Attachment 8_T2C2 Draft RFP QnA Spreadsheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 48 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W15P7T-23-R0002
About this file
This federal contract opportunity posting is for logistics and management support services for the Transportable Tactical Command Communications (T2C2) program. The Army Aberdeen Proving Ground is seeking these services to develop logistics documentation and establish Sustainment Support Packages for seven T2C2 terminal variants and configurations. Questions for solicitation number W15P7T-23-R0002 are due by 12:00 pm EDT on November 17th, 2022. This is an 8(a) competitive small business set-aside being conducted by the Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground on behalf of the Department of the Army Materiel Command. The opportunity involves developing logistics family trees, updating technical manuals and engineering data, conducting configuration management, and providing life cycle support and repair services for fielded T2C2 terminals on a firm-fixed-price basis.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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
RFP Instructions T2C2 RFP 13644 Draft RFP Instructions Questions
| Page # or Section Reference | Question | Government Answer | |
| 1 | B08 13644 T2C2 RFP Instructions 25Aug2022; pg 1, Section A | 31 October 2022 is stated as date for proposal package to be received. Is this date correct? When is the final RFP expected to be issued? | Please see revised proposal due date within the SF1449 |
| 2 | PWS Section 3.5.2 Task 2 Logistics | Does the government have a fixed schedule to provide FFP bid that they can share? If not will the government make this contract CPFF? | The schedule is driven by the CDRLs and due dates within a 12 month period of performance. The Government will not change this requirement to CPFF. |
| 3 | Table on pg 4 | Please clarify/correct the number of files that comprise Volume III. The files names also do not agree with the filename convention instructions on page 2. | Volume III Cost/Price is comprised of the following: (a) one excel spreadsheet completed by the Offeror with all formulas visible. (b) A duplicate of this spreadsheet is to be supplied with all the costs and pricing and fees removed. This is the sanitized version. (c) The Cost/Price narrative is a word document which supports and crosswalks back to your excel spreadsheet. (d) A duplicate of the Cost/Price narrative is a word document with all the costs and pricing and fees removed. This is the sanitized version. The Government has revised it's RFP instructions to amend the filename samples on page 2 with page 4. |
| 4 | Table on pg 4 | Please confirm that the Property Management plan and the OCI plan are separate files and not contained in Vol III. | Correct. The Property Management plan and the OCI plan are separate files and not contained in Vol III. |
| 5 | Vol II - Past Performance, 2nd paragraph on page 6 | Please clarify how many Past Performance examples must be from the Prime. | 5-page limit per past performance example submitted (up to 3 for Prime, and up to 2 for each significant subcontractor) |
| 6 | Vol II - Past Performance, Relevance paragraph on page 6 | Please identify the dollar value that meets the threshold. | The Government declines to answer. |
| 7 | Vol II - Past Performance, Relevance table on page 7 | Is it being implied that each past performance example need to meet the PWS sections listed in the table in order to be relevant or is the enture PWS ? | No, each past performance example does not need to meet each of the PWS sections in order to be relevant. Offerors past performance samples should be chosen with consideration to their similarity to the complexity of the requirements, dollar value, extent of subcontracting and teaming, performance location, and the type of services and support required in this RFP and the Attachment 4 – PWS. |
| 8 | Vol III - Cost/Price, 1st paragraph page 10 | The template provided does not have embedded formulas. Is the Government expecting offerors to provide such formulas? | Yes |
| 9 | Vol III - Cost/Price, Tab list on page 10 | Please clarify what data is being requested in TABs 14 thru 19. | The Cost/Price Template has been revised to simplify the data required |
| 10 | Vol III - Cost/Price, Materials Section on page 12 | Can the Government provide a NTE Plug? If none is proposed, does that remove the ability to add a Materials CLIN in the future for unforeseen/unplanned requirements? | Materials have been revised to be Government Furnished. No plug number is required. |
| 11 | Vol III - Cost/Price, Materials Section on page 12 | The instructions imply that the Property Management Plan is to be included in Vol III but the Table on page 4 lists it as separate file. Please clarify how we should submit this plan. | The Property Management Plan is not part of Volume III. The RFP instructions have been revised to show this as a separate document which Offerors shall include with their proposal. |
| 12 | Vol III - Cost/Price, page 13 | There is no section to for a Travel provision. Can the Government provide a NTE Plug? If none is proposed, does that remove the ability to add a ODC CLIN in the future for unforeseen/unplanned requirements? | The solicitation and Cost/Price Template have been revised to include a plug number for Travel and ODC. |
| 13 | Vol III - Cost/Price, OCI Section page 13 | The instructions imply that the OCI Declaration/Mitigation Plan is to be included in Vol III but the Table on page 4 lists it as separate file. Please clarify how we should submit this plan. | The OCI Declaration/Mitigation Plan is not part of Volume III. The RFP instructions have been revised to show this as a separate document which Offerors shall include with their proposal. |
| 14 | B. Evaluation Section on page 14 | Is #2 based on the overall past performance rating for a total rating or do all provided past performances examples need to receive no less than a "relevant" rating. | The solicitation has been revised. |
| 15 | B. Evaluation Section on page 14 | How is #2 going to be applied if an offeror has unknown or neutral past performance per #3 NOTE on page 17. | If an Offeror is determined to have unknown or neutral past performance, their overall past performance rating will be considered neutral. They may still be considered for award. |
| 16 | B. Evaluation Section on page 14 | Please clarify how #5 is going to be enforced and how the mitigation plan is going to be assessed in order for the contracting officer to determine the OCI is mitigated. | The Contracting Officer will review mitigation plans, if applicable, and make a determination if the OCI is mitigatable. |
| 17 | B. Evaluation of Vol II Section, #3 on page 17 | Is a Neutral rating good enough for an award? | Yes |
| 18 | B. Evaluation of Vol II - Past Performance, Relevance table on page 17 | Will the entire PWS be used to determine relevance or just the PWS paragraphs listed in the table on page 7? | Please see the answer to question number 7 above. |
| 19 | B. Evaluation of Vol II Section, relevance rating table on page 17 | we acknowledge that the scope and complexities are subjective, but the magnitude (i.e. value or FTE) can be easily measured. Please define the magnitude that for each of the ratings. | Magnitude of effort is the relative importance or significance of the past performance example against the tasks within the PWS |
| 20 | Pg. 2, POC information | Does the government want the POC information required at the top of the page as part of the email content or as a separate document? | The point of contact information in the title at the top of each page may be included within the email as well. |
| 21 | Pg2, Subcontractor Submission File Name requirements | Does the Government wish the subcontractors File Name to use their company name in the OfferorName of the file name? How does the government intend to tie the Subcontractor's proprietary submission files to the Prime's submission files? | If a subcontractor submits proprietary information directly to the Government, they shall put their company name in the file and their email shall specify who the prime contractor is. |
| 22 | Pg3, Subcontractor Submission File Name requirements | If the Subcontractor's submission files are sent with the Prime's submission files, How does the government want them named (the name would be the same if OfferorName is used for all files). | If a subcontractor's files are submitted with the prime's files, the subcontractor's company name should be at the top of the document. |
| 23 | pg. 3 and pg. 5, Volume I Technical | Given the PWS is 81 pages with imbedded document attachments and the instructions are to include paragraphs, sub paragraphs and bullets (as applicable) in the response, a 30 page technical volume appears unrealistically small given the response requirement. | The technical requirements have been revised. |
| 24 | pgs. 5 and 6, Assumptions / Exceptions | Does the government want Assumptions / Exceptions to be presented as a separate section or would they prefer they be presented within the location where that Assumption / Exception is applicable? | Assumptions and Exceptions has been removed. |
| 25 | Pg 6, Use of IDIQ Task Orders as a Past Performance Example | Many IDIQ Task Orders are issued for the same project on a yearly basis. Will the government allow multiple Task Orders on a single IDIQ Contract which are follow-ons to each other be used as a single past performance example to ensure relevance related to complexity, dollar value, etc. can be fully met? | Each delivery order or task order under an IDIQ contract that an Offeror provides as Past Performance will count as one (1) Past Performance example. The Government will not allow multiple follow-on task orders to be counted as one past performance example. Each example will count. |
| 26 | pg 8, item h. teaming agreements | Are Teaming Agreements considered part of the page count for a past performance example? | Yes |
| 27 | pg. 9, Table to be used for summary Past Performance information | The table provided will be extremely difficult to provide in a portrait format with required page margins legibly. Specifically the Description of Services and some of the POC information (some addresses can be somewhat extensive). Does the government intend a single table containing all information for all Performance Examples on a single page or does the Government intend a table at the beginning of each Performance Example separately? | Prepare a table at the beginning of each past performance example. Areas wherein more detail or space is needed can be noted for the Government to see sections below the table. |
| 28 | pg. 9, Table to be used for summary Past Performance information | The table provided will be extremely difficult to provide in a portrait format with required page margins legibly. Would the government consider allowing offeror's to provide a table formatted at the offeror's discretion which contains the same relevant information? | Please see the answer to question above. |
| 29 | Pg. 9, PPQ Cover Letter | Is it acceptable for the Offeror to provide the cover letter information to our customers in the email vs. a separate or attached cover letter to the PPQ? | Yes |
| 30 | pg. 11, Subcontracts | Generally, during the proposal phase the companies have Teaming Agreements and subcontracts are not finalized/issued until we receive an award. Does the government want the Teaming Agreements as part of the Cost Narrative? | In the event that subcontracting efforts have not been formerly agreed upon prior to submission of the proposal, the Offeror shall provide the subcontracting quote/proposal to validate the proposed pricing or the subcontractors can send their costs (if considered proprietary) directly to the Government. |
| 31 | Pg.8 item h. and page 11. | It appears the government wants Teaming Agreements in both the Past Performance and Cost Narrative Volumes. It this accurate? | No. They are for two separate reasons (past peformance and teaming agreements for the T2C2 new contract proposal). If an Offeror had significant subcontractor, joint venture or teaming agreements on any of their past performance examples, they should be included within the past performance submission. Negotiated subcontract agreements shall be provided so the Government may validate the subcontractors proposed pricing as used by the Offeror. In the event that subcontracting efforts have not been formerly agreed upon prior to submission of the proposal, the Offeror shall provide the subcontracting quote/proposal to validate the proposed pricing. |
Cost Price Template T2C2 RFP 13644 Cost/Price Summary Questions
| Page # or Section Reference | Question | Government Answer | |
| 1 | B08 13644 T2C2 RFP Instructions 25Aug2022; pg 11, section A. Volume III - Cost/Price, LABOR | Given the complex nature of this effort and the co-dependency between the Government and Contractor to successfully complete the work, Firm Fixed Cost/price (FFP) contracting places a disproportionate amount of risk on the Contractor. Will the Government change this to a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract so that both parties may share the risk equally? | No. |
| 2 | Materials, ODCs, Travel TABS | Please clarify is this for offerors costs with regard to our approach and not what is needed to support any PWS requirements for the Government. | Materials have been revised to be Government Furnished. Travel and ODCs are now plug numbers. The tabs are for Offerors to use to detail approach and cost estimate within their proposal |
| 3 | |||
| 4 | |||
| 5 | |||
| 6 | |||
| 7 | |||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | |||
| 10 |
Clause Attachment T2C2 RFP 13644 Applicable Clauses Questions
| Page # or Section Reference | Question | |
| 1 | ||
| 2 | No questions or comment submitted | |
| 3 | ||
| 4 | ||
| 5 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 8 | ||
| 9 | ||
| 10 |
Quality Assurance Plan (QASP) T2C2 RFP 13644 Quality Assurance Plan (QASP) Questions
| Page # or Section Reference | Question | Government Answer | |
| 1 | Attachment 1 | How does responding to degradations, alarms, HAZCONs etc be a performance requirement standard on this contract? Would the Government consider removing? | The Contractor shall follow the performance metric schedule of responding to all degradations, outages, site alarms, or Hazardous Conditions (HAZCONs) of circuits, equipment, and/or power by submitting information to the COR and SATCOM Maintenance Center within thirty minutes or less. This performance objective will not be removed. |
| 2 | Attachment 1, Management Metric | 100% compliance is unrealistic for retention/replacement of staff. Recommend this be removed since it is a performance based contract. | The Government will not make a change to this requirement. Should there be a retention and/or replacement of staff challenge during the life of the contract, the awardee will communicate and work with the Government to fill the position. |
| 3 | Attachment 1 | There are no performance metrics in meeting quality and timeliness of deliverables/services. | The QASP has been revised. |
| 4 | |||
| 5 | |||
| 6 | |||
| 7 | |||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | |||
| 10 |
Performance Work Statement(PWS) T2C2 RFP 13644 Performance Work Statement (PWS) Questions
| Page # or Section Reference | Question | Government Answer | PM ANSWERS | |
| 1 | PWS 3.5.2.3.1 Logistics Family Tree | Please identify each configuration that includes a Product Data Drawing Tree developed to reflect the top-down operational view. | PWS dated 06 July 2022 does not have a 3.5.2.3.1 section. |
A Logistics Family Tree is separate from a Product Data Drawing Tree. PWS para 3.4 Government Furnished Information (GFI) lists all Logistics Family Trees and corresponding configurations. Appendix A shows configurations which already have Product Data and which ones are changed/new.
| 2 | PWS 3.5.2.3.1 Logistics Family Tree | Please identify each configuration that includes a Product Data Drawing Tree developed to reflect the top-down packout view. | PWS paragraph 3.4 Government Furnished Information (GFI) lists all documents Technical Data Package (TDP) and corresponding configurations. Appendix A shows configurations which already have Product Data and which ones are changed/new. | |
| 3 | PWS 3.5.2.3.1 Logistics Family Tree | Please confirm that the Logistics Family Tree of each configuration should mirror the top-down structure defined by the Product Data Drawing Tree of each configuration. | No, the Logistics Family Tree for each configuration follows a functional breakdown structure. The Product Data Drawing Tree is for Configuration Management purposes and is separate ffomm the Logistics Family Tree. Product Data Drawing Tree's do not define all Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) nor Functional configuration requirements. Product Data Drawing Tree's should be used in conjunction with other Logistics documentation to generate Family Tree's. | |
| 4 | PWS 3.5.2.9.4 Technical Manual In-Process Reviews | Please confirm that the contractor is not required to deliver XML source files in support of IPRs. | The Contractor is required to deliver XML source files with each delivery of the technical manuals. The XML is a part of the review. | |
| 5 | PWS 3.5.2.9.8 TM/ETM Delivery Requirements | a. The second sentence states the Contractor shall deliver hard copy for events. Are hard copy of the document deliverables only required at final delivery and not during document development review? | ||
| b. The third sentence states the Contractor shall deliver source data. Is the source data in XML format only required at final delivery? During the document preparation for government review/comment, is MS Word and/or PDF an acceptable format? | a. The PWS states the Contractor is required to provide hard copies of the Technical Manual (TM) for all events during this effort to include IPRs, verifications, and Log Demos. b. The Government shall review XML source data and the PDF should be delivered as scheduled. WORD version is not acceptable. The Government technical writers are required to review the XML source data to ensure it is correct, as well as the content of the PDF. | |||
| 6 | CDRLs | Please confirm that a given deliverable is officially approved in the event Government comments are received after the Government review period identified within the CDRLs are exceeded. If not, will the Government require, review, and accept a modified IMS due to Government delay in providing comments? | If the Government is late delivering comments, the COR will be notified ahead of schedule, at which time the COR will notify the Contractor of the delay and delivery dates and how they adjust according to what is agreed upon by Government and Contractor. | |
| 7 | PWS 3.4 Government Furnished Information | The Technical Data Packages (TDP) for the SCOUT configurations are identified to be GFI. However, the TDP for other configurations are not identified. Will the government provide all configurations TDP as GFI? | No, only the SCOUT configurations will be GFI. Appendix A shows the configurations that the OEMs will maintain. | |
| 8 | Worksheet C Logistics Documentation update Matrix | Is the GFI Logistics Documentation being provided in Draft status or in Authorized/Final release status? | It is the intent of the Government to provide final versions of all GFI documents with the exception of SCOUT Small /Medium TDPs and Family Trees | |
| 9 | Worksheet C Logistics Documentation update Matrix | Is the contractor required to cleanup any existing GFI Logistics Documentation or will Government contractors be responsible for the clean up prior to incoming quality acceptance at the contractor? | The awardee will be required to provide updates to the Government for SCOUT Small / Medium and Family Trees TDPs and redlines will be provided to assist in the edits. | |
| 10 | B08 - 13644 RFP Attachment 4_PWS 6July2022: Section 3.5 | What format(s) will the Technical Manuals be provided? | The technical manuals shall be provided in PDF and the XML must also be provided. | |
| 11 | B08 - 13644 RFP Attachment 4_PWS 6July2022: Section 3.2 | When is the GFE to be provided (e.g., 30 days after contract award)? The IMS will be dependent on this information. | GFE will be staggered due to availability of systems through OEM; however, this will not cause delays in development because there will be data that can be reused from previous configurations. | |
| 12 | B08 - 13644 RFP Attachment 4_PWS 6July2022: Section 3.3 | When is the GFS to be provided? The IMS will be dependent on this information. | Software versions will be shipped at time of award | |
| 13 | B08 - 13644 RFP Attachment 4_PWS 6July2022: Section 3.4 | When is the GFI to be provided? The IMS will be dependent on this information. | Start of Work Meeting, there will also be a SHAREPOINT site so contractors are able to access GFI documents | |
| 14 | B08 - 13644 RFP Attachment 4_PWS 6July2022: Section 3.5.6.4, Product Data | Will the Government be providing a "TDP Option Selection Worksheet" per Mil-Std-31000B as cited in the PWS? If so, as part of the RFP? The information provided in the worksheet is critical in scoping (cost and schedule) the effort as the worksheet addresses what types of data are truly required to support the COTS equipment and thereby avoids requirement creep. | The Contractor shall leverage the same standards and requirements provided in GFI. The Option Selection Worksheet will not be supplied. | |
| 15 | B08 - 13644 RFP Attachment 4_PWS 6July2022: Appendix A (embedded excel file) | What is meant by the letter "U", percentage value, and highlighted color (e.g. yellow) in the documentation requirements matrix? The chart/matrix is missing a legend for these items. | Row 2, Column A provides references. The color has no meaning. | |
| 16 | Worksheet C Logistics Documentation update Matrix | The percentages estimates of the matrix do not match the PWS description tables of the Base Year Logistics Documentation Requirements. Please state which percentage of estimates to use. | The percentages estimates in the matrix align with the percentages in the PWS description table. | |
| 17 | PWS Section 3.2 | Will the Government provide Technical Manuals for each Configuration? Will the government provide component level and System level Acceptance Test Procedures (ATP) for each configuration | PWS paragraph 3.4 Government Furnished Information (GFI) lists all documents the Government will provide. The Acceptance Test Procerdures (ATP) is NOT a requirement on this contract. | |
| 18 | PWS Section 3.2 | Will the Government provide the PPL for each configuration? | Yes, except for new development. The PPL for each configuration is provided. | |
| 19 | PWS Section 3.2 | Will the Government provide the PPL highlighting specific ZZ parts by configuration identifying Repair or Replace for FFP pricing? | ZZ parts are consumables and will be replaced. | |
| 20 | PWS Section 3.2 | Will the Government provide the current cost of each LRU and assure the contractor they are not obsolete, and are still in production? | This will be provided in PPL. The PPL is part of the GFI which contains this information. It's the Offerors responsibility to work with the OEM to get the cost data and information that has been established for the other configurations excluding Ultra Lite. | |
| 21 | PWS Section 3.5.2 Task 2 Logistics | Does the government have a fixed schedule to provide FFP bid that they can share? If not will the government make this contract CPFF? | No, there is no fixed schedule. The requirement will not be changed to CPFF | |
| 22 | PWS Section 3.5.2 Task 2 Logistics | Will the government provide facilities to include test equipment and tools? Can the government define the amount of Warehouse space required to support this mission? | The Government will agree to Contractors utilizing Government facilities. Please refer to DD-254. | |
| 23 | PWS Section 3.5.2 Task 2 Logistics | Will the government provide known obsolete parts list for each configuration and government plans for resolution of the obsolete parts? | PWS paragraph 3.4 Government Furnished Information (GFI) lists all documents the Government will provide. | |
| 24 | PWS Section 3.5.2 Task 2 Logistics | How does the government account for schedule impact due to obsolete and End-of-Life parts in the FFP pricing? | If item goes to End of Life (EoL) then the Government will utilize the CM process to establish Engineering Change Proposals (ECP) and then process modification to the contract accordingly. | |
| 25 | PWS Section 3.5.2 Task 2 Logistics | Will the Government provide historical data on FFP parts required for RESET, major mechanical failures by configuration, and failures rates by configuration with average RMA costs and RMA average turn-around time by configuration? | PWS paragraph 3.4 Government Furnished Information (GFI) lists all documents the Government will provide. Government will not provide SQFT, but can provide size of cases so Contractor can use their own judgement for proposal preparation. | |
| 26 | PWS Section 3.5.2 Task 2 Logistics | How do you account for above and beyond cost of standard 10/20 repair and its impact on schedule into the FFP price? | It is the responsibility of the Contractor to account for above and beyond cost of Army's 10/20 Maintenance Standard in their certified cost and pricing data, and to also determine the impact on their schedule. | |
| 27 | PWS Section 3.5.2 Task 2 Logistics | Without a definitive Government annual quantity and delivery schedule, how is vendor to price this on FFP basis? | Offeror's shall develop schedule based on the CDRLs and PWS requirement as the preferred method to price the effort. | |
| 28 | PWS Section 3.5.2 Task 2 Logistics | What is the quantity of each terminal variant? | Reference Appendix A and PWS Paragraph 3.1.1 | |
| 29 | PWS Section 3.5.2 Task 2 Logistics | How many depots are currently used and what are their locations? | Pursuant to page 7 of the PWS, the Contractor shall establish required relationships with the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), sub-contractors, sub-suppliers, or other vendors to comply with or suitably tailor the same requirements as listed in this PWS. This question should be directed to OEM. | |
| 30 | PWS Section 3.5.2 Task 2 Logistics | What are the size of the depot facilities? | Pursuant to page 7 of the PWS, the Contractor shall establish required relationships with the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), sub-contractors, sub-suppliers, or other vendors to comply with or suitably tailor the same requirements as listed in this PWS. This question should be directed to OEM. | |
| 31 | PWS Section 3.5.2 Task 2 Logistics | Are those government owned depots that will be taken over or will the contractor stand new depots up from scratch? | Pursuant to page 7 of the PWS, the Contractor shall establish required relationships with the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), sub-contractors, sub-suppliers, or other vendors to comply with or suitably tailor the same requirements as listed in this PWS. This question should be directed to OEM. | |
| 32 | PWS Section 3.5.2 Task 2 Logistics | What is the average repair cost per component? | This is determined by OEM, the requirement per PWS is FRB & FRACAS | |
| 33 | PWS Section 3.5.2.7.3 Task 2 Logistics | Will the Government or Incumbent provide most recent Engineering Data for all the items on the PPL? | Per Paragraph 3.2, the most recent GFI EDFP & PPL will be provided to the awardee in addition to updates provided by the incumbent for FRP5 and beyond. | |
| 34 | PWS Section 3.5.2.9 Task 2 Logistics | Will the Government or Incumbent provide most recent IETMs and ETMs? | PWS paragraph 3.4 Government Furnished Information (GFI) lists all documents the Government will provide. | |
| 35 | PWS Section 3.5.3 Task 3 Security | Is the contractor or Government responsibility to deploy Security patches and maintain baselines in the field? | The Government. | |
| 54 | 1, Scope | Are there plans to develop additional variants or implement more ECPs during the life of this contract? | The Government has no intent to develop additional variants, but we do anticipate ECPs during the life of this contract | |
| 55 | 1, Scope, page 5 of 82 | It states, "The Government will define the requirements for each subsequent option year based on the consolidated ECP package the Government develops for that year’s production efforts and to address any defined obsolescence changes that effect fielded baselines." How does the Government plan to handle this on a FFP contract? | For the full duration of the contract, modifications shall be completed to incorporate any required Engineering Change Proposals (ECP's). | |
| 56 | 1, Scope, last paragraph on page 7 of 82 | Are there plans to transition sustainment to organic organizations such as ILSC/SEC verses the OEMs? Can the list of OEMs be provided? | Yes, the T2C2 Lite/Heavy, SCOUT Small have an ETA to transition to sustainment in 4th QTR FY25. The OEMs are GATR-Cubic (Lite/Heavy), Tampa Microwave-Thales (SCOUT ), Klaus (Ultra Lite) | |
| 57 | 2.0 General Information | Please specify the Place of Performance. If contractor facility, does it have to be near the APG location? | The Place of Performance is deterimined by the awardees place of business, includes subcontractor(s)/teaming arrangement. | |
| 58 | 2.1, nondisclosure agreements | Who are we doing NDAs with? When do the NDAs have to be completed? Is it individual NDAs or Company NDAs or both? Please confirm that it applies to subcontractors also. | The awardee will establish individual NDAs with the OEMs. | |
| 59 | 2.3, hours of operation | It states, "The contractor must at all times maintain an adequate workforce for the uninterrupted performance of all tasks defined with this PWS when the Government is in operation." Please clarify the intent is for funded efforts only. | Correct. | |
| 60 | 3.2, GFE | (a)Please confirm whether the awardee is required to provide appropriate space to support the listed equipment at the contractor site verses accessing it at a government facility. | ||
| (b)If the contractor is required to install this equipment at the contractor site, can the Government provide a space, power, hvac, etc requirements? (c)Does this equipment come with all associated installation hardware maintenance tools and other material such as racks, UPS, cabling, etc? (d) If not, would the Government provide a potential BOM to price within the Materials/ODC CLIN? | (a)The awardee is required to have appropriate space to support equipment and requirements listed in PWS at their own facility. |
(b)No
(c) Please refer to the Government Furnishing Equipment and Property for what will be supplied. (d) The Government will not supply a basis of material for pricing out any additional materials or ODC's which Offeror's choose to add to their proposal.
| 61 | 3.2, GFE | If this equipment is not going to be provided until 3 - 6 months after contract award, is there other equipment to use to perform tasking? | GFE will be staggered due to availability of systems through OEM; however, this will not cause delays in development because there will be data that can be reused from previous configurations. |
| 62 | 3.5.3.1 | Do contractors have to have secret safeguarding prior to award to be eligible for award? Or will the Government sponsor safeguarding? | The Contractor shall have a SECRET facility clearance with appropriate SECRET safeguarding capability prior to award. |
| 63 | Pg 23 Section 3.5.3.2 Cybersecurity | Will the government provide ACAS/Nessus licensing or will the contractor be required to purchase? | The Government shall provide ACAS/Nessus licenses as necessary depending upon who the awardee is. |
GFP
| T2C2 RFP 13644 Government Furnished Property Questions | |||
| Page # or Section Reference | Question | Government Answer | |
| 1 | B08 -13644 RFP Attachment 09 Government Furnished Property_18Aug2022 | When will the Government provide the GFP to the awardee? How many days after contract award? | Available equipment will be signed over to the awardee after the kick off meeting. GFE will be provided within one week after award, and this will not delay performace requirement. |
| 2 | The list does not include any mounting, installation, or maintenance items or toolskits. | None is required | |
| 3 | |||
| 4 | |||
| 5 | |||
| 6 | |||
| 7 | |||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | |||
| 10 |
DD 254
T2C2 RFP 13644 Contract Security Classication (DD254) Questions
| Page # or Section Reference | Question | Government Answer | |
| 1 | Block 10. | Shouldn’t j. be checked? | Agreed. The DD 254 has been revised. |
| 2 | |||
| 3 | |||
| 4 | |||
| 5 | |||
| 6 | |||
| 7 | |||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | |||
| 10 |
CDRLs T2C2 RFP 13644 Contract Data Requirement Lists (CDRLs) Questions
| Page # or Section Reference | Question | |
| 1 | ||
| 2 | No questions or comment submitted | |
| 3 | ||
| 4 | ||
| 5 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 8 | ||
| 9 | ||
| 10 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .