TACTICS Govt Responses to Questions on Draft RFP.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 106 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Second DRAFT RFP - Tactical Communications and Technical Investigative Comprehensive Solutions (TACTICS)
- Solicitation number
- 70RTAC27R00000001_DRAFT
About this file
This file is a government responses document to industry questions on the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Tactical Communications and Technical Investigative Comprehensive Solutions (TACTICS) Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The TACTICS IDIQ is a multi-agency vehicle designed to provide tactical communications and technical investigative equipment and services across two technical categories: TC1 (Equipment) and TC2 (Services). TC1 encompasses radios and accessories, satellite communications, mobile command and control vehicles, infrastructure, video and RF systems, and other tactical devices. TC2 covers technical operations systems, operations and sustainment services, engineering support, service-based systems, and general technical services. The contract employs a two-phase evaluation process, with Phase 1 evaluating demonstrated prior experience and Phase 2 evaluating technical capability and price using a "highest technically rated with fair and reasonable price" methodology. The government intends to issue a maximum of 30 master contracts distributed between TC1 and TC2, with awards allocated by technical subcategory under both small business reserve and large business tracks. Small business concerns are reserved certain award positions in designated subcategories, while large businesses compete in unrestricted lanes. Authorized agencies include DHS components and specific named federal agencies including the Department of War and U.S. Air Force, with procedures for authorizing additional agencies. Ordering periods extend five years total from an anticipated September 30, 2026 start date, with individual orders permitted to extend up to 48 months beyond contract expiration. Ceiling pricing for TC1 equipment applies for the lifecycle of the contract with no stated escalation mechanism, while TC2 labor categories are subject to a mandatory 2.5% annual escalation. Contractor responsibilities include continuous technology refresh, quality management certification (ISO 9001:2015 preferred), maintaining a vetting process for labor categories, and managing multiple task orders. The response document addresses 296 industry questions spanning topics including labor category classifications, prior experience qualification thresholds, pricing methodologies, subcategory alignment, OEM authorization requirements, small business compliance considerations including nonmanufacturer rule implications, and clarifications on evaluation criteria and proposal submission procedures.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
TACTICS
| # | Reference RFP section | Paragraph | Page # | Question | Government Response | ||
| 1 | B | C | B/C | B.4 and B.6; C.28 | 5–6; SOW 17 | Please clarify the process for adding a task-order-unique labor category when an order requires specialized skills not included among an awardee’s incorporated Attachment J.7 LCATs. Must the category be added to the master contract by modification, or may it be negotiated and used solely at the order level? | |
| 2 | B | C | RFP Section B | B.5 | 6 | Section B.5 defines ancillary services as services that directly support a product-based requirement under TC1, including site planning, installation, integration, product training, and maintenance. Will the Government confirm that a TC1 awardee may propose and perform ancillary services at the order level without holding a TC2 award, and that ancillary labor is priced at the order level rather than in Attachment J.6? | |
| 3 | B | C | Section B.4, Technical Category 2 Services | B.4 | 6 | Please confirm that TC2 IDIQ ceiling labor rates are required only for CONUS performance and that OCONUS labor, DBA insurance, hardship, danger pay, local taxes, and other international cost impacts will be established and evaluated solely at the task order level. | |
| 4 | B | C | SF 1449; RFP Sections B.3, G.9.2(e), and I.1 | SF 1449 continuation; B.3; G.9.2(e); FAR 52.216-31 | SF 1449 p. 2; RFP pp. 5, 22-23, 68 | SF 1449 states that the IDIQ permits FFP, T&M, Labor-Hour, and hybrid orders; Section B.3 states that equipment orders will be FFP and services orders will be FFP or T&M; and G.9.2 addresses T&M/Labor-Hour orders. Please confirm all permitted order types, including whether Labor-Hour and hybrid orders are authorized for TC2. | |
| 53 | E | C | TACTICS DRAFT RFP | E.1 | 11 | In a CTA do all members have to possess the same quality standard if their contribution does not require it? For example team member a provides services and team member B provides equipment? | |
| 54 | F | C | RFP Section F | F.4 | 14-15 | Due to the variety of equipment the Government desires and the limited number of awards anticipated, it is unlikely that any offeror will be an OEM for all technologies offered - and thus not in control of every delivery timeframe. Will the Government please quantify how 52.211-11* LIQUIDATED DAMAGES – SUPPLIES, SERVICES OR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT would be applied to late deliveries? And will the Government please consider adding a qualifier such as "when possible" or "when DPAS-rated" to the 30 day delivery timeframe requirement? | |
| 55 | F | C | Section F – Deliveries or Performance | F.1 Period of Performance | 14 | The RFP permits orders to be performed up to 48 months beyond IDIQ expiration. Will option-year pricing and the fixed 2.5% annual escalation be intended to cover order performance extending to approximately 2035? | |
| 56 | G | C | Draft RFP | Section G.2 | 16 of 98 | The draft RFP references an Ordering Guide. Will the Ordering Guide be provided to Contractors prior to proposal submission? | |
| 57 | G | C | Draft RFP | Section G.2.(c) | 16 of 98 | The draft RFP references authorization required for agencies not named in Section G.2 (b). Will that authorization be provided to Contractors? If so, please confirm if it will be provided with the RFP for the order. | |
| 58 | G | C | Draft RFP | Section G.4.1 | 17 of 98 | Please confirm if the term "administration" (as used in Section G.4.1) is for programmatic administration and not Contractual Administration. | |
| 59 | G | C | Draft RFP | Section G.4.1 | 17 of 98 | Section G.4.1 states, "The MAC CO is the sole and exclusive government official with actual authority to award the Master Contract." Later it states, "In the event that the designated MAC CO is unavailable to sign a contract action, DHS may authorize another warranted Contracting Officer to execute official contracting documents on the MAC CO’s behalf." Would the government revise to avoid the contraction. | |
| 60 | G | C | Draft RFP | Section G.8 | 20 of 98 | Section G.8 references, RFO FAR Subpart 28.3 for insurance requirements. FAR Subpart 28.3 calls out insurance requirement for CAS covered contracts. This contract will not be CAS covered due to the fact that it will be awarded under FAR Part 12. There appears to be a disconnect. | |
| 61 | G | C | Draft RFP: G.5 Direct Acquisition & Assisted Acquisition | 2 | 18 | States Assisted Acquisition by DHS are not contemplated under this MAC. DOI conducts assisted acquisitions; could DOI do so on this MAC? Or is Assisted Acquisition not permitted regardless of the agency? | |
| 62 | G | C | DRFP Section G | G.9.2(b) | 21 | The Government may issue order competitions either unrestricted or as small business set-asides. We would like to confirm that SB contract holders will be eligible to bid on all task orders including both those that are set-aside for Small Business as well as Unrestricted Bids, or will contracts holders only be able to bid on Task Orders in their original awarded pool? | |
| 63 | G | C | DRFP, Introduction - (4) Desciption & G.2 | 2, 16 | 4, 2 | Section (4) Description explains that TACTICS is intended as a best in class, multi agency IDIQ vehicle. Section G.2 lists specific agencies that are authorized to order directly under the Master Contract, and describes separate authorization for agencies not named in that list. Is the list of agencies in Section G.2 that are “authorized to order directly from the Master Contract” intended to be fixed for the life of the contract, or does DHS anticipate that additional agencies may be added to the list of authorized ordering agencies over time through policy or contract modification? | |
| 64 | G | C | G.15 and G.16, and Attachment J-2 Section C.7.1 | 27 | "FAR 52.219-9 (g) provides that “A commercial plan is the preferred type of subcontracting plan for contractors furnishing commercial products and services.” It further states that, “Once the Contractor’s commercial plan has been approved, the Government will not require another subcontracting plan from the same Contractor while the plan remains in effect, as long as the product or service being provided by the Contractor continues to meet the definition of a commercial product or commercial service.” As such, we request removal of the requirement to submit an Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and Individual Subcontracting Reports, when a commercial subcontracting plan is available pursuant to FAR 52.219-9. |
We believe a requirement to provide a contract-specific plan would be counter to the intent of the FAR and the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) when acquiring commercial items and services. Also, this requirement will place an unnecessary administrative burden on the vendor community who are currently accumulating data and submitting reports under a Federally approved corporate-wide commercial subcontracting plan."
| 65 | G | C | G.2 (Authorized Agencies) | G.2 | 15-16 | For orders placed by the U.S. Air Force under this DHS-administered Master Contract, will those orders be subject to DoD-specific security, ITAR, or CMMC requirements in addition to the HSAR/DHS 4300A requirements described in Section H, and if so, will those requirements be specified at the individual order level? |
| 66 | G | C | G.2, Authorized Agencies, and L.6.3 - Demonstrated Prior Experience | N/A | 16; 87-88 | The draft RFP states that the Department of War (DOW) or similar entities (e.g., U.S. Air Force, White House Communications Agency) will be authorized to order services from the TACTICS IDIQ. We are a small business that provides Technical Category 2-type engineering services for tactical communications in support of the U.S. Air Force's first responders/military police. The draft RFP, however, states that preference will be given for the Offeror's prior experience with a federal law enforcement agency. Will the Government allow firms such as ours to receive "preference" for providing the same type of TC-2 support as described in the draft RFP in support of U.S. Air Force (or other military) first responders or police? We recommend that the final RFP contain language allowing for such "preference" to avoid unfair competition. |
| 67 | G | C | RFP Sections G.15-G.16; SOW C.7.1 | Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan | RFP pp. 27-28; SOW pp. 7-8 | The contract states that an Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan is attached and incorporated, but no plan/template is listed in Section J and the proposal instructions do not state when a large-business offeror must submit a plan. SOW C.7.1 also references nonexistent Section L.7.1.3. Please provide the required plan/template and submission instructions and correct the cross-reference. |
| 68 | G | C | Section G — Contracting & Administration Authority (Authorized Agencies); DHS TACTICS Ordering Guide (pending) | G — Authorized Agencies | RFP p.16 | Once TACTICS Master Contracts are awarded, will DHS Components and the named authorized agencies retain discretion to procure the in-scope tactical communications and technical investigative requirements through other contract vehicles (e.g., NASA SEWP, GSA MAS), or will TACTICS be the mandatory or preferred source under the DHS TACTICS Ordering Guide and JWPMO approval process? If discretion is retained, please describe any preference hierarchy. |
| 69 | G | C | TACTICS DRAFT RFP | G.8 | 20 | Under RFO FAR Subpart 28.3 FAR Class Deviation 25-31 there is no mandate that subcontractors are required to maintain the same levels of insurance. Does the government intend to pose those same limits to offeror's subcontractors? |
| 70 | G | C | TACTICS DRAFT RFP | G.15 | 27 | Will the Government require certification of Small Business status at time of RFQ release? |
| 71 | G | C | TACTICS DRAFT RFP | G.15 | 27 | Will Small Business Recertification be required after award? |
| 72 | G | C | TACTICS DRAFT RFP | G.19 | 33 | Executive Order 13963 was revoked by President Trump in 2018. Should this be included in the RFQ? |
| 73 | G | C | TACTICS+DRAFT+RFP |
H.26 Applicability of Service Contract Labor Standards Clauses
| 1 | 67 | Please confirm the final RFP will include the specific wage determination number, date, and applicable revisions. | ||||
| 74 | General | C | General | Could the Government please provide an estimated procurement schedule to include the anticipated dates for the final RFP release, the deadline for proposal submissions, and the projected award date? | ||
| 75 | General | C | General Question | Given the Government's objective of establishing an enduring Best-in-Class, multi-agency contract vehicle that will support a broad range of tactical communications and technical investigative requirements, would the Government consider hosting an Industry Day following the Draft RFP comment period? Such a forum would provide an opportunity to discuss common solicitation questions, clarify the Government's acquisition objectives and evaluation methodology, and help ensure the resulting contract vehicle effectively supports the Government's long-term mission needs while facilitating a smooth and efficient source selection. | ||
| 78 | General | C | Period of Performance / Ordering Period | What is the anticipated base ordering period and total IDIQ term (including options), and is there an anticipated ceiling value DHS can share for planning purposes? | ||
| 79 | General | C | TACTICS DRAFT RFP.pdf | Page 1 | Can DHS clarify how the 'Small Business Set-Aside – Partial' designation will be structured — e.g., a reserved pool of awards for small businesses versus a full-and-open pool, and whether a small business prime may propose a large-business FedRAMP infrastructure subcontractor without affecting its small business status for award purposes? | |
| 82 | H | C | RFP Section H.25, Small Business Participation: | 66 | The draft RFP completes Paragraph (a) as follows, "(a) Reserve for Small Business. This contract _X__is ___ is not awarded as part of the reserve for small business. [Contracting Officer checks, as applicable]" We understand large businesses are eligible for awards under TC1 and TC2, and any resultant award to a large business will revise the entry in paragraph (a). | |
| 85 | J.3 | C | Attachment J.3 | The Evaluation Checklist identifies a total obligated value greater than $500K as a Government Preference that "may be identified as a strength." Can the Government clarify whether all prior experience examples exceeding the threshold are evaluated equally, or whether greater contract value may result in additional evaluative credit? | ||
| 86 | J.3 | C | Attachment J.3 | Experience Tabs, Item 10 | n/a | Item 10 of the Factor 1 Workbook requests the "Total Obligated Dollar Value of the Requirement that Directly Supports the Delivery of Applicable Subcategory Products," and Section L.6.3 requires that the majority (greater than 50 percent) of the referenced example align to the selected subcategory. Will the Government confirm whether the greater-than-50-percent test is measured against the total obligated value of the contract or order cited in Item 9, and whether an Offeror may cite a single order under a multiple-award IDIQ rather than the full IDIQ value? |
| 87 | J.3 | C | Attachment+J.3 | Tabs(s): Experience 1-3 | #1-3 | Would the Government confirm that the term "vendor" is synonymous with "Offeror" or "subcontractor" for this worksheet? |
| 88 | J.3 | C | Attch J.3 Factor 1 | Attch. J.3; Item 5 | Experience Worksheets | Attachment J.3, Item 5 requires a selection from a subcategory drop-down menu, while the options do not explicitly map to the functional areas defined in the Statement of Work (Radio, TechOps Systems, Operations and Sustainment (O&S) Services, Engineering, Service Based Systems, General). Att J.3 numbers them, while the SOW has a bulleted list. Will the Government consider aligning and numbering the references in both Attachment J.3 and the SOW to ensure consistency across documents? |
| 89 | J.3 | C | Attch J.3 Factor 1 | Attch. J.3; Item 6 | Experience Worksheets | We respectfully recommend that the experience evaluation be focused on the supported end-user agency—such as a Federal Law Enforcement entity—rather than limiting it strictly to the procuring contracting agency. |
Rationale: Because agencies such as GSA often execute contracts for operational law enforcement components, evaluating experience based on the supported end-user agency best fulfills mission objectives. This approach allows Offerors to present past performance with identical operational demands and complexities, maximizing value to the Government.
| 90 | J.3 | C | J.3 - Factor 1 Workbook | general | general | Does past performance work for TC2 need to be under the listed NAICS code of the TACTICS RFP, 541330, or will any NAICS code be considered as long as the refernce supports the subcategory? |
| 98 | L | C | Attachment Corrections | L.6.3; J.3; J.4 (VASTC tab) | Industry has identified two areas requiring clarification or correction: |
1. Section L states that the applicable threshold is “greater than 50%,” while Attachment J.3 states “51%.” Please confirm that the requirement in Section L—greater than 50%—takes precedence.
2. On the Attachment J.4 VASTC tab, the Part Number and Specification fields are unlocked only when “Separately Priced Item” is selected. However, “Separately Priced Item” is not available as an option in the tab’s dropdown menu. Please correct this issue in the final RFP.
| 100 | L | C | B/L | B.8; L.8.2.2.4; Attachment J.7 | 7, 92 | Please identify the wage determination and revision DHS used as the San Francisco pricing baseline and identify which Attachment J.7 LCATs DHS presently considers subject to Service Contract Labor Standards. |
| 101 | L | C | Draft RFP | Section L.4 | 83 of 98 | Will the Government please advise what their anticipated timeline is between Phase 1 down-select notification and Phase 2 submission? |
| 102 | L | C | Draft RFP | Section L.5 | 84 of 98 | Would the Government clarify if front matter (i.e., acronym list, tables of contents) are exempt from page limits? |
| 103 | L | C | Draft RFP | Section L.5 | 84 of 98 | Would the Government clarify if each volume may have its own table of contents, table of figures, and acronym list? |
| 104 | L | C | Draft RFP | Section L.5.3 | 85 of 98 | Would the Government specify which typefaces are acceptable (e.g., Times New Roman, Arial)? |
| 105 | L | C | Draft RFP | Section L.8.2.2.2 | 92 of 98 | Can commercial vendor pricing be submitted in lieu of Offeror GSA Schedule pricing or published catalog pricing? If so, what supporting documentation is required? |
| 106 | L | C | Draft RFP | Section L.8.2.2.3 | 92 of 98 | Would the Government consider increasing or removing the three-page limit for the Price Narrative, given that proposed solutions may include multiple items with separately priced components, each requiring detailed pricing support, calculations, and rationale? |
| 107 | L | C | Draft RFP | L.8.1.2.5-7 and M.2.5, The following evaluation applies to TC2, Services | Pgs 90-91, 96 | Instructions for TC2 Services are to complete Attachment J.5--acknowledging LCATS using a drop-down, providing a QMS Certification, and providing a 1 page Vetting Process Narrative. Would the government clarify where and what offerors are to submit their "proposed solutions for evaluation against the J.5" as stated in M.2.5? |
| 108 | L | C | DRFP L.1.2 | 1 & 2 | 81 | Section L.1.2 states that Technical Subcategories are used only for the initial IDIQ evaluation and that awardees may compete for all task orders within their awarded Technical Category regardless of the Technical Subcategory proposed. Section C.1.1 further states that the Government considers the quality, relevance, and specialization of the master IDIQ pool to be critical because competition will primarily occur at the task order level. Can the Government clarify the acquisition rationale for the Technical Subcategory-specific award allocation and how this approach supports the stated objective of establishing a diversified, high-quality IDIQ pool? |
| 109 | L | C | DRFP L.1.2 | Table 1 | 82 | The draft solicitation indicates zero planned Large Business awards for TC1 Subcategory 7 (Other Tactical Devices and Capabilities), while also stating that Technical Subcategories are used only for the initial IDIQ evaluation and that awardees may compete for all task orders within their awarded Technical Category regardless of the subcategory proposed. Can the Government clarify the rationale for not providing a Large Business award opportunity within Subcategory 7, given that this construct effectively precludes Large Businesses from qualifying for the IDIQ based on emerging capabilities such as counter-UAS while still allowing those same contractors to compete for Subcategory 7 task orders after award? |
| 110 | L | C | DRFP L.4 | 2 | 83 | Section L.4 describes a two phase submission process with advisory down select, but the specific dates for Phase 1 and Phase 2 due dates are marked “TBD” and no indicative timeline is provided for the duration of Phase 1 evaluations or the gap between Phase 1 notifications and Phase 2 due dates. To support internal planning, can the Government provide an estimated schedule for the TACTICS competition, including: (a) the anticipated duration of Phase 1 evaluations, (b) the expected timeframe for issuing Phase 1 advisory notifications relative to the Phase 1 due date, and (c) the anticipated amount of time Offerors will have between Phase 1 advisory notifications and the Phase 2 proposal due date? |
| 111 | L | C | DRFP L.5.2, L.8.2 | 85, 91 | The L.5.2 TC2 Proposal Volumes table indicates that a Cover Sheet is required for both Volume 2 and Volume 3. However, paragraph L.8.2 that introduces required content for Volume 3 does not mention that a Cover Sheet is required. Can the Government please clarify if a Cover Sheet is required for Volume 3? | |
| 112 | L | C | DRFP L.6.1 | Item (11) | 86 | Section L.6.1 requires Offerors to state that the expiration date of the proposal is at least 180 days from the proposal submission date. Since the TACTICS acquisition uses a two phase submission process, it is unclear whether the 180 day validity requirement is tied to the Phase 1 submission date, the Phase 2 submission date, or another reference point. For purposes of the 180 day proposal acceptance period referenced in Section L.6.1, should Offerors calculate and state the 180 day validity period from the Phase 1 proposal submission date, from the Phase 2 proposal submission date, or from another specific date that the Government intends to designate? |
| 113 | L | C | DRFP L.6.1 | 86 | The Cover Sheet instructions state that, if subcontractors are proposed, each subcontractor shall provide the information identified in items (3), (4), (5), (6), and (9), and that the Offeror shall provide subcontractors with its proposal submission. Can the Government clarify: (1) whether subcontractor information is required as part of the proposal submission; (2) where and how this information should be provided; and (3) whether this information will be evaluated as part of the proposal? | |
| 114 | L | C | DRFP L.6.1 | 86 | If subcontractor information is required within the Cover Sheet, can the Government clarify whether the two-page limit applies collectively to the Offeror and all proposed subcontractors, or whether additional pages may be used to accommodate the required information? | |
| 115 | L | C | DRFP L.6.3 | 87 | Section L.6.3 requires that each prior experience example be “relevant,” defined in part as having the majority (>50%) of its total obligated amount aligned to the selected subcategory’s scope. Multiple examples are submitted per Technical Category/ Subcategory. Please confirm that the requirement for the majority (>50%) of the total obligated amount to align to the scope of the selected Technical Subcategory is applied separately to each individual prior experience example, rather than in aggregate across all examples submitted for that subcategory. | |
| 116 | L | C | DRFP L.6.3, M.2.3 | 5 | 88, 95 | Section L.6.3 explains that prior experience examples must meet certain minimum qualification criteria and notes separate “Government’s Preferences” (e.g., higher dollar value, federal law enforcement experience, particular award types). It states that satisfying these preferences may positively affect an Offeror’s evaluation, while not satisfying them will not negatively affect the evaluation. Attachment J.3 (Factor 1 Workbook) indicates that preferences may be identified as strengths. Factor 1 is evaluated using confidence ratings as described in Section M.2.3 and informs both advisory down select decisions and final rankings. Please describe how Government Preferences under Factor 1 will be used in determining confidence ratings and in distinguishing among Offerors with similar ratings (for example, whether preferences will be treated as strengths, used only for tie breaks, or otherwise weighted in the overall ranking methodology). |
| 117 | L | C | DRFP Section L.6.2, M.2.3 | 86, 95 | Incumbent TACCOM II contracts authorized subsidiary organizations to utilize the experience and other information regarding the parent organization as sufficient evidence as Prime contractor experience through a Meaningful Relationship Comittment Letter. This draft solicitation does not include how meaningful relationships between a parent organization and its subsidiaries are considered for evaluation. How does a subsidiary company utilize corporate experience from the parent organization for evaluation? | |
| 118 | L | C | DRFP Section L.6.2, M.2.3 | DRFP Section L.6.2, M.2.3 | The draft RFP requires offerors to submit under a single subcategory. Large businesses provide commercially available products spanning multiple subcategories related to TACTICS. Would DHS consider allowing offerors to identify a primary subcategory while still listing their broader TC1 capabilities in other subcategories? This offers insight into portfolio breadth and provides higher confidence for the Government. |
| 119 | L | C | DRFP Section L.8.1.2.1, M.2.5 | 89, 96 | Section L.8.1.2.1 specifies minimum numbers of solutions that must be proposed in Attachment J.4 for each TC1 subcategory. Section M.2.5 states that TC1 solutions that exceed Government specifications may positively affect the Factor 2 evaluation. It does not explicitly address whether proposing more than the minimum number of compliant solutions per subcategory may also be viewed favorably. For TC1, does the phrase “solutions that exceed the Government’s specifications may positively affect the Offeror’s evaluation” in Section M.2.5 refer only to individual product capabilities that exceed the stated minimum requirements, or will proposing more than the minimum number of compliant solutions identified in Section L.8.1.2.1 also be considered positively in the Factor 2 confidence rating? | ||
| 120 | L | C | DRFP Section L.8.2.2.1 | 91 | Section L.8.2.2.1 states TACTICS ceiling prices apply "for the lifecycle of the contract," and Attachment J.7 (TC2) applies a 2.5% annual escalation, but no escalation mechanism is stated for TC1 ceiling prices. Please confirm whether TC1 ceiling prices will be subject to an economic price adjustment or periodic refresh mechanism across the five ordering periods, and if not, whether Offerors should price anticipated escalation into proposed ceilings. | ||
| 121 | L | C | DRFP Section L.8.2.2.1 | 91 | "How does the government define ""identical"" when it comes to ceiling prices for the equipment? Are different configurations of the same product ""identical""? (For example: Is a laptop with 16GB of RAM identical to a laptop with 32GB of RAM?) | ||
| 122 | L | C | DRFP Sections L / M | L.1.2 Award Maximums | |||
| M.1 Basis for Award | 82 | Section L.1.2 identifies the Small Business (SB) reserve and Large Business (LB) awards as maximums within each Technical Category (TC) sub-category, and Section M.1 states offers will be ranked and awarded within each sub-category. If the Government does not receive a sufficient number of acceptable offers to fill the identified maximums in a given sub-category, does the Government intend to reallocate the unfilled award(s) to another sub-category within the same TC, potentially making additional awards there? For example, if no acceptable offers are received under TC2 SC5 (Service Based Systems), would the Government reallocate that sub-category's 1 SB reserve award to a different TC2 sub-category (e.g., SC2 – TechOps) to award an additional qualified small business? If so, please describe the methodology and order of precedence the Government will use to redistribute unfilled SB reserve and LB awards across sub-categories. | |||||
| 123 | L | C | Factor 1 - Integrated Contracts | L.6.3; J.3; SOW 1.2 | Many TacCom and TechOps programs are delivered as integrated solutions spanning multiple subcategories. Where the work aligned to the selected subcategory is a distinct part of a larger contract, may the offeror present that portion as its experience example, with the majority test applied to that portion and the dollar split as stated by the offeror in J.3? | ||
| 124 | L | C | Factor 1 - One Program, Multiple Orders | L.6.3; J.3 | May a continuous program performed through multiple task orders under one vehicle be presented as a single experience example, using the combined obligated value and citing the base contract number? | ||
| 125 | L | C | Factor 1 - Prior Legal Name | L.6.3; J.3 | Where an offeror has changed its legal name but remains the same legal entity with the same UEI and CAGE code, will experience performed under the prior name count as the offeror's own experience? | ||
| 126 | L | C | Factor 1 - Qualifying Experience | L.6.3; SOW C.1.1 | Will relevant DoD and Intelligence Community experience qualify under Factor 1, to include OCONUS work performed under U.S. Government funded contracts such as FMS and security cooperation efforts? Will investigative, protective, and law enforcement support work performed for any federal agency be considered when assessing federal law enforcement experience? | ||
| 127 | L | C | Factor 1 Narrative Limitation | L.6.3; Attachment J.3 | Attachment J.3 limits offerors to a 150-word narrative to demonstrate alignment between a prior experience effort and the selected subcategory. Given that Phase 1 consists solely of the Government's evaluation of Demonstrated Prior Experience, please identify all solicitation provisions that permit offerors to provide information regarding technical complexity, operational relevance, mission outcomes, performance scope, and other distinguishing characteristics beyond the information contained within Attachment J.3. | ||
| 128 | L | C | Factor 1 Recency Requirement | L.6.3; Attachment J.3 | The Company respectfully requests that the Government permit offerors to submit Factor 1 experience examples demonstrating work performed within the past five (5) years, rather than a shorter recency period. Tactical communications, technical operations, and law enforcement programs often have long performance lifecycles, with many contracts extending beyond three years through option periods, bridge contracts, or follow-on efforts. A five-year recency period would more accurately reflect relevant and proven experience, allowing the Government to evaluate sustained successful performance on comparable, complex programs. Expanding the recency window will also increase competition by enabling a broader pool of qualified offerors to demonstrate directly relevant experience without diminishing the Government's ability to assess current capabilities. | ||
| 129 | L | C | Factor 1 Relevance Standard for Integrated Programs | L.6.3; SOW §1.2 | Section L.6.3 requires that more than 50% of the obligated value of a prior experience example align to the selected subcategory. Many TacCom and TechOps efforts are delivered as integrated solutions spanning multiple TACTICS subcategories. Please explain the basis for using a majority-dollar-value threshold as the measure of relevance and how offerors should present highly relevant integrated efforts where no single capability area exceeds that threshold. | ||
| 130 | L | C | Integrated Program Evaluation | L.6.3; SOW §1.2 | Several TACTICS subcategories encompass capabilities that are commonly delivered as integrated operational solutions. As a result, a single prior experience effort may reasonably align with multiple subcategories, and different evaluators could classify the same effort differently. |
Please clarify how the Government will evaluate prior experience examples that reasonably span multiple TACTICS subcategories. Specifically, will offerors receive credit when the demonstrated capabilities substantively satisfy the requirements of a subcategory, regardless of how the effort is categorized, to ensure consistent and equitable evaluations?
| 131 | L | C | L | L.1.2 and L.6.3 | 81–82, 86–87 | Please confirm that an entity may submit an offer as a prime contractor for a Technical Category while also participating as a proposed subcontractor or teaming partner in one or more other offerors’ proposals for the same Technical Category, provided the entity is not participating through a joint venture. | |
| 132 | L | C | L | L.6.1 and L.6.3; Attachment J.3 | 85–87 | If a large-business teaming partner or proposed subcontractor contributes a prior-experience example, must that entity be identified in the Phase 1 cover sheet and remain part of the proposed team through award for its experience to be evaluated? | |
| 133 | L | C | L | L.6.1 and L.6.3; Attachment J.3, Experience Tabs Items 2–3 | 85–87 | Please define “teaming partner” and “subcontractor” as used in Attachment J.3. If an entity is proposed to perform as a TACTICS subcontractor but is operating under a pre-award teaming agreement, should it be identified in the workbook as a teaming partner or as a subcontractor? | |
| 134 | L | C | L | L.6.3; Attachment J.3 | 86–87 | If the same company participates as a proposed subcontractor or teaming partner on multiple proposal teams, may its prior-experience example be included in more than one Offeror’s Factor 1 submission? | |
| 135 | L | C | L | L.6.3; Attachment J.3, Evaluation Checklist Items 4–5 | 86–87 | Section L.6.3 states that at least one experience example must be for work performed by the Offeror and at least one must be for work performed as the prime. Attachment J.3 appears to require an example in which the Offeror itself performed as prime. Please confirm whether at least one example must demonstrate that the proposing legal entity both performed the work and served as the prime contractor. | |
| 136 | L | C | L | L.6.3; Attachment J.3 | 86–87 | Please confirm that an Offeror proposing as a small-business prime under the small-business reserve may submit, as one of its two or three prior-experience examples, experience performed by a proposed large-business subcontractor or teaming partner. Please also confirm whether such an example will receive the same consideration as an example from a small-business subcontractor, subject to the separate Offeror-specific and prime-performance requirements. | |
| 137 | L | C | L | L.6.3; Attachment J.3, Experience Tabs Item 10 | 86–87 | Section L.6.3 requires more than 50 percent alignment, while Attachment J.3 references 51 percent. Please confirm whether any percentage greater than 50.00 percent qualifies or whether the minimum qualifying percentage is 51.00 percent. | |
| 138 | L | C | L | L.6.3; Attachment J.3, Experience Tabs Item 15 | 86–87 | Please clarify how recency will be determined for an ongoing contract or order. | |
| 139 | L | C | L | L.8.2.2.4; Attachment J.7 | 92 | Please confirm that the mandatory 2.5 percent annual escalation applies equally to every proposed TC2 LCAT and that Offerors may not propose category-specific or market-based escalation factors. | |
| 140 | L | C | L..8.1.2.7 | 91 | L.8.1.2.7 Vetting Process Narrative states that offerors should describe their "internal vetting process for ensuring that proposed LCATs meet or exceed the minimum qualifications and specifications required for TACTICS." Can the Government clarify this requirement and amend the solicitation language to state that offerors should describe their "internal vetting process for ensuring that proposed personnel meet or exceed the minimum LCAT qualifications and specifications required for TACTICS?" | ||
| 141 | L | C | L.1.2 | L.1.2 | 81 | Several TC1 subcategories (VASTC, CPEDP of Tactical Info, and Infrastructure) appear to overlap for products that provide real-time video/RF transport across multiple waveforms and backhaul paths. Will the final RFP provide subcategory-level scope definitions (e.g., in SOW Section 1.2) to help Offerors determine the single best-fit subcategory for this type of converged solution? | |
| 142 | L | C | L.1.2 - Award Maximums | N/A | 81 | Please clarify if small businesses, post-award, can bid for task orders within their awarded Technical Category (i.e., a small business can bid for a task order offered to large businesses). We recommend that the final RFP explicitly say that small businesses can bid for any task order offered in their awarded Technical Category. | |
| 143 | L | C | L.1.2 (Award Maximums) | L.1.2 | 81 | For Offerors proposing under both TC1 and TC2, does the requirement to select "only one subcategory" apply independently to each Technical Category, such that an Offeror could select one TC1 equipment subcategory and one functionally related TC2 services subcategory (e.g., equipment paired with the services required to install, integrate, and maintain it)? | Yes. |
| 144 | L | C | L.1.2 Award Maximums | L.1.2 | 81 | L.1.2 Award Maximums: To maximize competition and allow the Government access to the full depth of industry capabilities, we respectfully suggest modifying Section L.1.2 to allow Offerors to propose on up to three (3) subcategories within a Technical Category, while maintaining the restriction that an Offeror may only receive an award in one subcategory per Technical Category. | |
| 145 | L | C | L.1.2 Award Maximums | L.1.2 | 81 | To foster maximum market engagement and encourage robust competition, we respectfully recommend that the Government revise the award structure from one (1) large business per subcategory to a total pool of six (6) large business awards at the Technical category, without regard to the proposed subcategories. |
Rationale: Expanding award flexibility across subcategories maximizes on the Government's best value by enabling the selection of premier, best-in-class industry solutions at every level
| 146 | L | C | L.1.2, G.18.2 | 81, 32 | Section L.1.2 permits a maximum of two Master Contracts per Offeror (one per Technical Category), while Section G.18.2 states a Contractor, together with its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, and joint ventures, "is permitted to hold only one Master Contract." Please confirm whether the limitation in G.18.2 applies per Technical Category, and confirm whether corporate affiliates may submit separate proposals in different Technical Categories. | ||
| 147 | L | C | L.5.2 TC2 Proposal Volumes | Phase 2 | 85 | Federal customers have requirements for TC 2 services in multiple locations in the U.S. and overseas, and a small business' ability to execute TC 2 requirements simultaneously at multiple locations nationwide and/or overseas is evidence of their superior readiness to meet TACTICS IDIQ requirements. To assist in selecting the most qualified small businesses for TC-2 Services, we recommend that the Government include in the final RFP the following new factor in Phase 2 under Factor 2 (Technical capability): 2.4 - Executing Programs at Multiple Locations. Offerors should be required to submit a 1-2 page narrative demonstrating their experience in executing federal programs at multiple locations simultaneously. | |
| 148 | L | C | L.6.3 | 87 | Section L.6.3 states the completion of the prior experience contract/order "shall be later than XX/XX/2023 (three years from the RFP issuance date)." Please confirm the date that will populate this field in the final RFP, and confirm whether contracts/orders that are ongoing (base or option periods not yet complete) as of proposal submission satisfy the recency requirement. | ||
| 149 | L | C | L.6.3 - Demonstrated Prior Experience | N/A | 87-88 | The draft RFP lists three preferences regarding the Offeror’s prior experiences, including Award Type ("A single order awarded under a Multiple Award Schedule, a multiple-award IDIQ contract, or a multiple-award BPA is preferred"). However, multiple federal law enforcement agencies (work for which is one of the other preferences), such as the DEA, ATF, and the DOJ's Justice Managment Division, have chosen to award task orders and contracts as single contracts or single award IDIQs/BPAs for the exact same type of services for Technical Category (TC) 2 in the Draft RFP's Statement of Work (SOW). Given that law enforcement agnecies - not Offerors - choose the contract types, we recommend that the Government delete its preference for work awarded as "a single order awarded under a Multiple Award Schedule, a multiple-award IDIQ contract, or a multiple-award BPA" so as not to unfairly deny a "preference" or "stength" for firms with successful experience in performing TC 2 work for federal law enforcement clients. | |
| 150 | L | C | L.6.3 - Demonstrated Prior Experience | N/A | 86-88 | Procurement rules and numerous GAO decisions have made clear that procuring agencies may evaluate and credit an offeror with the past performance and corporate experience of affiliate companies where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the affiliate (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will be meaningfully contributed to contract performance. See GM–Bulltrack, B-414591.6 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 30, 2018) (holding that an agency may properly attribute the experience or past performance of an affiliated company), and Decision File B-418486; B-418486.2; B-418486.3 (Inquiries, Inc., May 27, 2020), the GAO states, “An agency properly may attribute the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated company to an offeror where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate will affect the performance of the offeror…The relevant consideration is whether the resources of the parent or 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.” Given this - and given that affiliate past experience was allowed for the TACCOM II IDIQ (the predecessor to TACTICS) - we recommend that the Government allow a prime offeror to use the relevant demonstrated prior experience of an affiliate company for Factor 1 (Demonstated Prior Experience), and this experience will be attributed to the prime offeror for evaluation, if the prime offeror demonstrates in its Prior Experience write-up how the resources of the affiliate will be meaningfully involved in contract performance. | |
| 151 | L | C | L.6.3 - Demonstrated Prior Experience | N/A | 88 | The draft RFP states, "The prior experience examples identified can be for work performed by the Offeror (prime), its teaming partners, or subcontractors," and that," the prior experience example can be where the Offeror performed as the prime contractor or a subcontractor." We recommend that that the final RFP include language stating that - similar to the prime Offeror - a teaming partner or subcontractor can submit a prior experience example for work performed as a subcontractor. | |
| 152 | L | C | L.6.3 - Demonstrated Prior Experience | N/A | 88 | The draft RFP states, "Any element in the Offeror’s prior experience example that satisfies the preferences listed above may positively affect the Offeror’s evaluation under this factor." However, in the same paragraph, the draft RFP states, "If the Offeror’s prior experience example meets the qualifications outlined in the table “Qualified Prior Experience Example Requirements” above but does not satisfy the government’s preferences described in the table “Government’s Preferences,” it will not negatively affect the Offeror’s evaluation under this factor." The two sentences appear to be in conflict: If a prior experience example does not satisfy the Government's preferences and subsequently is not evaluated more favorably, then this would appear to result in a negative outcome, Similarly, if a prior experience example satisfies the Government's preferences, how will this positively affect the evaluation (e.g., will an offeror more likely be recommended for Phase 2 and/or selected as an Awardee)? We recommend that the Government clarify language in this paragraph, while also clarifying precisely how a prior experience example that satisfies the preferences listed above may positively benefit an offeror. | |
| 153 | L | C | L.6.3 / M.2.3 (Factor 1) | L.6.3 | 86-87, 95 | For the Factor 1 prior-experience total obligated amount threshold ($350K minimum, $500K preferred), may an Offeror aggregate multiple task/delivery orders issued under a single underlying multi-award IDIQ, BPA, or Schedule contract with the same government customer to meet the threshold, or must each individual order independently meet the threshold? | Each individual order must meet the threshold. |
| 154 | L | C | L.6.3 Factor 1: Demonstrated Prior Experience | L.6.3 | 87 | Section L.6.3 lists a preference for "Federal Law Enforcement Agency Experience." Because Tactical Communications (TacCom) and Technical Investigative (TechOps) capabilities are equally critical to military operations, will the Government please consider expanding this preference to include Department of War (DoW) tactical operations of similar size, scope, and complexity? | |
| 155 | L | C | L.6.3 Factor 1: Demonstrated Prior Experience | L.6.3 | 87 | Section L.6.3 currently restricts prior experience examples to those completed within three years of the RFP issuance date. To increase competition and allow offerors to submit their most robust and relevant tactical communications experience and to align with the past performance requirements on the predcessor TACCOM II RFP, will the Government please consider expanding the recency timeframe from three (3) years to five (5) years? | |
| 156 | L | C | L.6.3 Factor 1: Demonstrated Prior Experience | L.6.3 | 86 | Section L.6.3 requires a Joint Venture (JV) to submit at least one past performance example performed by the JV entity itself, while general rules limit contractors to holding only one Master Contract. |
Recommendation: Newly formed Joint Ventures (including SBA Mentor-Protégé JVs) rarely have prior performance experience as a joint entity that meets recency and dollar thresholds. In accordance with SBA regulations, we recommend the Government revise Section L.6.3 to permit JVs to rely solely on the prior experience of their individual partner companies.
Furthermore, regarding the "one Master Contract" restriction, we respectfully request that the Government clarify that an individual firm may compete for and hold an award as a standalone Prime in one TC2 subcategory while simultaneously participating in a JV that proposes in a second TC2 subcategory. Allowing a Prime and a JV to bid on and receive awards in two distinct subcategories within TC2 provides the Government with optimal flexibility, fosters small business growth, and prevents qualified offerors from having to choose between bidding independently or leveraging a Mentor-Protégé partnership.
| 157 | L | C | L.8.1.2 Factor 2: Technical Capability | Paragraph 1 | Page 25 / Page 25 | The RFP states for both TC1 and TC2 that the ISO 9001:2015 certification "may be from the Prime contractor, any member of a JV, and subcontractors." Will the Government confirm that if any single member of a proposing Joint Venture holds a valid ISO 9001:2015 certification, the JV offeror will receive the full favorable evaluation credit under Factor 2? |
| 158 | L | C | L.8.1.2.1 | L.8.1.2.1 | 89 | The Radio/Accessories subcategory references a list of 14 solutions in Attachment J.4, requiring a minimum of 4 proposed solutions (2 from Items 1-8 in Column A). Given the volume of technical specification review this requires, will the Government commit to releasing Attachment J.4 with the final RFP at least 30 days prior to the Phase 2 proposal due date? |
| 159 | L | C | L.8.1.2.3 | 90 | Please confirm whether the authorization letter must be executed by the Original Equipment Manufacturer directly, or whether a letter from the manufacturer's authorized national distributor confirming the Offeror's authorization to sell is acceptable. Additionally, please confirm the intended meaning of "dated (no earlier than 60 days from the RFP issuance date)" — i.e., that letters must be dated within the 60 calendar days preceding RFP issuance or later. | |
| 160 | L | C | L.8.1.2.5 | 90 | Section L.8.1.2.5 requires Offerors to propose LCATs that “meet or exceed” the Government’s labor category descriptions in Attachment J.5. Section M.2.5 states that when an Offeror proposes 45 or more LCATs that meet or exceed the requirements, this may positively affect the Factor 2 evaluation. Attachment J.5, however, primarily captures an indication that the LCAT meets or exceeds the Government’s minimum qualifications rather than detailed, resume level information. Please clarify how the Government will determine that a proposed LCAT “exceeds” the Government’s minimum requirements for purposes of assigning strengths or higher confidence under Factor 2, given that Attachment J.5 largely captures a meet/exceed indication rather than detailed qualitative data about the LCAT qualifications. | |
| 161 | L | C | L.8.1.2.5 | 90 | Section L.8.1.2.5 states that proposing 45 or more qualifying labor categories may positively affect the Offeror's evaluation. Can the Government clarify whether additional evaluation credit is available for proposing more than 45 qualifying labor categories, or whether all proposals containing 45 or more qualifying labor categories will be evaluated equivalently under this factor? | |
| 162 | L | C | L.8.1.2.5 Offerors must propose a minimum of 38 LCATs to be considered for award, but proposing 45+ LCATs "may positively affect the Offeror’s evaluation." | Paragraph 1 | 90 | Could the Government clarify how proposing more than the required 38 LCATs provides a technical advantage, given that this is a 'Highest Technically Rated' evaluation? Is there a specific point-scoring system or a qualitative 'Confidence' boost associated with the higher number of LCATs?" |
| 163 | L | C | L.8.1.2.7 | 91 | Section L.8.1.2.7 limits the Vetting Process Narrative to 1 page, while the evaluation criteria state that the Government will assess the extent to which the narrative demonstrates a clear, thorough, and credible approach. Given the breadth of information requested, would the Government consider increasing the page limit to 3 pages to allow Offerors sufficient space to fully describe their vetting processes and quality assurance measures? | |
| 164 | L | C | L.8.1.2.7 The Vetting Process Narrative for TC2 is limited to 1 page | Paragraph 1 | 91 | The 1-page limit for the Vetting Process Narrative is quite restrictive given the requirement to describe the verification of qualifications, certifications, and quality assurance measures for 38+ labor categories. Would the Government consider increasing this limit to 3 pages? |
| 165 | L | C | L.8.2.2.1 | 91 | The draft RFP states that the ceiling price will apply to “the solution” as offered in the TC1 Pricing Template. To avoid unintentionally tying ceiling pricing to an entire solution rather than to a specific configured product, can DHS clarify that ceiling prices will be applied only to the exact configurations proposed, not universally to all products that fall within the solution category? | |
| 166 | L | C | L.8.2.2.2 | 92 | For proposed products not carried on the Offeror's GSA Schedule, please confirm whether the OEM's or an authorized distributor's published commercial price list or GSA Schedule is an acceptable pricing basis, and define the minimum attributes of an acceptable "published" commercial catalog for this purpose. | |
| 167 | L | C | Large Business Award Maximums | L.1.2; M.1 | Under the highest technically rated with fair and reasonable price methodology, will the Government award to every offeror that is highly rated with fair and reasonable pricing in a subcategory, or raise the large business maximums to at least three? | |
| 168 | L | C | OEM Letters at the IDIQ Level | L.8.1.2.3 | Product selection occurs at the task order level. Will the Government move the OEM authorization letter requirement to the task order level? If letters remain at the proposal stage, will one letter per manufacturer covering its product line be acceptable instead of a letter for every make and model? | |
| 169 | L | C | OEM Letters Through Teammates | L.8.1.2.3 | May OEM authorization be provided through a teammate, reseller, distributor, or other supply-chain partner identified in the proposal, and may letters be dated any time up to the proposal due date? |
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 .