Draft RFP Comment Matrix from 13 Jan 23 posting- with Answers .xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 53 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- H92402LSSII0003
- Issued by
-
United States Special Operations Command
View the file
Other files
Show all 24
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
Comment Matrix
| H92402-23-R-0002 DRAFT RFP #2 Comment Matrix | ||||
| Document | ||||
| (select from drop-down) | Section or | |||
| Page # | Comment | Answer | ||
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 2.1 | Will the government provide a copy of DoD Instruction S-5105.63, June 20, 2013? | Removed from Reference List | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.1 | Linguists when CONUS must be available Mon-Fri for 8 hours/day with capability to surge to 12 hours/day, 7 days a week when approved by COR. Linguists are non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and are these services are covered by the Service Contract Act. Is overtime authorized? How will the cost of overtime be evaluated? | For the purposes of evaluation, the Government will use an 8 hour day. In addition, the Government advises the offeror to include assumptions on SCA in its narrative for consideration. In execution, hours over 8 hours per day will be approved by the COR. The Government intends to include SCA clauses in the contract for those positions that are not professional and are in CONUS, however, it is up to the offeror to abide by DoL regulations. | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2 | Can OCONUS on-site Government representatives direct linguists work or does that require COR or KO direction? | Yes -- The on-site Government rep can direct linguist work. Refer to Section 4.2 of SOW | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.2.1 | A required qualification for the Transition Manager is, "Demonstrated experience as a Transition Manager managing large-scale transition of Professional Service contracts involving 200 personnel or greater; experience within DoD or equivalent Government agencies is required." Please clarify? Does the Transition Manager candidate need to have experience as a DoD or Government official having transitioned professional services contracts involving 200 personnel or greater? Or can this experience have been obtained as a Transition Manager working for a private federal contracting company? Or is either type of experience acceptable? | The required experience is a Transition Manager working for a private sector company overseeing transitions on DoD contracts, this will be clarified in the SOW. | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.2.1 | A required qualification for the Transition Manager is, "Project Management Professional (PMP) or Program Management Professional (PgMP) certification is required." In our experience, effective transition management of a large staffing services contract like the SOCOM LSS 2 requirement does not require the Transition Manager to possess a PMP or PgMP certification. In addition, as written, the Draft RFP contains no requirement for bidders to submit evidence of their proposed TM's PMP/PgMP certification or equivalent. Therefore, we request that the Government delete this requirement. | The required experience includes being PMP or PgMP certified to be the Transition Manager. The Transition Manager is key personnel which requires submission of a resume. The Government expects the resume to be accurate and reflect these certifications. The Contractor is responsible for verifying that all information presented for qualified personnel and experience is accurate | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.2.1 | The requirements for the Transition Manager include the following sentence: Minimum three (3) years’ USSOCOM or JSOTF experience at the operational level of warfare is required. Would the government specifically define what is meant by "experience at the operational level of warfare". | Experience at the operational level of warfare can be found in FM3-0 Page 1-13 https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN36290-FM_3-0-000-WEB-2.pdf | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.2; L.4.2; L.6.2 Table A, Pages 11 and 12 of Section L, DSOW Page 3, Section L Page 7 | DSOW lists the Transition Manager, Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager as Key Personnel, but Section L requires documentation only for PM and DPM as key personnel; yet Table A in Section L lists PM, DPM, and two On Site Managers as Key Personnel. |
| Can the government clarify the number and type of key personnel required and clarify the requirements for evaluation of them in Section L? | Key Personnel (Transition Manager, Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager) have been updated to include these positions. All Final RFP documents reflect these changes | |||
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.3.1 | A required qualification for the Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager is, "Project Management Professional (PMP) or Program Management Professional (PgMP) certification is required." A requirement for the proposed PM and DPM to hold PMP/PgMP certification at the time of proposal submission significantly shrinks the pool of otherwise qualified candidates with directly relevant experience managing large cleared deployed linguist support programs. We suggest the requirement be amended to require PMP/PgMP certification at the time of contract award, giving bidders the ability to propose their plans for getting their proposed PMs and DPMs certified after proposal submission. | All personnel qualifications must be met at the time of proposal submission | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.3.1 | Will the government accept any alternatives to a PMP or PgMP such as Certified Project Director (CPD) or equivalents? Also, is that level of certification intended to apply to the Deputy PM as well as the PM? | All Key Personnel (TM, PM, DPM) require a PMP / PgMP. No other certifications will be accepted in lieu of these | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.4; 4.2.4.1 | Is the Assistant Program Manager (APM) referenced in SOW Sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.4.1 considered a "Key Personnel" position, and would this position require an associated resume? SOW Sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.4.1 do not specify if this position is Key or Non-key personnel. Section L.6.2 does not include this position. Section L.4.2.1.1 states: [For each proposed candidate, the offeror shall include:] "A resume (not to exceed 2 pages for each Key Personnel (resumes do not count towards page limitations for this volume)" | Key Personnel (Transition Manager, Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager) have been updated to include these positions. All Final RFP documents reflect these changes |
A resume is not required for the APM
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.7 | Text refers to section 4.2.7.19. This section is not in the Draft SOW. | Final RFP documents do not include Section 4.2.7.19 |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.7, Page 4 | Given the limited pool of linguists meeting government requirements and the lack of government specification of target languages and number/location of required interpreters, sourcing the requirements is a time-intensive process. If the government intends to issue an RFP within 30-60 days of industry day, only the incumbent will be able to effectively meet the requirements. |
| In order to maximize competition, will the government consider delaying the RFP until at least 90 days after industry day or release of specific interpretation requirements and/or dropping the requirement to have 70% of the requirements satisfied at proposal submission? | The Government has identified target languages and locations at the level of specificty appropriate for this forum. Additional information was provided at Industry Day for cleared personnel. Market research indicates many qualified vendors are able to meet this RFP timeline, therefore the Government will not extend for that purpose | ||
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.7.1.1, Page 5 | DSOW requires independent language testing facility to have an ISO 9001:2015 certification by the end of OY2. |
| What is the government’s purpose in requiring this certification for a language testing facility? It appears to limit competition in that few testing facilities have this capability and no other requirement for this certification. Will the government consider eliminating this requirement to ensure broad and fair competition? | ISO 9001:2015 certification by the end of OY2 is no longer a requirement and will be reflected in the Final RFP documents however, certified independent third-party language testing entities using ILR standards will remain a requirement to prevent erroneous or fradulent test scores | |||
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.7.1.2 | Draft SOW states, "Language proficiency shall be measured by examination procedures that meet ILR standards and taken within the immediate 12 months preceding starting work on this effort for new personnel." Since the start date for this contract is estimated to be sometime in September 2023, this would mean that prospective linguist candidates named in each Offeror's Initial Capability Workbook (ICW) would need language test scores from an exam taken no earlier than September 2022, which is at most 7 months prior to the Proposal Release Date (est. beginning March 2023). Please consider revising the instructions for the ICW to specify that acceptable language test scores for linguists listed on the ICW may be no older than 1 year prior to the Final Proposal Due Date. | In the Final RFP documents, the Government will update the requirement to reflect that the test will be taken within 24 months of starting work on this effort/contract | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.7.1.2 | The SOW states "Language proficiency shall be measured by examination procedures that meet ILR standards and taken within the immediate 12 months preceding starting work on this effort for new personnel". |
| We suggest that the Government require current language tests (within the last 12 months) for all personnel proposed on the Initial Capability Workbook to ensure proposed linguists have a reasonable propensity to meet the language skill requirements upon award. | In the Final RFP documents, the Government will update the requirement to reflect that the test will be taken within 24 months of starting work on this effort/contract | |||
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.7.16 | During contract execution, would the Government specify when and where counterintelligence (CI) polygraph exams will be conducted for newly cleared CAT III linguists prior to their deployment? | Yes, the Government will specify when and where counterintelligence (CI) polygraph exams will be conducted for newly cleared CAT III linguists prior to their deployment | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.2.7.18 | Will linguists in DTAAC and ODTAAC be armed? The solicitation states that liability for use of any weapon by Contractor personnel rests solely with the Contractor and Contractor employee. If Government personnel direct linguists to use their weapons, does liability still rest with the Contractor or Contractor employee? | Not all linguists will be issued weapons. As per SOW Section 4.2.7.18, "Whether or not weapons are Government-furnished, all liability for the use of any weapon by Contractor personnel rests solely with the Contractor and the Contractor employee using such weapon". | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.5.1 | Regarding pre-deployment medical examinations for contract employees subject to OCONUS deployments, would the Government clarify exactly what medical conditions/health issues should be tested for in a contractor-provided pre-deployment medical examination? | Final RFP is updated to reflect changes and additional information | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.5.1 | Regarding pre-deployment medical examinations for contract employees subject to OCONUS deployments, would the Government clarify whether the medical examination must be conducted by a third-party licensed medical professional or if it may be conducted by a licensed medical professional on the Offeror's staff? | Final RFP is updated to reflect changes and additional information |
Any licensed medical professional can conduct the medical examination
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.5.1 | Regarding pre-deployment physical condition tests for contract employees subject to OCONUS deployments, would the Government further define the tasks, conditions, and standards associated with an acceptable physical condition test. | Final RFP is updated to reflect changes and additional information |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.5.1 | Regarding pre-deployment physical condition tests for contract employees subject to OCONUS deployments, would the Government clarify if this is the same test or a different test as the physical fitness test that is required for certain contractor employees selected for Special Skills training per Draft SOW 4.5.6? | Final RFP is updated to reflect changes and additional information |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.5.1 | Regarding pre-deployment medical examinations for contract employees subject to OCONUS deployments, would the Government clarify if those employees who receive contractor-provided medical examinations and screening will also process through the CONUS Replacement Center (CRC) and also receive Government-provided medical examinations there? | Final RFP is updated to reflect changes and additional information |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 4.5.6 | Regarding physical fitness tests for individuals selected for special skills training, would the Government clarify if offerors should use the legacy Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) (pushups, situps, and 2-mile run), and if so, that the age and gender standards will be applied? (Note: the Army replaced the APFT with the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) in October 2022.) | Yes, the fitness test for this requirement is the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) with the pushups, situps, and 2 mile run. |
Final RFP is updated to reflect changes and additional information Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work 4.6.2 Contractor shall only be allowed to invoice a maximum of one trip into and/or out of theater every twelve months for an OCONUS based Contractor personnel position under, but OCONUS based Contractor personnel shall have boots on the ground for a minimum of 180 calendar days. What if SOCOM needs a linguist to make more than one trip in and out of theater within one year? Will the contractor be allowed to invoice that? What if a linguists needs to exit theater because of an emergency and later redeploys? The Government pays for 1 deployment trip and 1 redeployment trip per 180 days. Any mission driven changes in movement will be addressed by the Government at that time
Final RFP is updated to reflect changes and additional information Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work 4.6.2 Draft SOW states, "The Contractor shall only be allowed to invoice a maximum of one (1) trip (travel costs) into and/or out of theater every twelve months for an OCONUS based Contractor personnel position under this effort." However, it is possible for a contractor linguist to incur up to three authorized trips (with travel costs) into/out of theater within a 12-month period. For example, if an approved contractor linguist deploys into theater (1st trip), stays for 180 days then redeploys to CONUS (2nd trip), remains in CONUS for 4 months and then deploys again into theater with COR approval (3rd trip), that linguist will have incurred billable travel costs for three trips into/out of the assigned theater of operations. Recommend the Government re-word and clarify this SOW paragraph. The Government pays for 1 deployment trip and 1 redeployment trip per 180 days. Any mission driven changes in movement will be addressed by the Government at that time
Final RFP is updated to reflect changes and additional information
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 5.1.6 and 6.1.9 | Draft SOW 5.1.6 states, "Personal protective gear, such as chemical protective suits and masks, and specialized body armor may be issued for specific mission and/or threat concerns as identified and directed by the local area commander." However, Draft SOW 6.1.9 states, "The Contractor shall provide each individual the following Personal Protective Equipment: HELMET, VEST, PLATES, TBD." Please clarify the difference between the Government-provided protective suits/masks and body armor that may be provided under 5.1.6 and the Contractor-provided equipment listed in 6.1.9? Please provide detailed specs for all required Contractor-provided PPE listed in 6.1.9 (i.e., required source/manufacturer if any, required ballistic, blunt, and blast protective specs for all PPE items, etc.)? Please clarify if/when the Contractor is required to provide PPE given that Military TA-50 gear will be issued to all deploying contractor personnel processing through a CRC? | The Contractor will provide its linguists with the personal protective equipment described in the Final RFP SOW Sections 6.1.7.1-6.1.7.3 before deploying |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 5.1.8 | The boxes in this section are grayed out but there is no x or check mark. Does that mean they are “checked” and that those goods/services will be provided? | Government furnished life support will be prescribed at the task order level in the task order statement of work |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 6.1.10 | Draft SOW states, "The Contractor will be responsible for the receipt, accountability, and turn-in of all Government Furnished Property including Basis of Issue Personal Protective Equipment." Assuming that the outgoing incumbent contractor will be turning in a certain number of sets of Government-issued PPE at the conclusion of contract H9222213C0053, will the Government please provide that number to all Offerors for our use as a planning factor in developing our planned PPE procurement costs for the follow-on SOCOM LSS 2 requirement? | The Contractor will be required to furnish 135 full kits |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 6.1.2 | Does the screening facility that is located with in 25 miles of Ft Bragg need to have an accredited SECRET safeguarding capacity? | No, SECRET safeguarding capacity is not required at the screening facility |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 6.1.2 | Recommend the government revise the wording from "The Contractor’s screening facility must be within 25 miles of Fort Bragg, NC (centered on U.S. Army Forces Command Headquarters (Knox St and Randolph St) on Fort Bragg, NC)" to The Contractor’s screening facility must be within 25 miles (road Distance) of Fort Bragg, NC (centered on U.S. Army Forces Command Headquarters (Knox St and Randolph St) on Fort Bragg, NC) This would benefit the client making the facility more accessible to government personnel. | See revised facility location requirements at SOW Section 6.1.2. |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 6.1.4 | Regarding pre-deployment preparations, would the Government clarify which employees deploying OCONUS will process through the CONUS Replacement Center (CRC) and, if so, what Government-provided services (i.e. medical and dental exams), equipment (i.e. TA-50 or Personal Protective Equipment), and training will be provided to them at CRC? | All Contractors deploying must complete the CRC process |
Final RFP is updated to reflect change Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work 6.1.4 Draft SOW 6.1.4 implies that some or all deploying Contractor personnel will process through a Government designated CONUS Replacement Center (CRC). However, there is no further detailed information to be found anywhere in the Draft SOW specifying which Contractor personnel must deploy (and re-deploy) through a CRC, what Government-provided services and equipment (TA-50?) will be provided to Contractor personnel processing through a CRC, and what (if any) Government-provided air or ground transportation will be provided for Contractor personnel to travel to and from a designated CRC location. Please clarify the entire requirement and Government-mandated process for SOCOM LSS 2 personnel to complete processing at a designated CRC facility prior to deployment? All OCONUS based personnel must complete the CRC process
Final RFP is updated to reflect changes and additional information
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 6.1.4 and 4.5.1 | Regarding employees deploying OCONUS through the CONUS Replacement Center (CRC) according to para 6.1.4, would the Government clarify if the Offerors must also conduct medical screening IAW paragraph 4.5.1. | Final RFP is updated to reflect changes and additional information | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 6.1.5 | The contractor is responsible for obtaining foreign business licenses, passports, and visas necessary for contractor personnel to travel and work in any performance location designated by the Government worldwide. What if the linguists are supporting ODTAAC operations or if no visa is available for U.S. citizens? | Situations such as this that may arise will be worked on a case by case basis with the COR | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 6.1.8 | Draft SOW states, "The Contractor shall outfit each deployed individual (OSMs, OSCs and linguists), at a minimum, with the following one (1) set of boots. In addition to the preceding items, ‘special skill’ linguists will also be outfitted with items: one (1) standard Army issue uniform for special skill Contractor personnel. The Contractor shall purchase expendable items (boots and uniform) a minimum of once per year for all personnel and more frequently, if necessary, due to wear and tear." Please provide detailed equipment specifications and any Government-mandated or authorized sources for all boots and uniforms required to be procured for deployed contractor personnel? | Refer to the Final RFP SOW Sections 6.1.7.1-6.1.7.3 for further detail and specification | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 7.4.2, 7.4.6, and 8.1.5 | All candidates are no longer submitted for NIAC/CLIP Dates. The National Inter-Agency Name Checks (NIAC/CLIP) and the requirement to resubmit every 2 years only remains valid for CAT I Linguists. CAT II and CAT III Linguists must now be processed through DCSA's Expedited Screening Protocol (ESP) process. Recommend the government reviews and updates. | Final RFP documents reflect current requirements | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 7.5 | |||
| Page 17 | This paragraph contains language related to Manpower Reporting, which has been retired and replaced with Service Contract Reporting. Request correction to this language to align with current requirements. | Updated in final | ||
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | 8.1.5 | Draft SOW states, "All prospective Contractor employees must pass a National Inter-Agency Name Check within one year prior to employment on this contract." Since the start date for this contract is estimated to be sometime in September 2023, this would mean that prospective Contractor employees named in each Offeror's Initial Capability Workbook (ICW) would need to have passed a National Inter-Agency Name Check no earlier than September 2022, which is 7 months prior to the Proposal Release Date (est. beginning March 2023). Please consider revising this paragraph 8.1.5 and corresponding ICW instructions to specify that all prospective Contractor employees must pass a National Inter-Agency Name Check within 1 year prior to the Final Proposal Due Date. | Final RFP documents reflect current requirements | |
| Atch 1 - Draft Statement of Work | N/A | Required numbers or types of personnel are not directly specified and appear to reflect previous requirements for Afghanistan and Iraq that may have changed post-US withdrawal. No training requirements for the contractor are specified. |
1) What are the government’s specific requirements for interpreter support, at what locations and in what languages?
2) Will there be any training requirements for the successful bidder to perform? The initial capability workbook is an accurate reflection of the gov's requirements for TO1. the rate card is an accurate reflection of the gov's requirements for the IDIQ. Locations are specified at the TO level at a level of specificity that is appropriate for this forum in depth location requirements were provided to vendors who attended Industry Day. language proficiency as defined in the SOW and physical fitness standards. any specialized training not identified in the SOW that may be required will be provided by the government
Atch 2 - Draft DD254 9 DD FM 254 EXPIRES: 30 March 2023
| Do we anticipate this DD 254 being extended to cover the entirety of the solicitation timeline or will a new DD 254 be issued later this year? | The Solictation (Draft) DD254 is for proposal purposes and is extended through the proposal period. A final DD254 will be put on contract. | |||
| Atch 2 - Draft DD254 | Block 14, page 9 | Recommend changing reference to "Defense Security Service" to the "Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency". | Updated |
Atch 3 - Draft Rate Card If Transition Manager is only needed for the Phase-In Period for Year 1, we recommend deleting the Transition Manager LCAT for Years 2-5. If a row is not applicable do not fill in and note in the narrative
Atch 4 - Draft Site Map Can the Government please clarify which country(s) Contractor personnel will be working at regarding Site 4 (Horn in Africa) in Attachment 4? This is to clarify what Danger and Post Hardship Add-Ons are needed as it varies depending on the country. Locations are provided at a level of specificity that is appropriate for this forum in depth location requirements were provided to vendors who attended Industry Day.
| Atch 6 - Draft Initial Capability Workbook | Instructions | The NIAC/CLIP Date instructions state to enter the most recent date the individual completed the National Inter-Agency Check. The NIAC/CLIP process that is required per the Contract Linguist Information Program and managed by the U.S. Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) changed in January 2022. CAT I Linguists will continue to be submitted on NIAC Rosters; however, CAT II and CAT III Linguists must now complete an e-QIP that is processed through Client Counterintelligence (CI) personnel to the Defense Counterintelligence Agency and Security Agency (DCSA) for checks through the Expedited Screening Protocol (ESP) process. Please review and provide updated instructions on what information is required for this entry. | All NEW CAT II and CAT III candidates coming on to this contract wil need to go through the DCSA background check process. Previously screened linguists on the incumbent contract are not required to be re-screened. Names and accompanying e-QUIP will be sumitted for DCSA processes |
| Atch 6 - Draft Initial Capability Workbook | Instructions | Will the government require any backup documentation for experience as a linguist or prior military infantry service or training? | The Contractor is responsible for verifying that all information presented for qualified personnel and experience is accurate |
| Atch 6 - Draft Initial Capability Workbook | Instructions, Capacity | The Instructions tab is not in sync with the Initial Capacity tab. The instructions for column by column do not match with the columns in the Capacity tab. Would the government please issue a revised Draft Initial Capability Workbook | Final RFP will include revision |
| Atch 6 - Draft Initial Capability Workbook | Atch 6 & Atch 4 | Can the Government clarify that the languages tied to Site 2 (B013-B023) and Site 4 are correct within the Initial Capability Workbook and align appropriately to the sites listed in Attachment 4? This also impacts the Letters of Commitment. | Confirmed that all are correct and updated Site Map at ATTCH 4 in final |
| Atch 6 - Draft Initial Capability Workbook | Capacity tab | In Cell C79, one of the Onsite Coordinators for Site 4 shows a CAT II designation. Request the Government clarify the Onsite Coordinator's designation. | On-site coordinators do not have CAT designations, however |
All management positions shall be fluent in and understand English equivalent to a minimum of Level 4 in all test areas on the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale. Testing shall be completed by an independent third-party language testing entity as described in 4.2.7.1.1.
Final RFP is updated to reflect this clarification
| Atch 6 - Draft Initial Capability Workbook | columns J&K | Would the Government remove the requirement for submitting candidates' personal email addresses and phone numbers in Atch 6 at the time of proposal submission? Such information is not needed to verify security clearances, medical status, or candidates' intent. Successful offerors could be required to submit this contact information upon contract award. | E-mail addresses and phone numbers will be removed from the ICW with the Final RFP |
| Atch 6 - Draft Initial Capability Workbook | position A016 | Will the Government confirm the language required for position A016, Cyrillic. The Cyrillic alphabet is used by the Russian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian and other slavic languages. | Final updated with Cyrillic Russian |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.1.1 | Should the Management Plan factor read “FACTOR 3 MANAGEMENT PLAN)? Currently reads: FACTOR 2 MANAGEMENT PLAN. | Final RFP is updated to reflect change |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.1.1 | In order to ensure a level playing field for all Offerors, and in order to facilitate the Government's evaluation of all proposals, recommend the Government mandate that Volumes 2, 3, 4, and 5 of each proposal must be submitted at the UNCLASSIFIED level. | Volumes 1-5 (with the exception of the Initial Capability Workbook) can be submitted at the UNCLAS level. The SCG dictates submission of the ICW when populated at the SECRET level |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.1.1 | Section L Proposal Submission Requirements has Factor 2 listed for both Transition and Management Plans. Can the government update the Management Plan to be Factor 3 to be consistent with the rest of the volume? | Final RFP is updated to reflect change |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.1.11 | For FACTOR 4 PAST PERFORMANCE, will the Government provide a 1-page Past Performance format/template for use by Offerors so that all Past Performance citations are consistent in terms of the information and level of detail provided? | The Government will provide a Past Performance Questionairre template |
Content of Vendors past performance narrative is at vendors discretion
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.1.11 and L.6.5 | Draft Sec L.1.11 states, "*Offerors are encouraged to limit the Price Proposal pages unless the offeror determines that this limitation would preclude compliance with the price proposal instructions of the RFP. NOTE: Offerors are cautioned that submission of more data than required by the price proposal instructions may hinder the evaluation of the price proposal." However, Draft Sec. L.6.5 states, "Indirect Rates: The offeror shall describe all indirect rates applied, as applicable. The offeror is required to submit one of the following to support their proposed indirect rates: | ||
| 1. Current Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) for the contract period of performance, or | ||||
| 2. Detailed historical pool and base costs for the offeror's prior 3 years and budgeted pool and base costs for the contract period of performance." | ||||
| Since the requirement is to submit a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) cost proposal for Task Order #1 under a Single-Award ID/IQ contract, why does the Government require detailed descriptions of all the Offeror's Indirect Rate pools, including a current FPRA or a detailed historical pool and base costs for the offeror's prior 3 years and budgeted pool and base costs for the contract period of performance? This level of FFP price substantiation is not required by the FAR and is in direct contradiction to the Government's stated desire to "limit the Price Proposal pages". Recommend deleting the requirement in para. L.6.5. | L.1.11 has been removed from final RFP. Section L.6.2.2 does include a request. Although the ODC's will be Cost vs. FFP, the KO can ask for additional information IAW the FAR to determine a fair and reasonable price. | |||
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.1.11 | |||
| L.3.1.4 | The proposal Submission Requirements states that the Current Capacity Workbook (Attachment J-3) should be included within the Transition Plan (Volume 2) and will not count against page count. Sections L.2.2 and M.2.2 requires the Workbook to be included in the General & Administrative Qualifying Criteria (Volume 1). | |||
| Please clarify what volume the Initial Capability Workbook should be included in with submission. | Final RFP is updated to reflect change | |||
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.1.11; L.2.2; L.3.1.4.1 | Is the "Attachment J-3 Current Capacity" and/or "Attachment J-3" referred to in sections L.1.11; L.2.2 and L.3.1.4.1 the same as "Atch 6 Initial Capability.xlsx" provided with the Draft solicitation? | The Government will ensure consistency throughout the final RFP | |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.1.13 (b.) bullet 3 | Would the Government please clarify if the solicitation and all amendments will be posted to SAM.gov, as it would appear that reference to FBO is in error? | The Government will change to SAM.gov in the final RFP | |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.1.3 | As the Cyber Security Plan requirements were not provided in the Draft solicitation, but an overview of the requirements was discussed during the industry day, would the Government please consider allowing additional pages to this volume beyond the current page limits to allow for a complete and compliant response to the anticipated final cyber security requirement? Neither Section L nor the SOW provide insights into what the Government would expect in a cybersecurity plan. The SOW does refer to Exhibit A010 but no such document was released with the draft RFP. | Final RFP is updated to reflect change |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.1.5 and USSOCOM Industry Engagement Slide presentation | Proposal submission instructions - during th USSOCOM Industry engagement the governments slides stated that proposal would be electronically submitted. The Draft RFP requires a hand delivered proposal. We recommend electronic submission due to the unclassified and classified compnents of the proposal. | Final submission instructions are provided in L.1.5. |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.1.5.1, Page 1 |
L.1.5.1.1, Page 1 L.1.5.1.2, Page 1
| L.1.5.1.3, Page 1 | Due to unforeseen weather patterns, traffic jams and flight delays, will the government consider granting offerors the option to submit/deliver the Unclassified Proposal Sections electronically via DOD SAFE or another transfer option? | Final submission instructions are provided in L.1.5. | ||
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.1.5.1.3.1 | Can the Government confirm that only the Initial Capability Workbook (excel file only) should be submitted via SIPRNet and the accompanying letters of commitment, language test results, and pay statements be submitted as a part of the unclassified proposal package? | Confirming, however all documents should be reviewed to be sure they are marked correctly. i.e. Some Unclass still needs to be marked CUI. | |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.1.6 | Line spacing settings shall be at least one and one-half (1½) line spacing. Will the Government confirm that text in tables, graphics/images, callout boxes, bulleted/numbered lists, figure and table captions, tab dividers, resumes, and table of contents are exempt from the line spacing requirement? | Confirm-section updated in final | |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.2.1 and DD254 Blocks 11c and 11d | This section states that the generation of classified information via SIPR will be a requirement for Blocks 11c and 11d on the DD Form 254. The provided DD254 does not include these requirements. Please update the DD 254 as required. | The final DD254 will be updated | |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.2.2 | Paragraph L.2.2 Current Capacity states: "Offerors submissions for the Current Capacity worksheet (Attachment J-3) will be reviewed for completeness as part of the offeror’s qualifying criteria. Offerors are required to complete at least 70% of the J-3 Current Capacity worksheet be considered a qualifying offeror. Offerors that complete less than 70% of the J-3 Current Capacity worksheet will fail the Factor 1 evaluation and will be eliminated from further consideration." | ||
| Question: It looks like Att. 3 is the Rate Card? Should this read Att. 6 Initial Capability? The titles do not match Section J of the Draft Solicitation. | Final RFP is updated to reflect change | |||
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.2.2 and L.3.1.4.1 | Para. L.2.2 states that the Attachment J-3 Current Capacity Worksheet (which we understand to be the same as the Attachment 6 Initial Capability Worksheet) must be completed to at least 70% and will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis as a component of VOLUME 1-FACTOR 1-Qualifying Criteria. However, para. L.3.1.4.1 states that the Attachment J-3 Current Capacity Worksheet (a.k.a Attachment 6, Initial Capability Worksheet) must be 100% completed and will be evaluated on a qualitative basis as a component of VOLUME 2 -FACTOR 2-Transition Plan. Please clarify? Is Attachment J-3 (a.k.a Attachment 6, Initial Capability Worksheet) part of Volume 1 or Volume 2? Will this worksheet be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis or on a qualitative basis? Does the worksheet need to be filled out at a minimum to the 70% level or to the 100% level? | Final RFP is updated to reflect change |
To summarize the initial capability workbook (Attachment J-6) will be evaluated for 70% completion for linguists 100% for Key personnel,etc) on a pass/fail basis within Vol 1.
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.2.2 | |||
| Page 5 | Reference is made to "Current Capacity worksheet (Attachment J-3)". Please clarify if the correct reference is Attachment J-6 "Initial Capability" as the Attachment J-3 provided is identified as "Rate Card". | Final RFP is updated to reflect change | ||
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.2.3 | Would the government consider the following revision, "Vendors are required to provide proof of CURRENT Defense Base Act coverage." This would benefit the government by insuring there is a current policy in place. | The Government will not accept current policies found in other contracts. The Government will require quotes for the RFP effort based on the required FTEs. | |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.2.6.1 | Are the previous small business subcontracting goals for this requirement appropriate for today's environment? Please provide rationale. | This has been reviewed and verified as accurate and updated in final | |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.2.6.1 | If not, what small business goals would be more appropriate? Please provide rationale. | NA | |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1 | Paragraph L.3.1 states: "The offeror’s transition plan details their plan to staff and transition the requirement from Contract Award, through Initial Operating Capability (IOC), to Final Operating Capability (FOC). The SOW, Attachment J-1 details the requirement to be fulfilled, and the Transition Schedule, Attachment J-6, details the required dates by Site and FTE count." | ||
| Question: It looks like Att. 6 is Initial Capability not a Transition Schedule, nor does it have dates by Site? The titles do not match Section J of the Draft Solicitation. Will the Government provide Attachment J-5 with the final solicitation documents? | Final RFP is updated to reflect change | |||
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1 | Would the Government please provide the referenced transition schedule ("Transition Schedule, Attachment J-6, details the required dates by Site and FTE count.") which provides specific required Transition period start/stop dates and timelines within Draft SOW para. 7.3 and sub-paragraphs, as this information appears to be missing from the Draft documents? Specific dates and timelines are needed by Offerors to develop and price our proposed Transition Plans. | Final RFP is updated | |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1.2 | Special attention is required to be given to the unique nature of OCONUS locations that require visas, but what about OCONUS locations where visas are not available for U.S. citizens? | Situations such as this that may arise will be worked on a case by case basis with the COR | |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1.4.1 | Hyperlinking files to excel could create document stability issues and this requirement conflicts with the guidance found within Atch 6 Initial Capability states that: "offerors shall submit one attachment per individual in PDF format." Will the government please update section L to match the instructions contained within the Atch 6 workbook? | Final RFP is updated to reflect change. |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1.4.1 | Throughout the Draft RFP attachment J-3 is used interchangeably with attachment J-6. Will the government confirm the correct attachment | Noted. The Government will ensure consistency throughout the final RFP -- Final RFP is updated to reflect change |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1.4.1 | Will the government confirm the validity dates of the language test scores entered into Attachment J-6? Are the valid test dates IAW SOW 4.2.7.1.2 for Linguists and SOW 4.2.1.2 for managers? | In the Final RFP documents, the Government will update the requirement to reflect that the test will be taken within 24 months of starting work on this effort/contract |
Refer to SOW Testing shall be completed by an independent third-party language testing entity Atch 7 - Draft Section L L.3.1.4.1 Paragraph L.3.1.4.1, states: “Attachment J-3 Current Capacity. The Government requires each prime offeror to fill out the attachment numbered J-3 to the solicitation entitled “Current Capacity”. This document will provide the matrix of the offeror’s (including teammates/subcontractors) ability to provide the requisite number of individual FTEs to meet the requirements spelled out in the Statement of Work, Attachment J-1. The offeror will complete the attachment to include all columns and provide copies of each linguist’s test from a certified test agency hyperlinked to Attachment J-3. All information is subject to verification.”
However, Atch 3 Rate Card, appears to be a completely different spreadsheet than the one described and asks information such as the Base Hourly Rate, Fringe, Overhead, G&A, Profit, etc.
| Question: When the Government refers to Attachment J-3 Current Capacity, are they referencing “Atch 6 Initial Capability”? In which Volume are we to include a completed “Atch 3 Rate Card”? Note that the Pricing Sheet is labeled “J-5, Pricing Sheet”. | Final RFP is updated to reflect changes in Volume and attachment titles | ||
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1.4.1 | ||
| Page 5 | This Section L.3.1.4.1 requires that the "Current Capacity" Attachment be included in Volume 2, however this was first identified as a requirement of Volume I (L.2.2). Please clarify which of the two Volumes is correct for submission of the Current Capacity Attachment. | Final RFP is updated to reflect changes in Volume and attachment titles | |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1.4.1 (pg. 6) | Section L.3.1.4.1 states that "The offeror will complete the attachment to include all columns and provide copies of each linguist’s test from a certified test agency hyperlinked to Attachment J-3."; however, SOW 4.2.1.1 /2 also requires ILR 4 testing for management personnel (Transition Manager, Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, Assistant Program Manager, and On-Site Manager). |
| Would the Government please confirm that Offerors may submit English language skills testing for management personnel (Transition Manager, Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, Assistant Program Manager, and On-Site Manager) after award? | All testing certificates are to be submitted with proposal in the Initial Capability Workbook | |||
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1.4.1 and attachment 6 | L.3.1.4.1 requires the linguists test scores be submitted to the L.11 proposal submission instructions Factor 2 calls for the submission of letters of commitment and payroll data. Attachment J-6 (row 5) instructs that 4 document be attached . Will the government clarify/confirm what documents should in attachment J-6 (Row 5) | Final RFP is updated to reflect | |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1.4.2 | Prior to award it is likely that many, if not most, of the linguists proposed for this effort will not be on the payroll of any of the offerors. Will contractors who propose FTEs who are not on their active payroll be evaluated less favorably than those that have those FTEs on their current payroll even if the contractor has a letter of commitment from each proposed linguist? | Final RFP is updated to reflect organic, incumbent capture and internal resources |
The Government is no longer requiring payroll records in the proposal.
Atch 7 - Draft Section L L.3.1.4.2 Draft Sec L.3.1.4.2 states, "The offeror will provide payroll records demonstrating the number of FTEs that they propose to use on this requirement that are on their active payroll and the start date of that employee. Everyone on payroll that will be utilized on this program shall also have a Letter of Commitment stating that if the offeror receives the award the individual will transition to the USSOCOM effort." We have several issues with this requirement:
1. Employee payroll records contain company proprietary information (salary) and PII (home addresses, etc.) that are not appropriate for release to the Government as a part of this proposal. Suggest re-wording the requirement to require Offerors to show some demonstrable proof of employment of each listed individual without requiring us to divulge current salaries or PII on payroll records.
2. If an Offeror plans to list current employees on its Initial Capability Worksheet and can also provide demonstrable proof of current employment, we do not believe that it should also be required that we provide a signed Letter of Commitment (LOC) for these current employees. No LOCs should be required for current employees of the Prime Offeror, nor for any of its proposed subcontractor teammates who are proposing one of their current employees. Recommend deleting this LOC requirement for current employees of the Prime Offeror and its proposed subcontractors.
3. It is unrealistic for the Government to believe that current employees of the Prime Offeror and its proposed subcontractors will agree with 100% certainty to transition to the new SOCOM LSS 2 program upon award. It is also unrealistic for the Government to believe that the Prime Offeror and its proposed subcontractors will transfer their current employees from existing contracts to the new SOCOM LSS 2 contract after award, regardless of the individual employee's desires. For these reasons, any current employees' signed LOCs stating that they will transition to the new SOCOM LSS 2 program are not believable, nor are they enforceable after the award of the new contract. We suggest deleting the signed LOC requirement for current employees of the Prime Offeror and its proposed subcontractors.
4. In its totality, the requirement for Offerors to provide payroll records AND signed LOCs for current employees of both the Prime and its subcontractors stating that they will transition to the new SOCOM LSS 2 contract heavily favors the incumbent contractor, who is the only Offeror who will be able to provide such payroll records and signed LOCs for 100% of the personnel listed on its ICW. If the Government decides to keep this requirement in the solicitation, it might open itself up to a pre-award protest on the grounds that the solicitation is biased toward the incumbent contractor. In order to avoid this situation, we recommend that the Government reconsider this entire requirement. The Government is no longer requiring payroll records in the proposal. Letters of commitment are a requirement.
Market research indicates many qualified vendors are able to provide a full complement (100%) of the ICW at proposal submission
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1.4.2 | Will the government confirm the definition of "Active Payroll" Our understanding is that is a person that is currently employed by the offeror on the date of proposal submission. | The Government is no longer requiring payroll records in the proposal. |
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1.4.2 and L.3.1.4.2.2 | Draft Sec. L.3.1.4.2.2 states, "The offeror may provide a letter of commitment for everyone proposed if the offeror does not currently have the individual on payroll." Earlier, in para. L.3.1.4.2, the Government required Offerors to provide signed LOCs for every proposed employee who is currently on the Offeror's payroll or is employed by one of the Offeror's subcontractors. Taken together, these two requirements mean that the Government is requiring signed LOCs for 100% of the personnel listed on the ICW. Is this the Government's intent? Please clarify? | The Government is no longer requiring payroll records in the proposal. |
Letters of commitment are a requirement.
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1.4.2.1 | Paragraph L.3.1.4.2.1 states: "An example letter of commitment has been included as Attachment J-2 to the solicitation. Format of the letter of commitment is not important if the major elements remain." | ||
| Question: It looks like Att. 2 is the draft DDFM254 and Att. 11 is the LOC. Can the Government update the references with the final solicitation? | Final RFP is updated to reflect. The Government will ensure correct cross referencing | |||
| Atch 7 - Draft Section L | L.3.1.4.2.2 | If an offeror provides a letter of commitment in lieu of payroll records, will that candidate still count towards the 70% completion requirement in M.2.2? | The Government is no longer requiring payroll records in the proposal. |
Letters of commitment are a requirement.
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 .