3IS III_Consolidated QA from Industry_v4.0.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 81 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Innovation, Integration, and Information Support (3IS) III Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2518-23-R-0007
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 43
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_RFP
| No. | RFP Reference | Page Number | Paragraph # | Question | Answer | Amendment |
| Attachment 15, Section L | 15 | 7.1.6 | The RFP states "Provide a narrative on the staffing matrix for each of subfactor". Per the instructions for the Staff Matrix, offerors are allowed to use their format as long as it includes all relevant information. Please confirm that it was acceptable for offerors to provide the staffing narrative as part of the Staffing Matrix? Is it the government's intention that offerors provide this narrative within the same file as the staffing matrix, or should the staffing matrix narrative be included within the technical approach? If the government intends for the staffing matrix narrative to be included within the technical approach, please consider increasing the page limit for each technical subfactor. | 1. Do not include any narrative in the staffing matrix. 2. Narratives need to part of the technical approach and addressed there while referring to the staffing matrix which will show the specific labor categories to include experience, certification, etc. 3. Page limitation remains unchanged. | No change. | |
| Attachment 15, Section L | 30 | 9.2 | The RFP states offerors must comply with the Limitations on Subcontracting clause and "shall submit certification and demonstrate how they intend to perform at least 50% of the 3IS III PWS." Please clarify what the government would accept as certification/demonstration of compliance with FAR 52.219-14. | Changed Section L, Para 9.2, to delete "IAW FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, Prime (or Joint Venture) shall submit certificates and demonstrate how they intend to perform at least 50% of the 3IS III PWS. | Changed Section L. | |
| Attachment 16, Section M | 2 | 1.1.6 | The RFP states "The prime contractor must be an 8(a) company under NAICS Code 541715 Research & Development (R&D) in the Physical, Engineering & Life Sciences, with a small business size standard of 1000 employees, and perform at least 51% of the work." |
| This statement conflicts with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). FAR 19.505(b)(1)(i) states "For a contract or order assigned a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for services (except construction), the concern will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractor that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count towards the concern's 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes both services and supplies, the 50 percent limitation shall apply only to the service portion of the contract." Please amend this requirement to reflect the current regulations defined in the FAR regarding Limitations on Subcontracting. | Changed Section M, Para 1.1.6, to read "The prime contractor must be an 8(a) company under NAICS Code 541715 Research & Development (R&D) in the Physical, Engineering & Life Sciences, with a small business size standard of 1000 employees, and perform at least 50% of the work." | Changed Section M. | |||
| Attachment 16, Section M | 5 | 4.2.4 | The RFP states "An “Unacceptable” combined technical/risk rating for any of the Factor 1 four (4) technical subfactors or an unacceptable rating for the phase-in plan may render an offeror’s overall proposal as unawardable." |
| Due to the complex and critical nature of this work, an "Unacceptable" score for any of the Factor 1 subfactors or Factor 2 would present significant performance risk to the government. Please consider revising this statement to read "An “Unacceptable” combined technical/risk rating for any of the Factor 1 four (4) technical subfactors or an unacceptable rating for the phase-in plan SHALL render an offeror’s overall proposal as unawardable." | Suggested language remains unchanged. | No change. | |||||
| Attachment 16, Section M | 5 | 4.2.4 | Due to the complex and critical nature of this work, a "Marginal" score in any of the Factor 1 subfactors would present significant performance risk and would not represent the best value to the government. As the government states that adequate competition is expected (paragraph 1.1.3) and that it intends to award without discussions (paragraph 1.1.4), please consider revising paragraph 4.2.4 Unawardability for Phase II to include the requirement that offerors must score at least "Acceptable" on all four subfactors to be considered for award. | Suggested language remains unchanged. | No change. | ||
| Solicitation | 20-21 | 252.215-7011 | 1. Can the Government provide the POC information for the Contract Auditor and Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) referenced in this section? | ||||
| 2. Does this requirement pertain only to TO proposals IAW with Section H, Special Contract Requirements or is this applicable to submission of responses to this RFP as well? | Changed Solicitation, Section I, and deleted DFARS clause 252.215-7011. | Changed Solicitation. | |||||
| Attachment 16, Section M | 3 | 1.1.7 | Please confirm the statement "and not graduating from the 8(a) program before award" is correct? Per FAR 19.816 and 13CFR 124.501(h) competitive 8(a) award eligibility is determined by SBA based on the initial date specified for receipt of offers, not on award date. | Changed Section M, Para 1.1.7 to read "IAW FAR 19.816(c), a contractor that has completed its term of participation in the 8(a) program may be awarded this acquisition if it was an 8(a) participant eligible for award of the contract on the initial date specified for receipt of the offers contain in the solicitation and if the contractor continues to meet all other applicable eligibility criteria." | Changed Section M. | ||
| Attachment 15, Section L | 32 | 9.15, Attachment 14 | Section L.9.15, states a requirement that a joint venture to be approved by SBA prior to contract award. In 2020, however, SBA revised its regulations to eliminate joint venture agreement approval for 8(a) competitive awards. FAR 19.805-2(d)(2) now reflects this change. Previous Q&A regarding this solicitation pointed out that the SBA no longer approves 8(a) JV Agreements for competitive solicitations, and the government response was that the solicitation would be modified to reflect this change. Will the Government correct this requirement to reflect current SBA JV approval requirements? | Changed Section L, Para 9.15, to read "Joint Ventures and Mentor protege are allowable on competitive 8(a) award and must contain the provision under 13 CFR 124.513(c). Before a Participant may be awarded a competitive 8(a) contract, SBA must determine the Participant's eligibility which is based upon the criteria listed under 13 CFR 124.501(g)." | Changed Section L. | ||
| Solicitation Section B | 3 - 5 | N/A | Which elements, if any, of the Section B table are the bidders to complete? | None. | No change. | ||
| Section L | pg 8 of 34 | para 4.1 | States "Offeror needs to provide at least one example but no more than three examples to meet all aspects (sub-elements) of each element. This causes confusion as to what is an aspect and what is a "sub-element." Elements are clearly defined and numbered however; "sub-elements" are not. Recommend removing "sub-elements". If not, then provide a clearly defined list of "sub-elements" similar to the 12 Elements. | Suggested language remains unchanged. Sub-elements (or aspects) are all the items described in the element paragraphs. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 16, Section M | 2 | 1.1.6 | Please correct the statement "If a Joint Venture, then the 8(a) company needs to perform at least 51% of the work." This statement conflicts with the Solicitation and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Solicitation page 36, para (g)(1) and (2), states the 8(a) participant must perform at least 40% of the work. As well, 13 CFR 124.513(d)(2) states "The 8(a) partner(s) to the joint venture must perform at least 40% of the work performed by the joint venture." | Changed Section M, Para 1.1.6, to read "If a Joint Venture, then the 8(a) company needs to perform at least 40% of the work." | Changed Section M. | ||
| Section L, VOLUME II, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | RFP L.6.1.1, L.6.1.2 | The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY is limited to three pages. Yet it requires an overview of the team, a description of organization, management, roles, and responsibilities, and two organization charts. Will the Government please increase this page limitation to at least five pages to allow full detail? | Changed Section L, Table 1, Executive Summary to 5 pages. | Changed Section L. | |||
| Section L, Page 7; Font size limits | RFP L.2.2.3 | To accurately depict staffing within the page limitations, will the Government allow font size for graphics (including charts and tables ) to be no smaller than 9 point? | Suggested language remains unchanged. | No change. | |||
| RFP L.4.1 | Paragraph L.4.1 states that “offerors need to provide at least one example but no more than three examples to meet all aspects (sub-elements) of each element”. Will the Government confirm that the compellation of experience must meet all aspects (sub-elements) of each element? | Combination of the examples submitted (whether this is one or three) needs to address each of subelement. | No change. | ||||
| Attachment 15 | L 8.2.7.1 Permits subcontractor to submit cost/price proposals directly to the CO. Should subcontractor submit their cost/price proposals via DoD SAFE or via email? | Subcontractor like the prime should be submitting their cost/price proposal via DoD safe. | No change. | ||||
| Attachment 15 | L. 8.2.7.4 states that subcontractor/interdivisional organizations provide “copies of their unburdened / unsanitized cost/price proposals” to the government. Where subcontractor are FFP or T&M, we assume cost/price proposals show the full cost build up, including amounts for direct and indirect costs, as well as any other burdens. Is that correct? | Yes. | No change. | ||||
| Attachment 15 | L/ 8.3.3.5 States |
“Rate and Rate Systems Reviews. The offeror shall state whether the cognizant ACO has reviewed and approved for proposal pricing purposes the proposed labor and burden rates. If the offeror has a Forward Pricing Rate Approval (FPRA), Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR), Provisional Billing Rates, or Incurred Audits, the offeror shall provide this documentation with the negotiated rates. The offeror shall submit an FPRA / FPRR for itself and other team members; otherwise, the offeror shall submit a letter stating that its FPRA is currently under review by DCMA/DCAA”
Question: As this is a set-aside for 8(a) small businesses, CAS does not apply, nor do any requirements for FPRAs or FPRRs. Please remove the requirement or provide either an FPRA / FPRR or a letter stating that its FPRA is currently under review by DCMA/DCAA.
| CAS does not apply but there is a possibility that an audit may have been conducted by DCMA/DCAA. Changed Section L, 8.3.3.5. to delete the last sentence, "The offeror shall submit a FPRA/FPRR for itself and other team members; otherwise, the offeror shall submit a letter stating that its FPRA is currently under review by DCMA/DCAA." | Changed Section L. | ||
| Attachment 15 | L. 8.3.3.6 | ||
| Would the government remove this requirement? As this is a set-aside for 8(a) small businesses, CAS does not apply, nor do any requirements for FPRAs or FPRRs not need to provide to DCMA, DCAA or other audited relevant documentation as it relates to this requirement. | As stated above, CAS does not apply. However, there is a possibility an audit may have occurred. Changed Section L, 8.3.3.6, 2nd & 3rd Sentences to read, "To support an Offeror's proposed indirect rates, the Offeror shall provide three years of historical data to suport these rates. Further, the offeror's subcontractors shall provide if applicable DCMA, DCAA or other audited relevant documentation as it relates to this requirement when they submit their unsanitized /unburden cost/price proposal." |
| Changed Section L. | ||
| Solicitation Document, section I | Section I contains DFAR 252.215-7011 |
| As this is an 8(a) set-aside, CAS does not apply. As CAS does not apply, there is no requirement for offerors to provide proposals to DCMA. Would the government please remove this clause and its associated requirements? | Changed Solicitation, Section I, and deleted DFARS clause 252.215-7011. | Changed Solicitation. |
| Attachment 9, 392 CTS PWS |
Performance Work Statement For 392d Combat Training Squadron APPLICABLE PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS) PARAGRAPHS This task order (TO) expands on or invokes the provisions of the following 3IS2 PWS paragraphs and all included subparagraphs: 1.3.2, 1.4.2, 1.4.4, 1.4.6.1.1.10, 1.4.6.1.1.18, and 1.5.14. Paragraphs not specifically referenced remain applicable to the scope of work performed under this task order.
| Question: There are no such paragraphs as 1.4.6.1.1.10 or 1.4.6.1.1.18. Will the government please provide corrected paragraph numbers? | Updated paragraph to reflect correct 3IS III PWS references. | Changed Attachment 9. | |||
| Attachment 1, PWS Page 38, Section 3. | The Government will provide the contractor facilities on Schriever SFB required for the contractor to perform the requirements of this contract. Will the Government also provide facilities at all locations denoted in section 1.2.1? For example, 4 TES is at Peterson SFB. | Yes. We expect personnel located at those location. This will be addressed in the specific task order PWS. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 1, PWS Page 5, Section 1.3 | Why are Delta 11 organizations described but there is no specific PWS language describing the type of contract support that is required as stated in 1.1? | This is placeholder for future work. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 1, PWS Page 4, Section 1.1 | Describe the support to 14 TS. There is no PWS language beyond describing the organization. | This is placeholder for future work. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 1, PWS Page 4, Section 1.1 | Describe the support to 527 SAS. There is no PWS language beyond describing the organization. | This is placeholder for future work. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 1, PWS Page 4, Section 1.1 | Describe the support to 57 SAS. There is no PWS language beyond describing the organization. | This is placeholder for future work. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 1, PWS Page 4, Section 1.1 | Describe the support to 25 SRS. There is no PWS language beyond describing the organization. | This is placeholder for future work. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 1, PWS Page 4, Section 1.1 | Describe the support to 98 SRS. There is no PWS language beyond describing the organization. | This is placeholder for future work. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 8, PWS. Page 3 Para 3.a.1.a | Contractor shall recommend solutions for, and be prepared to support, set up and connection of Government-provided virtual capabilities for use at wargame events if available, feasible, necessary, and designed for the appropriate classification level. Are the SW sites already in a "warm" status or will contractor be required to fully install government provided virtual systems? | Most of the selected wargame execution sites have the infrastructure – the Wargame IT support element will need to enter the facility, set up our TS//REL or S//REL server and clients using the existing IT infrastructure. In some instances, the Wargame IT support element will set up the server run cabling to the clients for a closed-loop “wargame system in a box” to meet the requirements. As such, it’s not a full virtual system, it’s a traveling server/client set up. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 8, PWS. Page 3 Para 3.a.1.b | The contractor shall provide wargame developers with space, cyberspace, intelligence, policy (strategic, operational, national, and international), modeling and simulation, space launch, and operational planning expertise…then, shall recommend to the Government appropriate space and other domain subject matter experts (SMEs) for participation in wargame events and in specific cells for play during wargame events in accordance with, and in support of, wargame scenario(s) and objectives. Is contractor providing all SMEs or making recommendations to the Government for additional SME support from outside of the primary contract support? | The selected company will provide the SMEs as wargame developers, then make recommendations for participants for the wargame across DoD, Commercial, Civil, Policy, etc. The participants are not on contract or subcontract, they’re planners and players at the wargame participating under their own auspices. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 8, PWS. Page 4 Para 3.a.1.e | The contractor shall provide draft invitations and/or read-ahead documentation for key wargame events for Government review and approval. Are these documents to be provided at all classification levels? What systems are required? | Invitations are UNCLASS; read-ahead documentation may be at all classifications up to and including above TS/SCI. Systems which may be required include NIPR, SIPR, JWICS, SIC, SGN, and PDAS – systems required will be provided for use by the government. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 8, PWS. Page 5 Para 3.a.1.i | The contractor shall also maintain coordination and coordinate participation (if requested) with the Government with other appropriate wargames and exercises (e.g., Space Warfighter and Analysis Center (SWAC) Wargames, Loki’s Gambit, Thor’s Hammer, Global Engagement, Air Force Futures, Space Flag, Global Sentinel, Global Thunder, Global Lightning, Global Integrated Wargame, Naval War College games, USSTRATCOM games, USAFA i5 Wargaming, and international partner wargames) to include integrating their lessons learned or best practices into STARCOM Wargaming events, as appropriate. Is contractor' involvement only if requested? The scope of this SW portion of the RFP doesn't direct planning and execution of all of these events. | The selected company will field a team of wargame SMEs who are capable of supporting and participating in aligned wargame efforts for “White Cell” support. We routinely support Red Cell, Adjudication Cell, and planning for a variety of wargame efforts to maintain connection and collaboration within DoD wargaming. While not directive for planning, it does require participation as appropriate and directed/approved by the government. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 8, PWS. Page 6 Para 3.a.1.l | The contractor shall assist the Government in defining requirements for robust Modeling and Simulation (M&S) support for wargame execution. Is this M&S system government provided, or is contractor responsible for developing or providing this capability? | The selected company will define the requirements, but the Government will procure the solution, perceptibly with the contract team’s support. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 8, PWS. Page 7 Para 3.a.1.s | The contractor shall participate in non-STARCOM wargame events (e.g., SWAC events, Global Engagement, Thor’s Hammer, AF Futures Game, USSPACECOM events, Space Flag, Naval War College wargames, Global Integrated Wargame, Joint Warfighting Construct, etc.) during this Pope. Para 3a1i says "contractor will coordinate participation" in these events, but this paragraph says "shall participate". Is this a separate requirement? | The coordinated participation is for the STARCOM Wargame team to participate as able or requested with Government leadership concurrence and direction based on STARCOM Wargaming battle rhythm and availability. Para 3a1i, as answered above, refers to coordinated participation for the wargame team. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 8, PWS. Page 7 Para 3.a.1.u | The contractor shall operate and maintain a usable off-line Access database. Is this database provided by the Government or is this to be acquired by contractor? | Database software (Access) is provided by the Government and will be maintained, updated, and used by the incoming contract team. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 8, PWS. Page 8 Para 3.a.1.w.i | For the CTOC and USTOC systems, administration and maintenance will be performed based on the architecture chosen and provided by the government. The CTOC and USTOC architecture is called out as "provided" by the government, but what about collateral floor systems? Are NIPRNet and SIPRNet included in the government provided systems? | The collateral systems (i.e., GameNet) are provided at the S//REL and TS//REL level as a stand-alone wargame system with a server architecture and ~150 clients and removable hard drives to allow changing the classification level. NIPR and SIPR are provided by the government within the office location, but are not used as gaming capabilities. The selected contract company must be capable of maintaining, through the IT portion of the contract, all levels of our wargaming systems to include collateral and above TS/SCI. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 8, PWS. Page 12 Para 3.a.e.1 | The contractor shall provide space, adjudication, and when appropriate, SAP, wargaming expertise for Air Force Title 10 Wargames Global Engagement and AF Futures Wargame as well as USSF SWAC-developed and hosted wargames. Does this mean "office space" as in a location for these meetings? | No…it’s means Space, as a domain (i.e. knowledge and understanding of USSF and other Space capabilities) | No change. | ||
| Attachment 8, PWS. Page 13 Para 3.a.f.1 | The contractor shall provide space, adjudication, and, if appropriate, SAP wargaming expertise for other events supporting mission and international partner’s wargames (e.g., USSPACECOM Wargames, Thor’s Hammer, UK Wargames, French Wargames, etc.). Does this mean "office space" as in a location for these meetings? | No…it’s means Space, as a domain (i.e. knowledge and understanding of USSF and other Space capabilities) | No change. | ||
| Attachment 1, 3IS III PWS Page 4, Section 1.2.1 | "The primary workplace for the effort will be the Government designated facilities". Will the Government guarantee desk space and connectivity to necessary IT systems at the respective locations listed 1.2.1.1 through 1.2.12? (Might be addressed in section 3.2 and 3.3) | The government will provide the necessary desk space and IT systems. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 1, 3IS III PWS Page 16, Section 1.4.4.2.6 | "Design, develop, and deliver analytical software tools (to include ensuring these tools are verified and validated)" Will the Government guarantee desk space and connectivity to necessary IT systems at the respective locations listed 1.2.1.1 through 1.2.12? (Might be addressed in section 3.2 and 3.3) | Confirmed. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 1, 3IS III PWS Page 17, Section 1.4.4.8 | "The contractor shall provide a software tool developer able to program (e.g., macros and utilize in programs such as MATLAB, JMP Standard, JMP Pro, Microsoft Word, Python, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, and Microsoft Project) and develop software tools for test planning, test execution, and to assist in the collect, reduction, and analysis of test data." Will the Government be providing all of the required software suites as well as environments that are accredited at the appropriate classification levels of the work requested? | Yes. Will provide all this. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 7, IT PWS Page 16-17, Section 3.11.1 | "Media 100 and Adobe Premiere; 2-dimensional animation and compositing tools; 3-dimensional animation suites including Alias/Wavefront Maya, NewTek Lightwave, and Discreet 3D Studio Max; image editing using Adobe" | ||||
| Photoshop; PowerPoint and Showcase presentation support; illustration, desktop publishing, page layout, and end-to-end distribution media tools. Will the Government be providing recent versions of the listed software suites and an IT environment where the suites will be able to be utilized effectively? | Yes. Will provide all this. | No change. | |||
| Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 12, Paragraph j | "The contractor shall provide 392 CTS SF/AT Liaison Officers (LNOs) associated with Deltas 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, C2 (which includes Delta 5 and NSDC), and NRO." Are these enumerated liaison positions expected to be full time positions (1 each) per Delta unit they are supporting? | Currently have LNOs at Delta 5 and Delta 4 (as well as JS/J7). The rest were put in as place holders for future possibilities. Can be left, reworded, or removed. | No change. | ||
| PWS page 15, T&E 1.4.4.1.3 | "Support annual tests in support of 1 TES, Det 2, Cheyenne Mountain SFS, CO in the role of contractor test analyst, project manager, assistant project manager, and/or data collector and/or test tool developer. " Will the contractor be expected to support quarterly test activities by 1 TES in support of the Joint Enterprise Testing/Joint Operator in the Loop Test (JET/JOITL) as well? This support requires access to the portals at Schriever, building 400, SAP clearance. | Yes. Yes. | No change. | ||
| PWS page 15, Test Planning 1.4.4.2.3 | Lead or provide support to all test planning sub-phases including developing the initial test approach, developing a feasible test concept, and the executable test concept. Will the contractor supporting the test team be required to assist in routing the Test Strategy and TEMP to DOT&E for programs on DOT&E Oversight? | They will be supporting the process but they will not be doing the routing. This is Government to Government. | No change. | ||
| PWS page 15 Test Planning 1.4.4.2 | Add: Provide support to the test director/team in drafting the initial Test Resource Plan (TRP) to STARCOM S5/8. The TRP is the primary resource the test team has to request resources (Funding: Manning, Equipment, TDY Funds etc.) either from the program office or STARCOM to support all test activities | Language in PWS remains unchanged. | No change. | ||
| PWS page 16 Test Planning 1.4.4.2.9 | add: measures workshops to the list of activities Measures workshops are attended by key stakeholders and these events shape the MOE/MOS and MOP development, provides a platform for the test team to inform initial test design and get feedback from the operational users, program office and could include DOT&E. | Language in PWS remains unchanged. | No change. | ||
| PWS Page 18 1.4.4. 19 | There are no requirements to support 17 TES. Are requirements to support 17 TES spelled out elsewhere in the PWS? in 1.3.5, the 17 TES mission is spelled out, and 1.3 is the mission statement. | We roll T&E rqmts across all TES. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1 | This task order (TO) expands on or invokes the provisions of the following 3IS2 PWS paragraphs and all included subparagraphs: 1.3.2, 1.4.2, 1.4.4, 1.4.6.1.1.10, 1.4.6.1.1.18, and 1.5.14. Paragraphs not specifically referenced remain applicable to the scope of work performed under this task order. The paragraph references the 3IS2 PWS; does this also apply to the current 3IS3 PWS with the same or different paragraphs? | Updated paragraph to reflect correct 3IS III PWS references | Changed Attachment 9. | ||
| Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 4, Section 3a, Paragraph b | The contractor shall maintain detailed system expertise on all aspects of operating 392 CTS M&S and Command, Control, Computer and Communications (C4I) equipment. This includes Systems Administration support, as required, with no-earlier-than 7 working days’ notice of alternative schedule support. Is the expectation that 3IS contract will provide Sys Admin support for the current 392 CTS equipment, in addition to current Sys Admins? Assumption is that Sys Admin training will require extensive training beyond planned operations training. | The 392 CTS pays for 2 FTEs that reside in 12 DOS. If support is required during non-business hours, that's when the 7 days' notice happens. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 4, Section 3a, Paragraph b | The contractor shall maintain detailed system expertise on all aspects of operating 392 CTS M&S and Command, Control, Computer and Communications (C4I) equipment. This includes Systems Administration support, as required, with no-earlier-than 7 working days’ notice of alternative schedule support. Shorter notice support will require mutual agreement between 12 Delta Operations Squadron (12 DOS), SPACE DELTA 12, and 392 CTS leadership. Support is estimated at being needed for no more than 25 days per year. Is the referenced 25 days per year of support specific to the shorter notice support with 12 DOS, DELTA 12, and 392d leadership, or the Systems Administration support? | All related, as the 392 CTS Sys Admin support works for 12 DOS, but is paid for by us. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 5, Section 3a, Paragraph j | The contractor shall provide technical and communications support for new and emerging M&S capabilities provided by the government. The support shall include testing, coordinating and operating new and emerging M&S capabilities with designated mission partners. The government shall provide training, funding and time to become proficient on the applicable systems before requiring the contractor to operate new and emerging M&S systems capabilities. Does this support also include System Administration support for the new and emerging M&S capabilities? | Yes | No change. | ||
| Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 6, Section 3b, Paragraph 2c | Scenarios within the training environment shall enable space warfighters to conduct mission rehearsals. Mission rehearsals is a generic term in this context, correct? And not specific to mission rehearsals prior to launch of a certain capability to assess readiness? | Correct - generic phrase. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 6, Section 3b, Paragraph 4a | The contractor shall integrate Space and Cyber Special Access Program (SAP) Special Access Required (SAR) Advanced Program (AP) capabilities into CCMD, joint, service, and USSF exercises, as required. Will the Government provide sponsorship for eligible contractor to be cleared to the referenced SAP SAR AP capabilities? | Yes | No change. | ||
| Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 7, Section 3c, Paragraph 1a | The contractor shall maintain, sustain, and upgrade the 392 CTS DMOC-S computer (hardware, software, etc.) and communications infrastructure. This includes establishment and sustainment of the communications and computer architecture and the configuration requirements for each exercise, DMO, or advanced training event. The Government may authorize specialized training as required. What is the scope for upgrading hardware equipment and software? Does this include Acquistion efforts to obtain the hardware, procurement, and installation? If so, who is the acquisition office the contractor will work with? | No acquisition efforts. Software would be provided by the government for install. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 12, Section 3e, Paragraph 1i | The contractor shall integrate Special Access Program/Security Access Required (SAP/SAR) capabilities into SF exercises and AT events, as required. Will the Government provide sponsorship for eligible contractor to be cleared to the referenced SAP SAR AP capabilities? | Yes | No change. | ||
| Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 19, Section 3j Paragraph 1f | The contractor shall maintain, sustain, and upgrade the BattleLab (hardware, software, etc.) infrastructure. This includes establishment and sustainment of the computer architecture and the configuration requirements for each exercise or advanced training event. Will the Government provide sponsorship for eligible contractor to be cleared to the referenced SAP SAR AP capabilities? | Yes | No change. | ||
| Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 20, Section 3k, Paragraph 1a | The contractor shall provide draft invitations and read-ahead documentation as applicable for key PH, SKIES, or SFE events for Government review and signature. Once the invitations and read-ahead documentation are approved and signed, the contractor shall e-mail them to the appropriate organizations and personnel. Invitations and read-ahead documentation are normally sent to recipients 45 to 60 days prior to the event. Are these documents to be provided at all classification levels? What systems are required? | All classification levels. These systems will be provided by the Government. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 26, Attachment C | Several boxes throughout the attachment have not been expanded to include all the language. Can the Government please provide the expanded boxes to ensure all performance objectives and thresholds are understood and being accomplished? | Please look at the word file for Attachment 9. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 26, Attachment C | There is no SS#3 in Attachment C. Is this a known omission or accidental? Is there a #3 that the contractor needs to work towards? | Service summary #3 is focused on cybersecurity tasks that will be handled under the IT Task order in support of multiple organizations and will not be referenced in Attachment 9. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 2, DD254, Page 3 | Will an NDA be required with Delta Solutions and Strategies (DS&S) LLC? Or How is DS&S involved in the 3IS mission? | Changed Attachment 2, DD254, Block 8a and deleted Delta Solutions and Strategies. | Changed DD254. | ||
| Attachment 9, 392 CTS, Page 28, Attachment D | Under the estimated workload data annual 392 CTS exercises/events, you list the acronym "PPF". Please define PPF. There is no other reference for this acronym throughout the entire solicitation documents | 392 CTS Professional Planning and Control Force | No change. | ||
| Attachment 7, IT PWS, Page 15, para 3.10.3 | Designate an on-site Computer Maintenance Support Technician with necessary test equipment and tools, and will establish an office to perform installation, maintenance and troubleshooting of HOSP. Will the contractor be required to identify and staff an "independent office" away from the organization on the installation or off-the installation to perform installation, maintenance and troubleshooting of HOSP? or Will the government identified and provide a location for this work to be performed on the installation close to the unit(s) supported? | No independent office. There is work location for the HOSP FTE on site. Yes, function will be conducted at Bldg 24 only. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 7, IT PWS, Page 25, Attachment (B) | The following ODCs are determined essential for the base and option periods. Description of items: HOSP Maintenance supplies & equipment; Vis Lab Supplies & consumables; Systems engineering supplies; Configuration Management . In addition, the base period ODCs items (in priority order) are expected up to the estimate above. Request the Government provide the list of historical purchases for the last 3 years of these ODCs in order to fully understand the amount of items used per year? | We are not requesting you to propose to ODC now or in the future. This will be Government "plug in" number. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 10, SBMW PWS, Page 4 & 7 | Contractor TDY travel may be required in conjunction with performance of this task order listed in Appendix (A). Request the Government provide the list of historical travel required for the last 3 years to fully understand the essential travel required per year? | We are not requesting you to propose to Travel now or in the future. This will be Government "plug in" number. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 10, SBMW PWS, Page 4 & 8 | Government foreseen ODCs are listed in Appendix B. Request the Government provide the list of historical travel required for the last 3 years to fully understand the essential travel required per year?. | We are not requesting you to propose to ODC now or in the future. This will be Government "plug in" number. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 2, Section 1.2 | Pre-Award Survey. If the Prime offeror has an approved DCMA/DCAA will we be required to provide a Pre-award survey for this effort? If so when will this be required? | IAW FAR 9.106-1(a), pre-award survey is normally required when the information on hand or readily available to the contracting officer...is not sufficient to make a determination regarding responsibility..." | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 2, Section 1.2 | Pre-Award Survey. Will our subcontractor be required to also provide a Pre-Award Survey? | We would not request a pre-survey of your subcontractors. This would fall onto you as the prime to determine your subcontractors are determine responsible. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 7, Section 2.2.3 | Would the Government consider smaller font for tables, graphics/illustrations, call out boxes? Recommend 9 font. | Language in Section L remains unchanged. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 7, Section 2.3.1 | When do we need to request our DoD SAFE access? Since normally the login, passwords are only good for a specific time period. | https://safe.apps.mil/help/dod-safe-help.xml | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 7, Section 2.3.1 | Will we need to request two DoD Safe accesses so that we can submit Phase 1 in one and Phase 2 in another? Or are we to provide all files in one DoD SAFE access? | https://safe.apps.mil/help/dod-safe-help.xml | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 7, Section 2.3.1 | How many files are allowed to be uploaded in a DoD SAFE and is there a total file size limitation? | https://safe.apps.mil/help/dod-safe-help.xml | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 9, Section 4.1 | Can the Government please confirm that we are NOT allowed to use affiliated company, sister company, divisions experience unless we are having them participate on the 3IS III contract. | Confirm. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 12, Section 6.1.3 | Attachment E1: (1) It is our understanding that we are to provide Attachment E1 in the Executive Summary volume showing all volumes from Phase 2 correct? (2) Are we to also use Attachment E1 in each of Phase 2 volumes with only the content related to the specific volume? | (1) Correct. (2) No. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 20, Section 8.2.7.2 | Are the subcontractor/teammates to provide their sealed package directly to the Government POC's or are they to provide through DoD Safe? | Subcontractor needs to submit their cost/proposal via DoD Safe. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 22, Section 8.3.2 | Please confirm that our subcontractor/teammates need to provide their DCAA/DCMA information with their submission or the primes submission. | Confirm if this applicable. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Pae 22, Section 8.3.2 | If a subcontractor/teammate does not have DCAA/DCMA approval will they need to have a pre-award survey conducted? | No. This is upon prime to determine whether or not your subcontractor are considered responsible. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 22, Section 8.3.2 | What happens if a subcontractor/teammate is not able to have an accepted DCAA/DCMA. Will this make it so that we are not able to have them on our team? | No. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 23-24, Section 8.3.3.5 | If our subcontract/teammate doesn't have and approved FPRA/FPRR and does not have a letter stating under current review with DCMA/DCAA will this preclude them from being on our team? | No. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 24, Section 8.3.3.6 | If a subcontractor/teammate does not have FPRA/FPRR, DCAA/DCMA documents will this preclude them from being on our team? | No. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 15, Page 7, Section 2.2.2 | Will the Government allow for 11x17 - inch sheet of paper for large tables and graphics? | Language under Section L remains unchanged. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 12, Tab TO 0002 | Can the Government please tell us what the acronym FCCOM stands for that is used only in the pricing excel? | FCCOM means Facility Capital Cost of Money for Government Contracts. | No change. | ||
| Attachment 12, Tab TO 0002 | Can the Government tell us what Interdivisional Fully Burden means? | Attachment 12, Interdivisional Transfer, means labor categories, hours, and burden rates from another division in your company you are using to support these efforts. | No change. | ||
| L.8.3.5.2, Pg 25 |
and Attachment 9, Section 3, 3.a pages 4-5, 3.b pages 5-7 (and the rest of the heading through 3.k that ends on page 20) Instructions state, “The offeror shall submit BOEs for each of the Task Order PWS Paragraphs.” There are 174 total paragraphs within the TO2 PWS. Will the Government please confirm that the heading level constitutes the PWS paragraph for development of a BOE? For example, 3.a is a PWS Paragraph and the BOE would cover all sub paragraphs 3.a.1.a-3.a.1.k. The next BOE would be 3.b covering 3.b.1 – 3.b.4.i and so on.
| If the Government expects a BOE for each paragraph which could be up to 174 BOEs, will the Government consider an extension as the current proposal deadline does not allow sufficient time to prepare that many BOEs? | Change Section L, Paragraph 8.3.5.2, 2nd & 3rd sentences, to read, "The offeror shall prepare BOEs for Task Order 0002. The offeror shall submit BOEs at the header or first level for Task Order 002 PWS Paragraphs. " | Changed Section L. | |||||
| Attachment 9, Section 3, Multiple headings (3.a - 3.k, pages 3-20) | Will the Government confirm for the headers within Section 3 if the first parenthetical "(10)" is a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) and the second parenthetical (16.7%) is the percentage of work against the total TO2 workshare? | The numbers and percentages captured in parenthesis represent historical data and should not be construed as a Government requirement. | No change. | ||||
| Attachment 9/Section 3, Multiple | |||||||
| 3.a thru 3.k headings (pages 3-20) | If the Section 3 heading data is a reference to FTE and Workshare, will the Government confirm whether this is based on historical data and provided as reference only or whether this is the Government current estimation for the task workforce and should be used by offerors? | The numbers and percentages captured in parenthesis represent historical data and should not be construed as a Government requirement. | No change. | ||||
| Attachment 12, Cost Price Workbook | Will the Government confirm that Offerors are to provide Task Order 1 and 2 pricing only and that no IDIQ level pricing is required with this submission? | Confirm. | No change. | ||||
| Attachment 15, Section L.9.2, Pg 30 | The FAR Clause 52.219-14 does not have a requirement to submit certification of 50% workshare. Per the clause the agreement to the limitations of subcontracting is made by submission of an offer and execution of a contract. a. | Outside of the proposal, what does the government require in the way of certification and demonstration to satisfy this requirement? | |||||
| b. | Will the Government evaluate the prime contractor’s minimum workshare requirement as stated in the FAR Clause 52.219-14 at the IDIQ contract level, or will we be held to this requirement at each Task Order level? | a. Changed Section L, para 9.2 and removed "FAR 52.219-14, 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." b. This will be at the task order level. Changed Solicitation, Section I, FAR Clause 52.219-14 (f) (1) by checking "By the end of the performance period for each order issued under the contract. | Changed Section L. | ||||
| Attachment 15, Section L.2.3.1, Page 7 | The DoD Safe home page has a warning that it is not to be used for Contract Solicitation and Proposal Submissions. Does the Government have a backup submission method for DoD Safe? | As instructed in Section L submit your proposal, as well as, have your subcontractor submit their proposals via DoD Safe. | No change. | ||||
| Attachment 15, Section L.2.3.1, Page 7 | For DoD Safe, how far in advance from 24 Feb 2023 should offerors ask the Contracting Officer for the Request Code? | Under DoD Safe, you would use Drop Off Documents. Here you will enter the two PCO email addresses. Once done, recommend printing PDF version of drop off and emailing this to us to show when you sent it. If something happens that we do not have these by 1400 MST on 24 Feb then we will know you submitted before submission date/time. | No change. | ||||
| Solicitation, Section I, DFARS 252.215-7011, Pages 20-21 | DFARS 252.215-7011 states that Offeror shall also submit one copy of the Proposal each to the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) and the Contract Auditor. Who is the ACO and Contract Auditor for this solicitation and how should we submit the Proposal to them? | Changed Solicitation, Section I, and deleted DFARS clause 252.215-7011. | Changed Solicitation. | ||||
| Attachment 15, Section L.9.4.3, Page 31 | Section 9.4.3 states that Offeror shall fill in | ||||||
| blocks 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, and 8c of DD Form 254. However, DD Form 254 was provided with sections 8a, 8b, and 8c already filled in. Can you confirm that Offeror does not need to fill in any additional information in blocks 8a, 8b, or 8c? | Confirm. Language for Section L changes. | Changed Section L. | |||||
| Attachment 15, Section L, 8.3.2, Page 21 | |||||||
| Attachment 15, Section L, 9.16.1, Page 33 | Section 8.3.2 and Section 9.16.1. Both sections ask for a description of the company’s estimating, accounting, pricing, and property management system, ACO review and CAS letter/approval. Does the government require offeror to place the same information in both Volumes IV and V or can it be consolidated into one of the volumes? | Language for Section L remains unchanged. | No change. | ||||
| Attachment 15, Section L, 8.2.7.2, Page 20 | Will each Subcontractor need to request a DoD Request Code for Subcontractor proprietary cost information? If not, how should the Subcontractor submit this information? | See answer 90. | No change. | ||||
| Attachment 11, Tab 2 – Labor Cat Position Descriptions | To improve user-friendliness and readability, and make it easier to navigate and format, will the Government allow offerors to provide labor category position descriptions using the Tab 2 of the Excel Labor Category Position Descriptions in Microsoft Word format? We are specifically asking only about the Tab 2 labor category descriptions, not the entire staffing plan. | Language for Section L remains unchanged. | No change. | ||||
| Attachment 15, Section L, 2.2.2, Page 7 | Will the Government allow the BOEs to be submitted on 11 x 17” ledger page size as the BOEs have level of effort tables that are best portrayed in a table on a larger format page? | Language for Section L remains unchanged. | No change. | ||||
| Attachment 15, Section L, 2.2.2, Page 7 | Will the Government allow 11x17” ledger page size for the organization charts in the Executive Summary? | Language for Section L remains unchanged. | No change. | ||||
| Attachment 15, Section L, 8.2.7 Subcontractor/Interdivisional Transfer Cost Proposal | |||||||
| Pages 20-21 | In Section L.8.2.7, the government is requiring all subs to provide data to the same level as the Prime. |
Would the government consider the following approach for non-cost subcontractor to minimize their burden and the number of sealed package submittals?
“The prime offeror is responsible for ensuring that all cost-type subcontractor include the same type of cost detail in the same format as required of the prime.
The prime offeror is responsible for ensuring that all non-cost subcontractor provide the following: Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP): A basis of estimate for the FFP amount is required, which includes the Level of Effort (LOE) and fully burdened labor rates associated with the FFP amount. Time-and-Materials (T&M): The labor rate, the LOE, and supporting documentation to substantiate the proposed labor rates are required for the T&M amount. Supporting documentation could include past invoices, GSA schedule price lists, or other applicable information.
All proposed Subcontractor labor categories shall be mapped to the appropriate Prime labor category in the supporting documentation, and a description of the labor categories shall be provided.
| If the proposed subcontractor does not possess an established acquisition vehicle (e.g., GSA Schedule), the subcontractor shall provide payroll/invoices or commercial catalogs for labor rate verification. | Language in Section L remains unchanged. | No change. | |||||
| Attachment 9, Section 2 – Applicable Performance Work Statement, Page 3 | The Paragraph states “This task order (TO) expands on or invokes the provisions of the following 3IS2 | ||||||
| PWS paragraphs and all included subparagraphs: 1.3.2, 1.4.2, 1.4.4, 1.4.6.1.1.10, 1.4.6.1.1.18, and 1.5.14. Paragraphs not specifically referenced remain applicable to the scope of work performed under this task order.” There are no paragraphs numbered 1.4.6.1.1.10 or 1.4.6.1.1.18 in the IDIQ PWS document (attachment 1). Will the Government please clarify which paragraphs apply? | Updated paragraph to reflect correct 3IS III PWS references | Changed Attachment 9. | |||||
| Attachment 15, Section L, 7.2, FACTOR 2 – Task Order 0001, TRANSITION IN. Pg 17 | Can the Government clarify if the pricing for Task order 0001 “Transition In” is applicable to the transitioning of the entire IDIQ and all future Task Orders or only specific to the transitioning of Task Order 0002? | Changed Section L, Para 7.2, 2nd sentence, to read, “Provide an approach for a seamless transition in, to ensure all personnel can begin and perform all PWS requirements on the IDIQ on day-one of contract performance.” | Changed Section L. | ||||
| Section L Phase I Vol I | 10 of 34 | Para 4.3.2 IT A&A Packages | Would the Government please confirm Phase I Vol I SF 1 requires demonstration of an approach for A&A packages since this requirement was removed from the final Section M? | Phase I Vol I does not include subfactors. This is gated approach where are requesting examples of your experience. This has nothing to do with what we are requesting under Phase II Subfactor 1 and what we intend to evaluate. | No change. | ||
| Section L | 8 of 34 | 4.1 | Section L states “Offeror needs to provide at least one example but no more than three examples to meet all aspects (sub-elements) of each element.” Will the Government please provide a definition of “all aspects” and “sub-elements”? | Sub-elements (or aspects) are all the items described in the element paragraphs. | No change. | ||
| 392 CTS PWS | 5 & 6 | 3.b.2.a and 3.b.3.a | Paragraph 3.b.2.a states, "The contractor shall design, develop, plan, execute, and assess USSF service-level exercises in accordance with USSF's Service Exercise Plan (SEP)." |
Paragraph 3.b.3.a states, "The contractor shall develop, plan, execute, and assess Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), Combatant Command (CCMD), and other service exercises, experiments and demonstrations as defined by the USSF Service Exercise Plan…
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 .