Atch 16 - QnA Draft.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 47 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- H9240021R0007
- Issued by
-
United States Special Operations Command
About this file
This final request for proposal (RFP) from the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) solicits follow-on technical collection and communication field service representative services. Offerors must provide fully burdened labor rates for 76 full-time equivalents across special operations components to support hostile forces tagging, tracking, and locating equipment. The single-award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract has a period of performance from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2027 and a maximum value of $96.5 million. Proposals are due by 10:00 AM Eastern on 1 October 2021 and must be delivered on a CD in a sealed package to the USSOCOM contracting office in Tampa, Florida. The RFP includes a pricing template, statements of work detailing requirements by component, and an amendment correcting the posting date.
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
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
DIRECTIONS
TAILORED COMMENT MATRIX
THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RETURNED IN A MICROSOFT EXCEL FILE FORMAT. DO NOT RETURN YOUR RESPONSES IN ANY DIFFERENT FILE FORMAT.
| Directions & Explanation of TAILORED COMMENT MATRIX |
| This Tailored Comment Matrix is provided in order for potential offerors to provide feedback, comments, and ask questions with regard to the released RFP. |
The sheet labeled "DIRECTIONS" explains this document, and provides directions for its use.
The sheet labeled "MATRIX" contains a table with all labeled and numbered elements from the RFP. This table is where potential offerors may respond to the Government with feedback, comments, or ask questions.
| Directions and explanation of sheet labeled "MATRIX" |
| The MATRIX sheet can be reached by clicking the "MATRIX" Tab at the bottom of this spreadsheet. Add rows as necessary under the applicable item. |
| MATRIX COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS: | |
| Column A: | Contains the Item reference number for this item. This number is used for organizational purposes, when referring to this document only. |
Column B: Contains the section number that each element is labeled, within their respective documents. The section number relates directly to the item's location in the RFP.
Column C: Contains the written title for the corresponding item/section number.
| Column D: | Contains a drop down box for selecting the type of comment. Available options are "Critical" "Substantive" or "Administrative". |
| Critical: Violations of law -or- Unnecessary risks to safety, life & limb, or DOD Material; waste or abuse of DOD appropriations; unreasonable burden on resources. | |
| Substantive: Appears or is potentially unnecessary, incorrect, misleading, confusing, or inconsistent with other sections; disagree with proposed responsibilities, requirements, and/or procedures. | |
| Administrative: Address typographical, grammatical, and formatting errors (grammar, punctuation, style, etc.) |
Column E: Contains a drop down box for selecting if the corresponding comments/questions/responses entered in column F contain proprietary information (Yes/No)
Column F: Contains space for potential offerors' comments/questions/responses. Include justification for why the information is considered proprietary if so indicated in Column E.
Column G: The responding Company's name should be entered in the in Column G for all questions
THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RETURNED IN A MICROSOFT EXCEL FILE FORMAT. DO NOT RETURN YOUR RESPONSES IN ANY DIFFERENT FILE FORMAT.
MATRIX
| ITEM # | SECTION NUMBER | NAME OF SECTION | COMMENT TYPE | |
| (Select from drop down) | SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IN QUESTIONS / COMMENTS? | |||
| (Yes/No) | QUESTIONS / COMMENTS | |||
| (With justification of why considered source selection sensitive if applicable) | Government Response | |||
| SECTIONS "A-M" |
1 A Solicitation/Contract Form
2 B Supplies or Services and Prices
| Critical | No | The draft RFP does not mention if there is any completion or insertion by the offeror in Section B. Will the Government please confirm that Section B is to be left blank and will be filled in by the Government at time of Award? | Yes, Section B shall be left blank and will be filled in by the government at the time of award. | |||
| Substantive | No | Will material solution or VAR equipment sellers be allowed to bid on this contract? | Yes they will be allowed to submit. | |||
| Substantive | No | If material solution or VAR providers are allowed to bid, does the USG consider this an OCI issue since they will have an upper hand in pushing equipment to the USSOCOM buy list? | If a material solution or VAR provider submits a proposal, they will need to provide a OCI plan that will be reviewed by legal and approved by the Contracting Officer. | |||
| Administrative | No | On page 4 of the draft RFP, the Government lists $96,500,000 as the maximum contract value that orders shall not exceed. In Section I on page 23, the Government lists a maximum order value of $95,600,000. Can the Government confirm these values? | Corrected 52.216-19, Section I, page 23 to $96,500,000 | |||
| 3 | C | Descriptions and Specifications |
4 D Packaging and Marking
5 E Inspection and Acceptance
6 F Deliveries or Performance
7 G Contract Administration Data
8 H Special Contract Requirements
| Substantive | No | We didn't find the following required clauses in the RFP: | ||||
| Substantive | No | FAR 5152.225-5902 FITNESS FOR DUTY AND MEDICAL/DENTAL CARE LIMITATIONS (JUN 2015) | This cluase is applicable for TBC and will be incorporated at the TO level if required. | |||
| Substantive | No | DFARS 5152.225-5907 MEDICAL SCREENING AND VACCINATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES OPERATING IN THE CENTCOM AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY (AOR) (JUN 2015) | This cluase is applicable for TBC and will be incorporated at the TO level if required. | |||
| Substantive | No | DFARS 5152.225-5908 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED CONTRACTOR SUPPORT (JUN 2015) | This cluase is applicable for TBC and will be incorporated at the TO level if required. | |||
| Substantive | No | DFARS 5252.201-9201 DESIGNATION OF CONTRACTING OFFICER'S REPRESENTATIVE (MAR 2006) | Added DFARS Clause 252.201-7000 | |||
| Substantive | No | 5252.204-9202 CONTRACTOR PICTURE BADGE (JUL 2013) | Not a valid clause and did not find anything similar is SOFARS or DFARS | |||
| Substantive | No | FAR 52.249-6 Termination (Cost Reimbursement) is missing. | Added clause along with it's alt IV | |||
| H.6 | THEATER BUSINESS CLEARANCE CLAUSES | Substantive | No | Is the Theater Business Clearance required for Iraq as well? | No but we are keeping the TBC information included in case it's needed at anytime during the contract POP | |
| H.9 | Small Business Participation | Substantive | No | Sections H.9 Small Business Participation, L.6.6 Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and M.2.6.6 Small Business Subcontracting Plan indicate that offerors will submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and it will be incorporated into the Prime Contract. However, there is no reference to a DoD Comprehensive Small Business Plan. Would the Government please confirm that offerors who have an approved DoD Comprehensive Small Business Plan can submit that Plan and it will be incorporated into the Prime Contract? | Added language to L.6.6 to include the Comprehensive SB Plan | |
| Administrative | No | The Government is using SOFtact Solutions, LLC as an advisor on this acquisition. Can the Government please provide the POC information at SOFtact so that industry may execute NDAs with that entity, or can the Government provide a copy of SOFtact's NDA with the Government to review? | A POC will be provided for SOFtact Solutions at the vendor's request. | |||
| 9 | I | Contract Clauses |
10 J List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments
11 K Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors
12 L Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders
| Critical | No | Per section L.5.4, compensation plan and salary data has been requested. Is this required from every subcontractor and if so, will the Government provide direct submission emails so that subcontractors can submit their proprietary data directly to the Government? | Yes, this is required from every subcontractor and Attachment 12 Instruction. Per L.1.5.1, Attachment 12 – Pricing Template shall be emailed to the Primary and Alternate Points of Contact (POCs) identified in the next paragraph, L.5.2. | ||||
| L.1.4 | Table L.1 | Substantive | No | The table specifies that contractors limit the completed Attachment 7, Past and Present Performance Information Sheet, to 2 pages. Attachment 7 specifies "Limit 3 pages per citation." Please clarify. | Corrected to 3 pages in Table L.1 | ||
| L.1.4 | Table L.1 | Administrative | No | The instruction in the Page Limit column of the table for proposal L.2.1 Program Management reads: "20; plus Key Personnel resumes; plus SB Plan (if required) (not to exceed 5 pages)." Should this be a reference to the Quality Control Plan (QCP)? There is no discussion of the SB Plan in L.2.1. | Changed SB Plan to QCP in Table L.2.1 | ||
| L.2.2.2.3 | Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Management | Administrative | No | In the referenced section L paragraph, it reads: "Note: Current OCI will be evaluated IAW Factor V as a responsibility matter; Factor I shall address future OCI concerns." However, Section M.2.1.2.3 states the opposite: "Note: Current OCI will be evaluated IAW Volume I as a responsibility matter; the Volume V evaluation shall address future OCI concerns." Does the Government intend that the OCI Disclosure Form be included in Volume V? | Corrected M.2.1.2.3 to match L | ||
| L.3.1 | Field Service Reps and Ops Planner Support | Substantive | No | TSOC FSRs are called out as Key, but not SOCNORTH. Does the Government intend that SOCNORTH should be a Key Position? | Corrected FSR TO SOW to reflect SOCN FSR as key | ||
| L.3.2 | Provide Key Personnel Resumes for Master Trainers | Substantive | No | Master Trainers are listed as key in the RFP, and the price model lists three Master Trainer positions; however, they are not listed in the SOW. Does the Government intend to add three Master Trainers to the SOW? | Added a paragraph in NET TO SOW under section 3.0 | ||
| L.3.2 | New Equipment Training | Substantive | No | Master Trainers are listed as key in the RFP; does the Government intend that team leaders for training teams are to be key? | Added a paragraph in NET TO SOW under section 3.0 | ||
| Substantive | No | (U) Table L.1 indicates that Key Personnel resumes may be necessary in response to Volume I, Program Management; Volume I, Technical Capability; Volume II, FSR/Operational Planner Task Order Proposal; and Volume II, New Equipment Training Support Task Order Proposal. However, L.2.1 and L.2.2 proposal instructions for Volume I (Program Management and Technical Capability sections respectively) do not indicate that Key Personnel resumes are required in response to these Sub-Factors. Key Personnel resumes are included in the proposal instructions for Volume II, both Task Order Proposals. Please confirm that Key Personnel resumes are only required in response to Volume II requirements. | Volume I updated to include resume for HQ Program Manager | ||||
| Substantive | No | (U) Table L.1 indicates that the Small Business Participation Plan (if required) shall be included in Volume I, Program Management section. However, L.6.6 indicates that the Small Business Participation Plan (if required) should be included in Volume V. Please confirm which Volume should contain this Plan. | Corrected Table L.1. SB Plan shall be included with Volume V. | ||||
| Administrative | No | (U) Draft RFP Page 45, 252.237-7024 NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF ESSENTIAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES states in part, "(b) The offeror shall provide with its offer a written plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in attachment 11, Mission Essential Contractor Services, dated 28 July 2021 during periods of crisis." | |||||
| Attachment 11 was not included in the Draft RFP documents. Please clarify. | Corrected to read "Base SOW Appendix A, Paragraph 1.3 and the FSR Task Order SOW, Table 2.1" | ||||||
| Administrative | No | Section L states that past performance (PP) citations shall be no more than 2 pages per reference. The PP sheet, Attachment 7, states that each reference shall be no more than 3 pages. Will the Government update Section L to state that PP citations shall be 3 pages per reference? Much of the space in Attachment 7 is dedicated to Tables, so allowing 3 pages would provide more room for the substantive content that the Government desires for evaluation. | Corrected to 3 pages in Table L.1 | ||||
| Administrative | No | Given the classification level of these requirements and the requirement for physical CD delivery, will the Government allow 45 days for a proposal response? 45 days will help industry accommodate factors such as inability to work remotely with classified information, rotation of in-office personnel for social distancing and other COVID precautions, and built-in travel time for physical delivery. | No additional time will be alloted. | ||||
| Substantive | No | Section L.1.2 states that Primes shall have "DCSA approved CLASSIFIED Storage Capability" which allows for hard copy storage, not necessarily soft copy storage. Section L then requires soft copy preparation and submission on a CD, which limits competition to only those companies that have a current contract/need in place for soft copy storage of CLASSIFIED material. Current guidance from DCSA states that the timeline to obtain an approved computer system for CLASSIFIED information is 90 days. Will the Government allow more time between the draft and final RFPs to enable industry to obtain an acceptable system and promote competition? | No additional time will be alloted between draft and final RFP. Government is only accepting CD. | ||||
| Substantive | No | If the Government will not allow more time between the draft and final RFPs, will the Government allow industry to submit an Unclassified proposal response? | No, only classified proposals will be accepted in order to avoid spillage. | ||||
| Substantive | No | L.1.2 Program Classification/Facility Security Clearance states: "...A prerequisite to this requirement is that all interested vendors that wish to propose for the Prime Contractor role shall already have DCSA approved CLASSIFIED Storage Capability and individual Security Clearances." |
This seems to contradict Atch 4 - TCC DD Form 254, 13. Security Guidance, Ref 10k: "NIPRNET/SIPRNET/JWICS access required at government facilities and SIPRNET access required at contractor facilities."
Will the Government clarify -
(1) whether SIPRNET is required at contractor facilities?
(2) if SIPRNET is required at contractor facilities, is this required at time of award or post-award?
| (3) if SIPRNET is required at contractor facilities, may this requirement be fulfilled at the subcontractor level? | The Contractor's facility should be a TS facility with the ability to store and process secret information. SIPR at the time of award is not required and this requirement will be determined post award with mutal agreement between both parties. | ||
| L.3.1 Sub-Factor 2.1, L.3.2 Sub-Factor 2.2, 5652.237-9001 | The draft RFP indicates the number and location of specific Key Personnel positions will be, "identified in Appendix D of the base SOW." We recall the previous 2016 solicitation required a high number of Key Personnel for nearly 44% of the total FTE. |
We presume the forthcoming SOW will also require an equally high number of resumes and Letters of Commitment. We suspect the Government assumes that knowing the prospective personnel by name, in advance, will reduce transition risk substantially.
We concur with the Government's intent to substantially reduce transition risk by identifying key personnel well in advance of transition. However, we are concerned the Government's approach may give undue, if not unfair, competitive advantage to the incumbent prime contractor since the available pool of highly trained personnel for this extremely niche skillset is extremely constrained to current incumbent personnel. Especially, if they are prevented, by incumbent prime contractor employment contracts from, discussing or providing Letters of Commitment to prospective bidders.
In order to prevent undue/unfair competitive advantage while supporting the spirit and intent of the Government's desire for low risk transition, we request the Government require each prime to guarantee, in their proposal, full employment of all incumbent personnel on Day One of the contract, unless a specific incumbent employee is deemed unsuitable for continued participation on the new contract. In addition, we request the Government simply specify the only Key Personnel position as the Project Manager, requiring a resume and Letter of Commitment.
A Letter of Commitment is relatively enforceable by an employee against an employer's failure to hire them. However, an employer is often unable to enforce a Letter of Commitment against an employee. For example, an employee may sign a Letter of Committment, work day one of the contract, and then promptly give two weeks notice to leave the company. Therefore, Letters of Commitment are relatively weak tools to enforce/ensure the Government's intent to retain incumbent personnel to reduce transition risk.
We also request the Government deem any resume submitted for an incumbent employee not be deemed a "Strength" that unduly benefits the unique competitive advantage of the incumbent prime contractor.
| We believe this proposed approach would not only meet but, actually exceed the Government's original intent to reduce personnel transition risk. | We cannot control how the companies mandate if their employees can or can not talk to other companies. We need to ensure the company that is awarded this contract are ready and have the people in place to start executing on day one of the contract. In order for us to verify this, we need resumes and CL for all the key personnel and not just the managers. | ||
| L.3.1 Sub-Factor 2.1 | |||
| L.3.2 Sub-Factor 2.2 M.2.3.1 Sub-factor 2.1 M.2.3.2 Sub-factor 2.2 | In in the 2016 solicitation the Government specified a 10-day transition period and clarified in Q&A, "The Contractor is required to have 95% of the required personnel onsite at their duty locations on day one in order to avoid an interruption in service. The scope of this contract involves providing support to on-going training and operational events. Any degradation in support will not be acceptable. The Contractor will need to plan appropriately to ensure all the necessary preparations for deployed personnel are completed immediately upon award. The Government will only make exceptions for the personnel located in Germany since the DOCPERS approval process and timeline is governed by the German Authorities." |
We request the Government please provide this level of specificity in the final RFP, in order to prevent bidder confusion about the personnel transition requirements.
In addition, we see the Government previously authorized delays to emplacement of personnel for the Germany location due to time constraints outside the direct control of the prime contractor. We believe this logic would also apply to other Government or third party government delays, such as Government Security Onboarding delays, new badge processing, etc. Therefore, we request the Government clarify that any delays specifically associated with delays of the Government, will not be considered the fault of the prime contractor and not negatively impact the Government's assessment of contractor performance.
| We also request the Government specify which 5% (or any other percentage specified by the Governemnt) of the positions will not be required at their duty locations day one of the contract and clarify exactly when those positions must arrive at their duty location. | The Government intends to award with enough time for approval of DOCPERS. Please only follow the current soliciation and not the 2016 solicitation. | ||
| 13 | M | Evaluation Factors for Award |
| Substantive | No | Sections M.2.3.1 and M.2.3.2 state "Identified Key Personnel that bring relevant qualifications and experience exceeding the required levels may be more favorably evaluated." Can the Government please define the specific criteria to determine what will "exceed" qualifications during evaluation? | If an individual's past experience and education, exceed the qualifications stated for a Level 3 in Appendix F of Base SOW, they may receive a more favorable rating. | |
| Substantive | No | Will the Government accept redacted KP resumes? | The governement should only allow redacted personal information. If the employee does not permit the information to be released, it should not be included into the resume. | |
| M.2.6.1 | We acknowledge the Government's intent to mitigate OCI on this contract whereby the prime contractor has exceptional influence over USSOCOM TTL equipment requirements, as well as equipment selection, sourcing, and system integration. |
We request the Government define grounds for "unmitigable" OCI as, "any current USSOCOM contracts executed by the prime offeror whereby the offeror influences USSOCOM TTL requirements and/or the selection, sourcing, and system integration."
In addition, we request Government specify that "unmitigable" OCI also includes, "any prime offeror with proprietary equipment listed on the USSOCOM TTL authorized equipment list delivered under the current T-REX" contract.
Most importantly, we request Government specify that "unmitigable" OCI includes, "any prime offeror previously (within the past 5 years) or currently providing a proprietary Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) managed service solutions whereby TTL data is injected into the network and processed by the SaaS solution."
We acknowledge that OCI integrity is paramount on this contract. We believe the above added clarity, in the forthcoming RFP, will not only help the Government meet their desired intent but, also enable potential offerors to clearly understand their authorization to bid on this contract and avoid causing undue burden or delays to the Government during solicitation, contract award, or contract execution.
| No exclusion will be mandated. All parties with an OCI situation shall propose their OCI mitigation plan. | ||
| Exhibit A | CDRLs |
14 A00x
DD 254
15 Attachment 1 DD 254
| Security Guidance | Critical | No | Does the contractor facility require SIPRNET access at the time of proposal submission? Will USSOCOM consider a facility within 15 miles of the SOCOM HQs to allow couriering of classified materials until contract required SIPRNET sponsorship is granted / installed? | The Contractor's facility should be a TS facility with the ability to store and process secret information. SIPR at the time of award is not required and this requirement will be determined post award with mutal agreement between both parties. | |
| Substantive | No | (CUI) DD254 Ref 10k states that SIPRNET access is required at contractor facilities. As the Government must sponsor SIPRNET at contractor facilities based on specific contract needs, please clarify whether SIPRNET at contractor facilities is required at the time of proposal submission, or whether the Government, upon award, will permit this contract to be the rationale for SIPRNET install at a contractor facility. | The Contractor's facility should be a TS facility with the ability to store and process secret information. SIPR at the time of award is not required and this requirement will be determined post award with mutal agreement between both parties. | ||
| Substantive | No | If SIPRNET is not required prior to contract award, what is the timeframe for SIPRNET to be activated post-award? | The Contractor's facility should be a TS facility with the ability to store and process secret information. SIPR at the time of award is not required and this requirement will be determined post award with mutal agreement between both parties. | ||
| Administrative | No | Page 7 of DD Form 254, number 5/Item 14 states "SEVENTY-THREE (79) contract billets". Can the Government please confirm if the number of billets is 73 or 79? | DD 254 Updated | ||
| Substantive | No | Is SIPRNET access required prior to contract award? | The Contractor's facility should be a TS facility with the ability to store and process secret information. SIPR at the time of award is not required and this requirement will be determined post award with mutal agreement between both parties. | ||
| pg. 3 | Administrative | No | MARSOC West is listed but is not in SOW. | MARSOC West removed from the DD254 | |
| pg. 11 | Administrative | No | Block 14 includes SOKCOR--is this correct? | Corrected to SOCKOR | SOKCOR is also not on the IGCE |
| pg. 3 | Administrative | No | Is ITC location an error? Should that position be someplace else (it is not in SOW)? | Corrected | |
| Administrative | No | Should NSW ATC be added (listed in SOW)? | Corrected | ||
| pg. 3 | Administrative | No | Is NSW-G 10 an error (it is not in SOW)? | Corrected | |
| pg. 7 | Administrative | No | On page 7, 5.0 Item 14 reads, "SEVENTY-THREE (79)." Please clarify. (This should match the SOW.) | DD254 updated | |
| pg. 4 | Administrative | No | The contract start date is listed as 1 May 2022; should this be 1 April? | Corrected to 1 April | |
| SOW |
| SOW App. B | (CUI) TVS RSTA Specific Requirements | Substantive | No | Does the Government intend to man the MARSOC schoolhouse (TCC FSR duty location in SOW)? | yes | ||
| SOW Key Pers. | (CUI) TCC Field Service Rep Duty Locations | Substantive | No | There are no key positions for RSTA aside from .3 for PM; should any RSTA FTEs be key? | SOW revised to reflect USASFC and MARSOC HQ as key personnel | ||
| SOW Key Pers. | (CUI) TCC Field Service Rep Duty Locations | Substantive | No | There are no key positions for UAS; should any be key? | UAS Coronado positions have been updated as key | ||
| SOW Key Pers. | (CUI) TCC Field Service Rep Duty Locations | Substantive | No | There are no Army SOF key personnel aside from SF Command; are any of the Special Forces Group (SFG) positions considered key (only 1 per SFG)? | Negative | ? | |
| SOW App. F | (CUI) FSR & MTT Labor Category Qualifications | Substantive | No | Labor category experience qualifications for both HF-TTL and TVS/RSTA are combined (see Personnel Quals table in App F). Should these skill sets be defined in separate labor categories because the required skill sets for these positions are different? | Appendix F has been modified to clearly identify the qualifications that are specific to HF-TTL or TVS/RSTA. | ||
| 16 | Critical | No | Does the contractor facility require SIPRNET access at the time of proposal submission? Will USSOCOM consider a facility within 15 miles of the SOCOM HQs to allow couriering of classified materials until contract required SIPRNET sponsorship is granted / installed? | The Contractor's facility should be a TS facility with the ability to store and process secret information. SIPR at the time of award is not required and this requirement will be determined post award with mutal agreement between both parties. | |||
| 17 | Logistician | Substantive | No | The section describes the requirement for a Logistician responsible for all activities related to receipt, inventory, safeguarding, equipment. Is this position in addition to the positions listed in the Personnel Duty Location table? Or is one of those personnel "dual hatted"? | No, not in addition and this person is not "dual hatted". | ||
| 18 | Appendix A | Substantive | No | Appendix A, para 1.11.2.2 states "provide up to 6 training sessions concurrently." Para 1.12.1 states "capped at 20 students with 3:1 student to instructor ratio." If all concurrent sessions had 20 students, that would require 40 trainers, of which there are only 18 on this contract. Please confirm that the govt will control session class sizes as not to exceed the 18 trainer capacity. | This should not be an issue as this is how the classes are currently ran. The Government regulates class dates. | ||
| 19 | German DoD Contractor Personnel (DOCPER) | Substantive | No | Would the Government please confirm personnel that are DOCPER approved are also TESA-SOFA approved and will not be subject to German taxes? | Yes this is correct. | ||
| Paragraph 1.2 | Substantive | No | (CUI) SOW 1.2 references an Approved Product List (APL). Would the Government consider providing the APL now, or, alternately, including the APL in the Final RFP package? | The information in the SOW is all the Government intends to provide. | |||
| Paragraph 8 | Substantive | No | (CUI) SOW 8 references the large volume of GFE/parts/materials. Regarding warehouse storage of these materials: |
1. How many square feet would be required?
2. Is any of the equipment sensitive in nature?
| 3. Does the warehouse need to be climate controlled? | Currently occupy 45,000 sq feet of space. Yes, the equipment is sensisti. Yes, the warehouse is climate controlled. | |
| Price Template |
20 HF-TTL FSR Positions Substantive No As presently depicted, section HT-TTL FSR Positions of the pricing sheet shows 3 positions (rows 4-6) assigned to SOCOM HQ (1 x Mgr, 1 x Tech, 1 x KeyMaker). SOW, Appendix A, paragraph 1.9 implies there are 4 positions located at SOCOM HQ:
-Para 1.9.1 appears to show one individual which matches pricing sheet row 4.
-Para 1.9.2 appears to show one individual which matches pricing sheet row 5.
-Para 1.9.3 appears to show multiple individuals as the acronym FSR is pluralized (FSRs). We believe there should be two individuals in para 1.9.3. Both individuals would be the same LCAT as what is shown in the pricing sheet row 6.
| Please clarify if there are two individuals in SOW paragraph 1.9.3 that are the same LCAT/position as depicted in the pricing sheet row 6 (KeyMaker). | Pricing Sheet updated to show 4 positions at HQ | |||||
| Substantive | No | How are danger pay and hardship identified in the pricing template? | Danger pay and hardship should be included in the FBLR. | |||
| Substantive | No | Instruction #1 for Tab #5 Total Compensation Plan states: "This tab only includes those positions currently filled by an incumbent employee as of RFP release for purposes of evaluating the proposed total compensation IAW FAR 52.222-46." | ||||
| For positions that may be filled by new personnel (non-incumbent employees) or proposals submitted by non-incumbent contractors, shall the applicable rows on this worksheet be left unpopulated? | Removed the sentence "This tab only includes those positions currently filled by an incumbent employee as of RFP release for purposes of evaluating the proposed total compensation IAW FAR 52.222-46." 52.222-46 requires the evaluation of all positions. | |||||
| Substantive | No | Is it the Government's intention that the fully burdened rates submitted on Tab 3 LH Pricing FSR & Ops AND Tab 4 LH Pricing NET be inclusive of OCONUS employee benefit costs such as Cost of Living Allowance , Education Allowance , Living Quarters Allowance (OCONUS), and incentive pay? Alternatively, are these 'added costs' included in the Government provided Plug numbers for ODC? | Yes, that is the intent. FBLR should include all cost of that FTE including benefits, refer to Instructions in the Pricing Template. | |||
| Substantive | No | Will the government confirm that the values provided in Tab #5 Total Compensation Plan EXCLUDE the value of fringe benefits associated with Employer payroll tax, employer contributions and other 401(k) expenses and health insurances? | Yes, Tab 5 is for bare rates only, no fringe | |||
| Other / Additional |
| L & M | Substantive | No | (U) Sections L and M make multiple references to Day 1 readiness (specifically, L.3.1, L.3.2, M.2.3.1, and M.2.3.2). The Period of Performance is identified as starting on 1 April 2022. Is "Day 1" synonymous with 1 April 2022, or does "Day 1" refer to contract award date or another date? Respectfully suggest that “Day 1” refers to first day after the transition period. | Day 1 in this instance means 1 April 2022 | |
| All | Substantive | No | (U) On what date does the incumbent contract Period of Performance (PoP) end? | 31-Mar-22 | |
| L&M | Substantive | No | (U) Sections L and M make multiple references to the "transition period." Can the Government clarify the definition of "transition period"? Specifically, does "transition period" refer to a period of overlapping support between the incumbent contractor and a new awardee? | Transition period is the overlap from date of contract award to Performance start date of 1 April 2022 | |
| All | Substantive | No | (U) Will there be overlap in the Periods of Performance between the incumbent contractor and any potential new awardee? If so, what is the duration of the overlap period? | No overlap in Period of Performance | |
| pg. 45 | 252.237-7024 NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF ESSENTIAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES (OCT 2010) | Administrative | No | This section references RFP attachment 11, which was not included in the draft RFP. | Corrected |
| N/A | Other Comments: | Substantive | No | There is a discrepancy between the FTE count in the Pricing Template (76 FTEs) and the SOW (81 FTEs). The Pricing Template is missing one remote FTE, one MARSOC schoolhouse FTE, and four SOCCENT OCONUS FTEs; all of these positions are listed in the SOW. In addition, in the Pricing Template, one extra USASOC position is listed but is not included in the SOW. | Pricing Template corrected. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .