Atch 11 - AFMS3 3.0 Draft RFP Comment Matrix & Reponses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 100 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA701425R0001
About this file
This file contains industry questions and government responses regarding a draft RFP for the Air Force Modeling and Simulation Support Services (AFMS3) 3.0 contract.
The Q&A addresses concerns about work sample requirements, self-scoring matrix criteria, past performance evaluation, labor categories, and pricing templates. Key changes resulting from industry feedback include: reducing/eliminating several self-scoring matrix elements, clarifying the definition of Modeling & Simulation contracts, removing the "or more" language from scoring criteria, updating small business subcontracting goals, and providing additional guidance on CPARS/PPQ requirements. The government confirmed that only M&S work samples will be accepted, CPARS are required for all work samples (PPQs only accepted if CPARS unavailable), and classified submission methods will not be established. The government declined requests for one-on-one sessions but noted a pre-proposal conference will be held after final RFP release.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Sheet1
| # | Severity: High, Routine, Low | Document (i.e. PWS, Self Socring Matrix) | Paragraph (if applicable) | Comment/Question | Government Response |
| High | Attachment 6 - Section L AFMS3 3.0 | 3.2.1 | Given the classified nature/character of many AFMSIII performance requirements and the work samples required for threat-based models, we recommend establishing of a classified database for industry to transmit documents demonstrating classified technical capability / experience for relevant PWS tasks and HTRO Evaluation. | The Government is not establishing a classified method for submitting work samples. However, offerors can submit company generated documentation when accompanied by a Statement of Fact signed by the cognizant Government Contracting Officer or COR to confirm missing/unclassified information on a classified contract, should unclassified contractual documents not carry all of the information necessary to substantiate the Offeror's scores. Offerors are not to submit classified information. | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix Attachment 6 - Section L AFMS3 3.0 | 3.2.2 | Reference Section L; para 3.2.2: "The Offeror shall complete Appendix B Self-Scoring Matrix. Self-rated scores shall be verifiable using the work samples provided". Multiple HTRO Self-Rated Scoring Matrix elements request information agnostic or not directly tied to work samples as described in Section L / M, but instead attempts to evaluate the prime or subcontractor's aggregate historical / general experience in that element. Example: HTRO Self Scoring Matrix, Line 12, PWS Section element 2.1: "Number of years or experience as a Prime or a Subcontractor in managing simulator and/or training device programs". Please provide clarification on if each element of the HRTO Scoring Matrix must be directly connected to the 10 work samples used or that specified elements are independent of work samples. If some are independent of the 10 work samples, which appendix and where would the government want the offeror to document evidence of the independent elements? If the Government's intent is to have that element independent of HTRO work samples, we recommend that the government "code" each element to clearly delineate if the item is either independent or dependent of the 10 work samples. If there are independent and dependent work samples, we recommend that a separate appendix be generated to appropriately document and qualify the elements that are independent of the 10 work samples similar to the one found in Appendix G. | Each element of the self scoring matrix must connect to the work samples provided. | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix and Attachement 6; Section L, 3.3 | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | Multiple elements within the HTRO Self Scoring Matrix are not temporally bound with other elements explicitly bound by time (example 3 to 5 years). For example, see HTRO Self Scoring Matrix, Line 8, PWS Section element 2.1. We believe this is a deliberate action by government, and exists independently from PP qualification described in Section L; 3.3.1 which states, "continuous active contract performance within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation". We also believe the Government is attempting to discern aggregate team element experience when not explicitly bound by time parameters. Please provide clarification. | The Government listed it's scoring methods on the self-scoring matrix as they represent the requirements needed to grade an offeror based on the needs of this requirement. | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 10 | We believe that line 10, "Number of contracts/task orders where the sub-contractors had provided FTEs" refers to the previous 2 elements (line 8 & 9). Please provide clarification. | Line 10 is it's own element. | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 13 | We believe that line 13 refers to the elements in lines 8 & 9. Please provide clarification. | Line 13 is it's own element | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 19 | Line 19 states in the element: "Number of FTEs with 5 years of experience in developing strategic policy for the USAF at the Headquarter Level; and developing training exercises/events related to the developed policies". We believe that Head Quarters Level includes the USAF MAJCOM and NAF level Staffs. Please provide clarification on the definition of HQ-Level. | See AIR FORCE MISSION DIRECTIVE 1 5 AUGUST 2016 HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE (HAF) which states msn, command structure and responsibilities of HAF POC AFAMS/MSD | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 24 | Line 24 states in the element: "Number of M&S, DMO, & LVC Exercises you supported with contractor FTEs within the last 5 calendar years. We believe this should be an "or" versus an "and" statement and unnecessarily constricts the number of examples industry can cite. Please provide clarification. | Updated to and/or | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 26 | Line 26 states in the element: "Number of FTEs with 5 years of experience developing strategic training operations for M&S, Distributed Missions System (DMS), or LVC training and related environments". Please provide the government or doctrinal definition of a "strategic training operation" that qualifies under this element. | See page 11 CJCS 3500.03E Joint Training Manual, 15 Apr 2015, which explains how COCOMs use mission reshearsals, joint doctrine and TTPs to to respond to strategic, operational and tactical requirements to accomplish their assigned mission | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 34 | Line 34 states in the element: "Number of M&S, DMO, & LVC Constructive Models your company maintained". Please provide government definition for a single model qualifying under this element. Government, industry, and academic definitions vary and required clarification. | This task has been deleted | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 37 | Line 37 states in the element: "Number of M&S, DMO, & LVC Constructive Models your company maintained". We believe that this element is not temporally bound and should read " has maintained " versus "maintained". Please provide clarification. | Corrected | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 38 | Line 38 states in the element: "Number adversary weapon systems your company has provided an updated threat model in last 3 calendar years". Please provide government definition for a single threat model qualifying under this element. Government, industry, and academic definitions vary and requires clarification. | This task has been deleted | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 38 | Line 38 states in the element: "Number adversary weapon systems your company has provided an updated threat model in last 3 calendar years. Please provide the government threshold for what an update constitutes. We believe once a model parameter is changed that this constitutes an update. Please provide clarification. | This task has been deleted | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 44 | Line 44 states in the element: "Number of contracts/task orders which your company has developed and maintained interoperability standards for common models within the last 3 calendar years." Please provide government or doctrinal definition for a single common model qualifying under this element. Government, industry, and academic definitions vary and requires clarification. | This task has been deleted | |
| Routine | Attachement 6; Section L | 3.4 | To properly assess OCI, Industry requires additional information that is currently data masked in the legacy TDLs. Upon FRFP publication, we request the government provide all necessary information to assess potential OCI. | Data masked in the TDL's are proprietary to the incumbent and not relevenat to any OCI concerns | |
| Routine | N/A | N/A | During the 13 Jun AFMSIII / AFAMS PMO Industry Presentation, PMO stated that a virtual Pre-proposal Conference would occur approximately 2 weeks after DRFP release. Is the Government still on it's established timeline to conduct this event? | The Government intends to hold a pre-proposal conference after final RFP is released | |
| Routine | Bidder's Library | N/A | We request that the following information be added to the bidder's library: Past solicitation and any relevant proposal information. | Noted | |
| Routine | Attachement 6; Section L | 3.4 | Incongruency between Att 6; Section L; Table 1 and Para 3.4. Should read Volume VI -Price Proposal. | Corrected | |
| Routine | Attachement 6; Section L | 1.9.2.2 | Can fold outs be used in the proposal as long as the fold out document folds back into the 8½ x 11 inches page requirement? | Yes, given the adhere to the requirements in Section L | |
| Routine | Attachement 6; Section L / M | 2.3; Table 1 | Industry asks the government to confirm that a staffing and management plan is not a mandatory volume in the proposal. | Confirmed | |
| Routine | N/A | N/A | Industry asks the government to confirm that key personnel resumes will not be required as part of the proposal submission. | Confirmed | |
| Routine | Attachment 3 - AFMS3 Labor Categories Attachment 5 - AFMS3 Labor Pricing Template | N/A | Given the historical information provided in the Bidder's Library and information in Att 3 / 5, surge requirements do not appear to be a prominent feature of this contract. Given anticipated / future requirements, does the Government anticipate seeing FTE surge growth in the final solicitation documents? | FTE surge growth does not expect to change in the final RFP | |
| Low | Attachement 6; Section L | 1.9.2.3 | Given the anticipate size of the HTRO procurement proposal submission, does the government have any file compression rule sets for industry? | No, however any submission over 10mb must request a DoD SAFE dropoff link | |
| Low | Attachement 6; Section L | 1.9.2.1 | change "Ens" to intended statement | Corrected | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | All | The quantities and character of the self-scoring elements of this proposal are likely to result in an unprecedented number of proposal pages being generated for each offeror to support the "Burden of Proof" for their submitted Work Samples. Based on our experience in multiple previous self-scoring proposals, the unique nature of these specific requirements (> 100,000 models, 20,000 threat model updates, 20,000 trouble tickets) is likely to result in proposals that are in excess of 10,000 pages of material. Due to the HTRO-RRP nature of the evaluation criteria, it is possible that the Government will receive a large number of responses from industry, many of which will never be reviewed if they do not rise to the highest self-scored proposal. In this case, the possibility of having industry generate multiple 10,000+ page proposals that are never even opened seems like an undue burden on industry. | The self scoring matrix has been updated | |
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix Attachment 6 - Section L AFMS3 3.0 | All | After assessing the self-scoring evaluation criteria it appears to be overly restrictive, potentially limiting the competitive environment to only one offeror. Specifically, the large quantities associated with the self-scored Work Samples (> 100,000 models, 20,000 threat model updates, 20,000 trouble tickets) and the restriction that each work sample must be a "Modeling and Simulations Services Contract" (Section L 3.2.1.3) severely limits the available pool of relevant work samples, and certainly favors the incumbent contractor that performed under AFMS3 2.0. | The self scoring matrix has been updated | |
| Routine | Attachment 6 - Section L AFMS3 3.0 | 3.2.1.3 | Can you provide the specific criteria to be used in determining if a Work Sample is a "Modeling and Simulations Services Contract with either the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), or Non-DoD, to include both Federal and private sector" in compliance with Section L 3.2.1.3? Will these candidate Work Samples be limited to certain NAICS or PSC codes, or is this test for relevance accomplished some other criteria? | For the purposes of this requirement, a Modeling and Simulation Contract is defined as any contract in which the provider: |
(1) Develops and/or maintains dynamic modules and simulations for the purpose of military training, planning, or decision making
(2) Converts expert knowledge into dynamic models and simulating them in order to better understand the system
(3) Provides technical support and consultation of partnered organization employing modeling and simulation tools
(4) Develops and delivers training programs on the use of modeling and simulation tools and techniques
(5) Utilizes models and/or simulation to support operational readiness, mission preparedness, and the development, maintenance, and enhancement of M&S capabilities for the Air Force, Space Force, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and other DoD and civilian agencies The specific tasks and responsibilities included within a Modeling and Simulation Contract may vary depending on the specific needs of the client; however, the overall goal of such an effort is to provide the client with the M&S tools, training, and expertise needed to support planning, operations, and the decision-making process.
| Routine | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 12 | Can you provide the method for calculating "years of experience as a Prime or Subcontractor in managing simulator and/or training device programs"? Is this simply calculated by the period of performance of the contracts in question? Is being the Prime contractor sufficient to demonstrate "management" of the program? What level of involvement would be required to prove "management" of the program if the Offeror is a Subcontractor? How are "simulator and/or training device programs" defined? Are those programs specific to certain NAICS or PSC codes, or is there some other minimum percentage of relevant scope or dollar value that must be proved for these programs to be relevant? | Years of experience is calculated by the period of performance for each work sample. All work samples must follow the definitions/instructions of para 3.4.1 in Section L | ||
| Routine | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 14 | Can you provide examples of what activities meet the threshold of "direct support" to the DAF's OTTI enterprise? Is there a minimum number of hours per claimed FTE or minimum number of tasks that need to be performed in order to claim credit? | This task has been deleted | ||
| Routine | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 13 | Can you provide further definition of what it means for "contracts [to be] submitted 100% on-time"? Does that apply to every deliverable / CDRL on the contract, or is this related to the contract close-out / final completion dates occurring as scheduled? | This task has been deleted | ||
| Routine | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 15 | Can you describe the minimum qualifications of a "portal solution" in order to score points from the perspective of the self-scoring matrix? | This task has been deleted | ||
| Routine | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 15 | The reference to PWS 2.1.7 (Conduct Project Management Meetings Teleconferences and Program Management Reviews (PMRs)) appears to be in error. Suggest this reference be corrected to PWS 2.1.6 (Provide Access to a Management Portal Solution). | This task has been deleted | ||
| Routine | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 18 | Can you clarify the minimum executed scope for the burden of proof to claim points associated with "managing a DMO site"? In order to score maximum points, must these sites be unique across all provided work samples, or would the same site being managed across multiple work samples still be counted multiple times for the purposes of scoring? | This task has been deleted | ||
| Routine | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Line 19 | Can you provide the criteria for determining if an FTE has "five years experience in developing strategic policy for the USAF at the headquarters level"? What contractual documentation is expected for each work sample in order to claim these points? Since each of these elements must be proved with the context of a work sample, only work samples with a period of performance in excess of five years could be used to prove points under this element, which seems like an unintended restriction on how the evaluation criteria have been defined. | This task has been deleted | ||
| Routine | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Lines 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 21, 22, 31, 44, 52, 54 | There are a number of self-scoring criteria associated with Contracts/Task Orders where the maximum score is achieved by having "10 or more" Contracts or Task Orders that meet the criteria. Since the number of Work Samples are limited to 10, suggest removing the scoring criteria "or more" to eliminate any confusion. | Removed | ||
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | All | There are a substantial number of additional clarification questions that could be generated around the Self Scoring Matrix, the specific requirements for each criteria, and the corresponding minimum "Burden of Proof" contemplated by the Government when assembling this list. The statement that the "Burden of Proof [...] rests with the Offeror" (Section L 3.2.5) is insufficient to ensure the self scoring mechanism is applied uniformly across all offerors. We suggest the Government develop and provide an enhanced set of Evaluation Criteria providing a detailed Definition, Restrictions, Maximum Count, Relevancy, and Burden of Proof section for each self-scoring element. An example from another HTRO-RRP draft RFP can be provided under separate cover if requested. | Noted | ||
| Routine | Appendix G - Cross Reference Matrix | Column E, Reference Material | The typical cell contents limit in Excel is 32,767 characters, of which only 1,024 characters are displayed in the cell itself, and the others must be viewed by scrolling through the "Formula Bar". With the Cross Reference Matrix being required in an Excel format, and some of the self-scoring criteria dealing with very large quantities of items that must be verified through the Burden of Proof (> 100,000 models, 20,000 threat model updates, 20,000 trouble tickets) it seems likely there will be substantial desktop publishing and evaluation challenges with providing that much information in an Excel format. Recommend changing the format of the Cross Reference Matrix to a landscape Word document, with it's associated tables. | The intent of the corss reference matrix is to easily identify where the work sample for a specific element is located. It is not intened to be detailed explanation, just document number, page number, paragraph, etc. | ||
| High | Attachment 1 - AFMS3 3.0 PWS - 12 Aug 2024 Attachement 6; Section L, Section M | 1.2,1.4 | How can the government adequately assess an offeror’s innovative solution(s) if it’s not included as part of the M-factor criteria? Recommend the government add language in both section L and criteria in section M to assess contractor innovative solutions. Rationale: In the PWS, the government outlines the need for innovative solutions in section 1.2 with specific goals in section 1.4 which, as written, cannot be assessed within the provided Self-Rated Scoring Matrix and by its very nature, the self-scoring process limits creativity and innovation. As such, there is a real possibility that an award competed with an over reliance on self-scoring evaluation criteria may not deliver on the stated goal of directing awards to offers representing the greatest value to the government. | In an HTRO environment, technical proposals are not permitted | ||
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Recommend the Government consider adding additonal evaluation criteria in addition to the Self-Scoring Matrix. While it is undeniable that experienced contractors can provide benefits to the government, the near total reliance on experience will necessarily limit the pool of viable competitors for this self-scoring procurement. The heavy reliance on experience also presents some tension with the FAR, which currently states that offerors with no experience should be treated neither favorably nor unfavorably under a past-performance evaluation.The self-scoring strategy places the burden on offerors to evaluate themselves. It also places extreme emphasis on prior experience. These drawbacks are exacerbated when the self-scoring evaluation strategy is applied to technical procurements for specific services, such as AFAMS Modeling & Simulation core services. | The evaluation criteria for this requirement is HTRO which is determined with the Self-Scoring Matrix. | |||
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | With a maximum work sample allowance of 10, how can "10 or more" be a (validated) factor for line items: #8-11, 13, 15, 21, 22, 33, 44, 52, and 54? Recommend the Government remove "or more". | Removed | |||
| High | Attachement 6; Section L | 3.3.1.6 CPAR Category Ratings | At AFMS3 Industry Day, the GOVT indicated that CPARS are not required for every work sample. What is the methodology to submit compliant non-CPAR work samples for evaluation? | CPARS are required for every work sample. If a CPAR is not available a PPQ can be used. | ||
| Routine | Attachement 6; Section L | 3.3.1.4 Past Performance Questionnaires | Who in the Government will receive Past Performance Questionnaire for AFMS3 2.0 subcontract work (AFAMS, UAWC, AFLCMC/WNS, AAS (FEDSIM), or all) | PPQ and other Source Selection information will go to various Government Source Selection Evaluation Team Members, GSA AAS is not a part of this acquisition | ||
| Routine | Attachment 7 - Section M AFMS3 3.0 | 1.2 Number of Contracts to be awarded | Verify whether Cost Plus type contract will be Award Fee or Fixed Fee - document mentions both. (current contract is CPAF) | Corrected to reflect CPFF | ||
| Routine | Attachment 1 - AFMS3 3.0 PWS - 12 Aug 2024 | 2.1.6 Subtask 1.6 - Provide Access to a Management Portal Solution | PWS includes statement, "A collaboration tool currently utilized by the AF is Microsoft (MS) Sharepoint." Does the Govt have a preference for MS Sharepoint? | Yes Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) provides access to the Microsoft Sharepoint Online as part of its DoD 365-Sec cloud environment | ||
| High | Attachment 1 - AFMS3 3.0 PWS - 12 Aug 2024 | The Government solicitations for services frequently include a requirement to identify key personnel who will work on the awarded contract. Will the government identify key personnel – such as the Program Manager or key staff as part of the solicitation’s evaluation criteria? | That is not a requirement for this acquisition | |||
| High | Industry Day Feedback Session | Based upon Industry Day feedback, one-on-one sessions would be a possibility after the first Draft RFP. Does the Government still intend on hosting these sessions? | The Government intends to hold a pre-proposal conference after final RFP is released | |||
| High | Industry Day / Gov Win notifications | Per Industry Day and 16 Aug 24 Gov Win post, Is a Pre-Proposal Conference post release of Draft RFPstill in work | The Government intends to hold a pre-proposal conference after final RFP is released | |||
| High | Solicitation - FA701424R0054 | Pages 1 and 45 | NAICS Code 541330 (Engineering Services) is specified. The "Military Exception" for NAICS 541330 should apply to this effort and has a size standard of $47.0M instead of $25.5M as listed on page 45 of the solicitation. Please clarify. | This effort is not for Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons. It is for Engineering Support Services | ||
| High | General - Draft RFP | General Comment | Due to the number of comments/questions associated with this Draft RFP, strongly suggest conducting a pre-solicitation conference with one-on-ones to enhance communications on this very important, complex HTRO solicitation. Effective communications are essential to understand Industry comments and concerns to avoid future protests. | The Government intends to hold a pre-proposal conference after final RFP is released | ||
| High | Attachement 6; Section L; Atch 7 - Section M | Section L - Para 3.3.1; | ||||
| Section M - Para 3.2.3 | While we understand the need for SB Participation on this contract, we recommend the set-aside be reduced from 35% to 20%. This is due to the nature of the high bar established for contracts/work samples (e.g., $750M, 400FTEs). It will be very difficult for many SBs under NAICS 541330 with a $47M size standard to have high-scoring contracts/work samples that meet the high bar currently established in the evaluation criteria. | The SB subcontracting goals have been revised | ||||
| High | Attachement 6; Section L; Atch 7 - Section M; PPQ Appdx E- PPQ; Appdx F - PPQ Cover Ltr | Varies in each document | To simplify this complex solicitation for both Industry and Government, suggest use of PPQs for only work samples that do not have CPARs. All work samples having CPARs should not require PPQs since contractor performance has been evaluated/scored in the completed CPAR(s). This suggestion eliminates the possibility of a Customer providing a negative PPQ for a work sample that has all CPARs rated "Satisfactory" or better. Sample wording in Section M concerning this approach follows: |
| In the event a work sample CPAR is not available, a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) shall be submitted to address contractor performance on the work sample. The Government will consider the work done on this work sample as insufficient and will not be considered for scoring if the PPQ reflects performance below Satisfactory in any of the four rated categories. PPQs shall not be used for scoring in the Past Performance subfactor. | CPARS are required for every work sample. If a CPAR is not available a PPQ can be used. | ||||||
| High | General HTRO Comment | N/A | General HTRO solicitation comment; A typical AFLCMC EPASS HTRO proposal has ~15 evaluation criteria with scoring up to 5 work samples. These proposals vary in size from 2,000 to 4,000 or more pages to properly substantiate the scoring. Using this as a potential benchmark for the AFMS3 Draft HTRO solicitation having 45 evaluation criteria and up to 10 work samples, prime proposals to properly substantiate the scoring could be 12,000 to 24,000 or more pages (assumes typical EPASS evaluation criteria). However, the AFMS3 evaluation criteria requires substantiation of much greater numbers (e.g., 200, 500, 1000, 20,000, and 100,000) that far exceed EPASS substantiation requirements and will likely require more effort and corresponding pages to substantiate and then review by Government evaluators. | The self scoring matrix has been updated | |||
| High | Atch 7 - Section M | Para 3.2.1.3 | Work sample minimum qualifications "1" & "2" seem to contradict each other. Para "1" requires that all work samples "Shall be a Modeling and Simulations Services Contract with either the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), or Non-DoD, to include both Federal and private sector." The "Modeling and Simulations Services Contract" appears to be very restrictive and contradicts para 2 that requires all work samples "...be a services contract, defined as a contract whose primary purpose was/is to render services in support of DoD or Non-DoD operations..." Recommend combining paras "1" & "2" to be less restrictive but still address the needs of the AFAMS Customer. Suggested wording follows: "Shall be a services contract that includes Modeling and Simulations taskings with either the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), or Non-DoD, to include both Federal and private sector, and has a total contract value in excess of $15M with ongoing performance or completion within five (5) years of initial RFP issuance." | Revised to reflect, "1. | Shall be a Modeling and Simulations Services Contract with either the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), or Non-DoD, to include both Federal and private sector with a total contract value in excess of $15M with ongoing performance or completion within five (5) years of initial RFP issuance" | ||
| High | Attachment 6 - Section L AFMS3 3.0 Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Section L - Para 3.2.1 | Section L indicates: "The Offeror shall submit a maximum of 10 (ten) work samples (contracts or task orders)…" The scoring matrix indicates "10 or more" for 13 of the evaluation criteria that specifically reference contracts/work samples. Recommend deleting "or more" for the applicable scoring matrix references assuming the evaluation criteria's max number of 10 is correct. | Deleted "or more" verbiage | |||
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.1; | |||||
| Scoring Matrix Row 8 | 1. Recommend making it clear that this criterion (contracts/task orders greater > 400 FTEs) is open to all Team work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 unless the Government wants to specify a minimum number that must be provided by the Prime. |
2. Scoring bands should be provided for 800 points (7 - 9) and 600 points (3 - 6).
3. Also, "or more" is not applicable for the max score of 10 work samples. 1. All self scoring elements must adhere to Section L, para 3.4.1
2. Added
3. Deleted
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.1; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 9 | 1. Recommend making it clear that this criterion (contracts/task orders with value > $750M) is open to all Team work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 unless the Government wants to specify a minimum number that must be provided by the Prime. |
2. Scoring bands should be provided for 800 points (7 - 9) and 600 points (3 - 6).
3. Also, "or more" is not applicable for the max score of 10 work samples. 1. All self scoring elements must adhere to Section L, para 3.4.1
2. Added
3. Deleted
| High | Appendix B - AFMS3 Self Rated Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.1; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 10 | 1. Recommend making it clear that this criterion (contracts/task orders with subs providing FTEs) is open to all Team work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 unless the Government wants to specify a minimum number that must be provided by the Prime. |
2. Scoring bands should be provided for 800 points (7 - 9) and 600 points (3 - 6).
3. Also, "or more" is not applicable for the max score of 10 work samples. 1. All self scoring elements must adhere to Section L, para 3.4.1
2. Added
3. Deleted
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.1; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 11 | 1. It is not clear that this criterion (SA IDIQ contracts) is restricted to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1. Please clarify. |
2. Recommend making it clear if this criterion is open to all Team work samples unless the Government wants to specify a minimum number that must be provided by the Prime.
3. Scoring bands should be provided for 800 points (7 - 9) and 600 points (3 - 6).
4. Also, "or more" is not applicable for the max score of 10 work samples. 1. Section L has been updated with clarifying language.
2. Para 3.4.1.3 Work Sample Qualifications makes clear what qualifies as a work sample
3. Added
4. Deleted
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.1; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 12 | This criterion (Years of experience as Prime/Sub managing simulator and/or training device programs) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Is "programs" the best term - possibly "contracts" is better suited for this criterion. Please clarify the above items. | This applies to work samples that qualify IAW with Section L para 3.4.1 It is open to the prime and any teaming arrangements | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.1; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 13 | 1. Recommend making it clear that this criterion (contracts/task orders with contracts submitted 100% on time) is open to all Team work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 unless the Government wants to specify a minimum number that must be provided by the Prime. |
2. "Contracts were submitted" appears ambiguous given the context of services-related work samples. Should this be "Deliverables" instead of contracts? Please clarify.
3. Scoring bands should be provided for 800 points (7 - 9) and 600 points (3 - 6).
| 4. Also, "or more" is not applicable for the max score of 10 work samples. | This task has been deleted | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.1.1; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 14 | 1. It is not clear that this criterion (FTEs with experience in DAF OTTI) is restricted to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1. Please clarify. | |||
| 2. Recommend making it clear if this criterion is open to all Team work samples unless the Government wants to specify a minimum number that must be provided by the Prime. | This task has been deleted | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.1.7; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 15 | 1. Recommend making it clear that this criterion (contracts/task orders with portal solution) is open to all Team work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 unless the Government wants to specify a minimum number that must be provided by the Prime. |
2. Scoring bands should be provided for 800 points (7 - 9) and 600 points (3 - 6).
| 3. Also, "or more" is not applicable for the max score of 10 work samples. | This task has been deleted | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.2.1; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 18 | This criterion (number of distributed sites for DMOs across DoD) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | This task has been deleted | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.2.2; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 19 | This criterion (FTEs with 5 years of experience developing strategic policy; and training exercises/events related to the policies) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Seems like this could be two criterion - strategic policy development; develop training exercises/events. Please clarify the above items. | This task has been deleted | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.2.3; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 20 | This criterion (number of M&S, DMO, or LVC AoAs or Studies) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | Section L has been clarified for this element | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.2.6; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 21 | 1. Recommend making it clear that this criterion (contracts/task orders that develop M&S training courseware) is open to all Team work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 unless the Government wants to specify a minimum number that must be provided by the Prime. |
2. Scoring bands should be provided for 800 points (7 - 9) and 600 points (3 - 6).
3. Also, "or more" is not applicable for the max score of 10 work samples. 1. Section L has been updated with clarifying language.
2. Added
3. Deleted
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.3.1; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 24 | This criterion (number of supported M&S, DMO, and LVC exercises) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | |||
| Note: The number of proposal pages needed to properly substantiate 1,000 or more supported M&S, DMO, and LVC exercises will likely be extensive. | Section L has been clarified for this element. Number of pages has been reduced | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.3.2; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 25 | This criterion (number of FTEs to develop/execute test plans for M&S and LVC environments) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | Section L has been clarified for this element | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.3.2; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 26 | This criterion (number of FTEs developing strategic training ops for M&S, DMS, or LVC training environments) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | This task has been deleted | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.3.3; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 27 | This criterion (number of Tier 1, 2, 3, or 4 exercises where provided Test or VV&A) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | |||
| Note: The number of proposal pages needed to properly substantiate 1,000 or more supported Tier 1, 2, 3 or 4 exercises will likely be extensive. | Section L has been clarified for this element. Number of pages has been reduced | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.3.4; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 28 | This criterion (number of Tier 1, 2, 3, or 4 exercises where provided Event Services or other specified items) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | |||
| Note: The number of proposal pages needed to properly substantiate 1,000 or more supported Tier 1, 2, 3 or 4 exercises will likely be extensive. | Section L has been clarified for this element. Number of pages has been reduced | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.3.6; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 29 | This criterion (number of FTEs with active TS/SCI clearance) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | This task has been deleted | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.3.6; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 30 | 1. This criterion (number of FTEs with active SAP/SAR clearance) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. |
2. Why have both criterion for TS/SCI and SAP/SAR? Suggest use of only one of these criteria - TS/SCI.
| FYI: AFLCMC Security has rejected all EPASS HTRO evaluation criteria that addresses SAP/SAR due to related security sensitivities. | This task has been deleted | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.3.6.1; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 31 | 1. Recommend making it clear that this criterion (contracts/task orders that provided OCONUS FTE support) is open to all Team work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 unless the Government wants to specify a minimum number that must be provided by the Prime. |
2. Scoring bands should be provided for 800 points (7 - 9) and 600 points (3 - 6).
3. Also, "or more" is not applicable for the max score of 10 work samples. 1. Section L has been updated with clarifying language.
2. Added
3. Deleted
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.4; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 33 | 1. Recommend making it clear that this criterion (contracts/task orders where company delivered Tech Data) is open to all Team work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 unless the Government wants to specify a minimum number that must be provided by the Prime. |
2. Scoring bands should be provided for 800 points (7 - 9) and 600 points (3 - 6).
| 3. Also, "or more" is not applicable for the max score of 10 work samples. | This task has been deleted | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.4.1; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 34 | This criterion (number of M&S, DMO, and LVC models maintained) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | |||
| Note: The number of proposal pages needed to properly substantiate 100,000 or more supported models will likely be very extensive. | This task has been deleted | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.4.3; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 35 | This criterion (number of JLVC, JLCCTV, and ASCCE integration and test exercises/events) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | |||
| Note: The number of proposal pages needed to properly substantiate 1,000 or more supported events will likely be extensive. | This item has been clarified in Section L. The amount of events have also been lowered. | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.5; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 37 | This criterion (number of Software Integration Labs for M&S, DMO, and LVC) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | This task has been deleted | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.5.2; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 38 | This criterion (number of adversary weapon systems company has provided updated threat models) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? This criterion may require higher than Unclassified substantiation material. Please clarify the above items. | |||
| Note: The number of proposal pages (and classification level) needed to properly substantiate 20,000 or more supported models will likely be very extensive. | This task has been deleted | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.5.3; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 39 | This criterion (number of unique 4th & 5th generation systems that company has experience enhancing) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? This criterion may require higher than Unclassified substantiation material. Please clarify the above items. | Section L has been updated | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.6; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 41 | This criterion (number of M&S, DMO, LVC, or Aviation Training related ATOs) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | Section L has been updated | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.6; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 42 | This criterion (number of FTEs with active DoD Cybersecurity Cert) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | Section L has been updated | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.6.2; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 43 | This criterion (number of FTEs that have performed SCAR or ASCAR with active DoD Cybersecurity Cert) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | Section L has been updated | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.6.4.1; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 44 | 1. Recommend making it clear that this criterion (contracts/task orders where company developed & maintained interoperability standards for common models) is open to all Team work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 unless the Government wants to specify a minimum number that must be provided by the Prime. |
2. Scoring bands should be provided for 800 points (7 - 9) and 600 points (3 - 6).
| 3. Also, "or more" is not applicable for the max score of 10 work samples. | This task has been deleted | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.7.1; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 46 | 1. This criterion (number of contractor personnel processed through SOFA Application Process) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? | |||
| 2. The scoring for this criterion (1,000 or more) appears to be excessive since most staff on this contract will not require SOFA status. Recommend use of lower numbers consistent with actual contract requirements. | This task has been deleted | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.7.1.2; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 47 | This criterion (number of FTEs with operational fighter pilot experience) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | Section L has been updated | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.7.1.2; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 48 | This criterion (number of FTEs with JTAC/TACP SME experience) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | Section L has been updated | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.7.1.3; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 49 | This criterion (number of FTEs with 5 or more years experience with NATO M&S) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | This task has been deleted | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.7.1.3; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 50 | 1. This criterion (number of FTEs that provided large force (Joint, Combined, or Allied) LVC exercises) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? | |||
| 2. The scoring for this criterion (1,000 or more) appears to be excessive since there are significantly less staff (505 FTE) being priced for the effort. Recommend use of lower numbers consistent with actual contract requirements. | This task has been deleted | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.7.1.8; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 51 | This criterion (number of FTEs that have performed ISSO/ISSM duties) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | This task has been deleted | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.7.2; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 52 | 1. This criterion (no. of OCONUS service contracts) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. |
2. Scoring bands should be provided for 800 points (7 - 9) and 600 points (3 - 6).
| 3. Also, "or more" does not appear applicable for the max score of 10 work samples. | This task has been deleted | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.7.1; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 54 | 1. Recommend making it clear that this criterion (contracts/task orders where company trained personnel in a simulator) is open to all Team work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 unless the Government wants to specify a minimum number that must be provided by the Prime. |
2. Scoring bands should be provided for 800 points (7 - 9) and 600 points (3 - 6).
| 3. Also, "or more" is not applicable for the max score of 10 work samples. | This task has been deleted | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.7.1.2; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 55 | This criterion (number of FTEs that have qualified as a 5th Gen Aircraft Pilot in the aircraft or simulator) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | Section L has been updated | ||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.7.1.2; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 56 | This criterion (number of DMO trouble tickets closed) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. | |||
| Note: The number of proposal pages needed to properly substantiate 20,000 or more DMO trouble tickets closed will likely be very extensive. | This task has been deleted | |||
| High | Appendix B; HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix | PWS Para 2.7.1.3; | ||
| Scoring Matrix Row 57 | This criterion (number of Tier 1, 2, 3, or 4 supported exercises or training events incorporating 5th Gen Aircraft) appears ambiguous and open to many interpretations. Does this apply to work samples that qualify IAW Section L para 3.2.1 or corporate experience? Is this Prime only or open to the Team? Please clarify the above items. |
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 .