoid this risk concern as they use these exact tools today on the current contract. | ||
| COMMENT: Recommend the Government moves away from listing stringent numbered past performance criteria which favors incumbent past performance that restricts competition and uses a common practical approach. For example: to be considered Very Relevant, a contractor must have a reference that supports OT&E and DT&E test activities for space systems, planning, executing and leading test events, developing and executing test plans, using common industry accepted test tools. | Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated. | |||||
| 19 | M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION; DRAFT SECTION M TABLES | Page 5 of 8 | Table 10: Relevancy - STARCOM Wargaming (See Section M Table 10 attachment) | RATIONALE: Relevancy Table 10 Wargaming relevancy criteria item (6) supporting space, cyber, and/or Intel operational, policy, red, or other wargaming frameworks is unclear. | ||
| QUESTION: For relevancy criteria item (6), please confirm that the evaluation criteria elements (i.e., space, cyber, Intel operational, policy, red wargaming frameworks) are independent elements and are not evaluated collectively. | Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated. | |||||
| 20 | M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION; DRAFT SECTION M TABLES | Page 5 of 8 | Table 10: Relevancy - STARCOM Wargaming (See Section M Table 10 attachment) | RATIONALE: It is understandable that 3IS III and STARCOM now differentiates an Exercise and Wargame with the USSF organization and mission requirements. However, the evaluation criteria in Section M for Wargaming and DMO are nearly identical, but now a non-incumbent is even further challenged to produce past performance references that cover both independently. Seeing as how past performance is really the only rated factor and to avoid an incumbent competitive advantage, we believe it is reasonable for the Government to accept past performance that covers the areas of “(1) planning, designing, and executing wargames and associated planning events; (2) supporting constructive/virtual wargame planning and execution; (3) operating multiple systems across a wide area network (distributed operations); (4) operating within a classified environment; (5) operating within a multi-domain and international-partner framework for wargaming; (6) supporting Space, Cyber, and/or Intel operational, policy, Red, or other wargaming frameworks.” when described as an “exercise” from other past performance references. | ||
| COMMENT: Because the functions of planning, executing, and integrating an exercise and wargame are very similar, will the Government confirm that contracts cited prior to the differentiation between Wargaming and Exercises would be considered highly relevant? | Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated. | |||||
| 21 | Q&A January 2022 / M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION | Section M Evaluation Criteria | RATIONALE: In the Industry Day Q&A released on June 27, 2022, question number 2, the Government states: “subsidiaries will be weighted for the areas they are proposed to work.” The DRFP does not include any information on weighted evaluation criteria. It is important for bidders to clearly understand how past performance is weighted (formula) to determine our citations fully meet requirements. | |||
| COMMENT: Please provide the past performance evaluation weighted formula/analysis model mentioned in the Industry Day Q&A. | Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated. | |||||
| 22 | DRAFT SECTION M TABLES | Page 6 of 8 | Table 10: Relevancy - Test and Evaluation | COMMENT: Table 10 is numbered incorrectly. It should be numbered as Table 11, and then renumber the remaining tables. | Changes made | |
| 23 | 3IS III Draft PWS_22 Jun 22 and Draft CDRLs (6/27/22) | COMMENT: There are numerous inconsistencies between PWS and CDRL references (e.g., some CDRLs are not referenced in the PWS; some CDRL forms include incorrect paragraph references). | PWS and CDRLs were reviewed and discrepancies corrected. | |||
| 24 | Section L Table 1 | 1 | Due to the continuing COVID situation will the government consider an electronic submittal instead of a hard copy? | See response to question 4 | ||
| 25 | Draft RFP Section L-5 | |||||
| B.2.a.iv) | 91 | The draft RFP specifies that the page size is 8.5 x 11 inches (letter format) paper. For spreadsheets that must be submitted, this format will not facilitate review. Can required spreadsheets be formatted and printed on an 11 x 17 inch (tabloid format) single side paper? | 11 x 17 inch paper is allowable. One side of 11 x 17 inch paper equates to two pages of 8.5 x 11 inch pages. Only one side of 11 x 17 inch paper shall be used. | |||
| 26 | Draft RFP Section L-5 | |||||
| 1.4.3 | 91 | Will the government provide workload estimates for PWS 1.4.3. | Workload data is provided at the task order/scenario level. See historical workload data in bidder's library | |||
| 27 | Draft RFP Section L-5 | |||||
| 1.4.5.1.1.11 | 19 | The AFIs listed have been superseded, what are the correct Instructions and Manuals? | Need to review and update as needed, every functional area needs to rescrub their area and check the bidders library | |||
| 28 | Section L | |||||
| L.D.1.d | 93/118 | Will draft of the 5 Senarios (Attachment L-1) be released prior to the Final RFP? | No. The scenarios will be released with the final RFP | |||
| 29 | Section L | |||||
| L.D.2 | 93/118 | This section states "Past Performance is approximately equal to Cost/Price factor. This portion of the evaluation will consider the offeror's performance and that of its subcontractors, at or above $2 million, teammates and/or joint venture partners. | ||||
| Is Past Performance required for all teammates or only those teammates that have over $2 million dollars worth of labor on the proposed/priced task order where the teammate/subcontractor will be performing? | Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated. | |||||
| 30 | Section L | |||||
| 6.a. | 100/118 | This seems to be an old requirement and it should be removed—SBA no longer pre-approves JVAs for competitive 8(a) awards. | Corrected Section L to remove this language. Need to update RFP, per SBA website SBA no longer approves joint venture agreements formed to pursue competitive 8(a) contracts. | |||
| 31 | Section L | |||||
| 7.b | 100/118 | When do we need to have a UEI by? Proposal submital or Contract Award? What if we started the registration process and a help ticket is open and we don't have a UEI by proposal submittal? | On 4 Apr 22 the UEIs were mandated for use per SAM.gov. UEIs are required for proposal submission and award. The proposal will be considered non-responsive if it is not submitted with the proposal. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .