Draft RFP Questions and Answers_TRADOC G2 Core_020125.pdf

Mission and Installation Contracting Command – Fort Eustis Request for Proposal Questions and Government Answers

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Deputy Chief for Intelligence (G-2) Operational Environment (OE) and

Core Functions Support Services

1. Question: The Draft RFP released on 6 December 2024 lists a proposal due date of 27 Jan 2025 at 10:00 AM on the SF33 in Block 9. Can you please confirm if this is when the Government anticipates offerors proposals being due once the final RFP is released?

Answer: The DRAFT RFP was draft only and the dates were tentative.

2. Question: Section L.1.6.1 identifies questions being due by 10:00 AM on 6 January 2025 however

SAM.gov lists a response time of 10:00 AM on 20 December 2024. Please confirm the due date for the submission of questions.

3. Question: Contractor support hours are from 0630 to 1830 Monday through Friday. This is 60 hours per week. What is considered an FTE in hours?

Answer: Those are the hours that the government buildings are open. Contractor is expected to work 40 hours a week.

4. Question: Para 1.5.3.3.1 allows the contractor 30 days to submit their work plan, ten days for the

Government to accept or reject the plan, and another three days for the contractor to resubmit. This is a total of 43 days, plus the days required to mobilize the workforce. Para 1.20.1 allows the contractor a thirty-day transition. Will the Government rectify the discrepancy between the two requirements?

Answer: The PWS has been updated with the following: The Contractor’s proposed Work Plan shall be submitted to the KO via the COR for review within 15-days after date of contract award.

The Government will review and either accept or return their comments to the Contractor within 10-days. The Contractor shall then have five (5)-days to submit a Final Work Plan. Any proposed change to the accepted Final Work Plan is required to be resubmitted via the COR for review and acceptance by the Contracting Officer at a minimum 30-days prior to implementation.

5. Question: G-2X Intelligence Activities does not have a "Clearance, Work Location, and Travel

Requirements" paragraph. Please rectify.

Answer: Language has been revised as requested in the following paragraphs of the

PWS:

5.2.1.3.7. Clearance: Top Secret/ SCI clearance is required.

5.2.1.3.8. Work location: Fort Eustis, VA

5.2.1.3.9. Travel: Some travel (less than 5%) may be required

6. Question: There is no central repository of personnel requirements and qualifications. Please provide a table with each position, clearance, work location, and qualifications.

Answer: See Key Personnel under PWS paragraph 1.10. Furthermore, see PWS Attachment 2 for Historical CMEs and primary performance locations. Contractors are required to ensure that personnel are qualified to meet the requirements of the PWS section they will perform under.

7. Question: TE A references paragraph 5.1.1. This paragraph does not exist. We believe you mean

5.2.1. Please rectify.

Answer: See updated TE A.

8. Question: TE A standard is 95% timeliness and 98% quality. However, 5.2.1 only states the

"what," and does not state the standards. Will the Government publish the QASP or other TE that quantifies the standard (timeliness and quality)?

Answer: No, the Government will not publish the QASP. See updated TE A.

9. Question: Are the contractors allowed to modify the spreadsheets to accurately calculate labor costs based on the contractor’s accounting practices?

Answer: Please see RFP paragraph L.4.4.7.

10. Question: PWS Page 51 states the following “5.2.2.1.2 Develop the US Army Training OE, DATE. Work includes analysis of real-world threats and OEs, producing and updating Field Manuals (FM) and Training Circular (TC) 7-100 series US Army manuals, US Army Technical Publications (ATP), Exercise Design, other DATE products, reports on threat actions and OE conditions, and other OE and OPFOR products by applying expert-level research and analytical skills”. PWS Page 52 states: “5.2.2.1.3 Intel Support to Doctrine, Organization, Materiel, Personnel, and Policy Initiatives. 5.2.2.1.3.1 Support doctrinal development of OE and OPFOR through the review, edit, development, and publication of Army FMs, TCs, ATPs and other publications, products, and applications that apply OE concepts in LDTE. 5.2.2.1.3.3. Develop, apply, and integrate the OE in all US Army capstone doctrine and the 7-100 series of US Army manuals, ATPs and other OE and OPFOR doctrinal products”. Within the PWS, it appears that two organizations are responsible for doctrinal development and publication. What section has the primary overall responsibility for doctrine development within US Army TRADOC G-2? Will the government please update the PWS to combine the referenced sections?

Answer: The PWS language was not revised. There are two distinct parts of the TRADOC G2 team that are each responsible for intelligence support to doctrine. OE-Integration Directorate support (PWS Task 5.2.2.1) includes PWS paragraph 5.2.2.1.2 which details responsibilities for intelligence support to doctrine and analysis, and PWS paragraph

5.2.2.1.3 details responsibilities for OPFOR doctrinal support.

11. Question: Please confirm the Government will evaluate affiliate past performance consistent with

DFARS 215.305 which went into effect November 15th, 2024. That provision states “When evaluating the past performance of an offeror that is a small business concern in response to a competitive solicitation, contracting officers shall consider relevant past performance information provided for affiliates of the offeror”.

Answer: This is a total small business set-aside that does not require FAR 52.219-9, therefore DFARS 215.305 is not applicable to this requirement.

12. Question: The CLINs shown in Section B of Attachment 2 do not appear to match the CLINs shown in Section B of the solicitation. (CLIN 0005 is skipped, as are CLINs 1004, 2004, 3004, and 4004.) Can the Government confirm we should defer to Section B of the solicitation?

Answer: The CLINs have been updated.

13. Question: PWS Section 5.2.2.1.3.5 states “Provide in-depth advice and counsel involving friendly and adversary doctrine, Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP), capabilities, (including NATO TTP/Capabilities, doctrine etc.), OE, ISR, and the conduct of AARs and evaluations”. Where is the output of this task being provided to? (i.e. training and leader development venues, concepts war-games, experiments and modeling and simulation).

Answer: The output of this task is provided to multiple customers across the Army including LDT&E, in exercises, to influence threat Modeling and Simulations, and during doctrine development.

14. Question: All pages of an offeror's proposal shall meet these page dimension requirements. A page dimension is 8 1/2" x 11" and shall use a 1" margin on the top and bottom, and 3/4" side margin.

Page dimensions do not apply to offeror's proposal Volume IV, Attachment 2, Pricing Workbook.

Any page larger than the specified dimension will be counted as multiple pages when page counts are limited by Table 1. If needed, can the offeror use 11x17? If so, it states that any page larger than 8 ½ x11 would count as multiple pages, making 11x17 count as 2 pages. Is that correct?

Answer: Offerors may us a page size larger than 8 ½ “ x 11”; however, any page size submitted larger than 8 ½ “ x 11” shall be considered multiple pages. Please note that Offerors are required to submit electronically IAW RFP paragraph L.1.2.

15. Question: “The Contractor shall provide signed Non-Disclosure Agreement for Contractor Employees (See Attachment 4) and, when applicable, Sensitive Data Non-Disclosure Agreements (See Attachment 5), to the Government no later than 30 calendar days prior to commencement of work under the contract”. This task cannot be accomplished by a non-incumbent offeror. Would the government please change this request to 30 days after award?

Answer: PWS paragraph 1.18 was revised to read 30 days after award.

16. Question: The NAICS code is 541990, size standard of $19.5M. Given the government has requested offerors to provide a $35M annual past performance magnitude to evaluate, which exceeds the SB size standard, will the Government reduce the past performance magnitude size standards to be in alignment with the NAICS code size standard?

Answer: The magnitude has been updated.

17. Question: Currently the solicitation states “ Magnitude will be evaluated using the dollar amount of work performed during the recent time period established by the solicitation.

References with a dollar value of at least $35 million dollars per year/PoP) are considered of essentially the same magnitude to the current requirement”. Given the NAICS code is 541990, size standard of $19.5M, would the Government consider an alternative approach such as the following language to evaluating Magnitude?

Answer: See answer to Question #16.

18. Question: Based on the current language of the solicitation it appears that each past performance reference from the offeror will need to cover all aspects of the solicitation to be evaluated with Substantial Confidence. If this interpretation is correct, we believe it unduly favors the incumbent contractor as few, if any single past performance references will as completely align to the current solicitation as the incumbent. It also unduly restricts competition by disadvantaging offerors with equal breadth of past performance spread across multiple contracts or task orders. Will the Government clarify its evaluation criteria to allow offerors to provide past performance references for contracts that meet only some aspects of the current scope so long as offerors are able to provide multiple references that together address all aspects of the intended scope?

Answer: It is the Government’s intent to keep the current language and Offerors shall follow RFP paragraph L.4.3.1.7.

19. Question: PWS 5.2.1.1.6.1 states “Clearance: Secret clearance is required with TS/SCI eligibility for all position except for task area 5.1.1.4. Top-Secret with SCI eligibility clearance is required for all positions supporting 5.1.1.4”; however, 5.1.1.4 no longer exists as the PWS numbering changed. Will the Government please update the reference to “5.1.1.4” since that PWS number does not exist?

Answer: The PWS has been updated to paragraph 5.2.1.1.4.

20. Question: The table in PWS Technical Exhibit A (Performance Requirements Summary) has multiple references to a PWS Section 5.1.1; however, since the PWS numbering was updated, PWS 5.1.1 does not exist. Will the Government please update the references to “5.1.1” since that PWS number does not exist?

Answer: See updated Technical Exhibit A.

21. Question: The following personnel are considered key personnel by the Government:

Contract Program Manager (PM) and Senior Systems Architect. All Key personnel must work onsite at Fort Eustis, VA. The language specifically talks about a Contract Program Manager and a Senior Systems Architect as key personnel, but later states an Alternate Contract Manager is key. Will the Government please confirm that the Alternate Contract Manager is not a key person?

Answer: Paragraph 1.10 of the PWS (Key Personnel) has been revised to eliminate any mention of an Alternate Contract Manager. There are only two Key positions: Contract Program Manager and Senior Systems Architect.

22. Question: The Government has provided a historical workload data for this effort. Please identify which positions, if any, are SCA and at what location they are currently employed?

Answer: Offerors shall mark with an “X” in the appropriate cell of the Pricing Workbook whether or not positions fall under SCA.

23. Question: DD254 Section 11. The block is checked that the contractor will only have access to classified information at a government or other contractor site. Also the block for us to have an active COMSEC account has been checked as well with no identification of where this COMSEC work will be done or stored. A) Where does the government expect the contractor to generate and store classified material? B) Where will the COMSEC work be done or stored?

Answer: Contractor sites can be cleared up to collateral information; however, anything higher than collateral will be limited to a government facility. All COMSEC work will be done on government site at Fort Eustis, VA or Fort Leavenworth, KS.

24. Question: Will the Government confirm all historical workload data provided in Attachment 2 is FFP?

Answer: Attachment 2 Pricing Workbook is separated into tabs for FFP requirements and T&M labor rates.

25. Question: Is the proposal due 10AM local time on 27 Jan 2025 per the SF33? Please provide update if this is not correct. When will the final RFP be released?

26. Question: Please confirm T&M is only related to pricing for TEFOR. Is there any other part of the contract or CLIN that has T&M pricing?

Answer: The TEFOR FFP Labor requirement as identified in the PWS will have its own FFP Optional CLIN identified in the final RFP for pricing. TEFOR pricing in proposals should only be for the TEFOR FFP requirement in the PWS. During contract execution, TEFOR may additionally require part-time surge labor expertise under the T&M Labor

CLIN. Possible future T&M Labor requirements or pricing is not part of this award.

27. Question: If there are additional CLINs to the contract, would those be priced for T&M or

FFP?

Answer: See updated Pricing Workbook.

28. Question: Please confirm the Base Year ends 8 April (9 months) instead of the normal 12 months. Is there a reason for the change?

Answer: The Base Year ends 08 April.

29. Question: Within the Instructions and Evaluation rating criteria relative to the Past

Performance magnitude rating scale, how can a small business have an annual contract revenue of $35M/PoP and still be consider a Small Business under the NAICS Code identified for this opportunity?

Answer: See Question #16.

30. Question: Will the govt extend the Past Performance recency period from 3 years to 5 years to accommodate for the slow down and delay in government acquisitions for the two years during the COVID pandemic?

Answer: The Past Performance recency period remains at 3 years.

31. Question: For the current contract, which was released as full and open competition, the government established the past performance relevancy in scope and magnitude at $7m.

This small business set-aside establishes magnitude relevancy at $35m dollars per year which seems to unfairly limit competition. Will the government reduce the relevancy to $7m in order to allow non-tribally owned small business competition?

32. Question: Contract Program Manager (PM) and Alternate Contract PM are listed under

Section 1.10.1 “Key Personnel”; however, Paragraph 1.10 states: “The following personnel are considered key personnel by the Government: Contract Program Manager (PM) and Senior Systems Architect.” Paragraph 1.29.6 states “The Contractor PM, Deputy PM, and Program Controller shall attend….” Can the Government clarify if the Alternate Contract PM is intended to be a Key Person with the same requirements as the Contract Project Manager?

Answer: See Question #21.

33. Question: Regarding past performance references, the solicitation states “To be recent, the reference must have been performed for at least 6 (six) months within three (3) years from the date of initial issuance of this solicitation (not including subsequently issued amendments). Given the increase in length of acquisition cycles Government-wide, offerors have fewer opportunities to provide recent past performance. Additionally, the requirement for six months of performance within the 3-year period effectively reduces the recency to two and a half years. To increase competition and allow offerors the ability to show their full range of capabilities, would the Government extend the recency period to five (5) years from the initial RFP issuance date?

Answer: See Question #30.

34. Question: In Volume III, TAB D of its proposal, the offeror shall provide information regarding the organization structure change history of the offeror (when applicable, all joint venture partners, subcontractors, and/or teaming partners). Must the organization structure change history be provided for any subcontractor who has experienced a change in the past 3 years? Or only for a subcontractor that provides a past performance reference?

Answer: Only a subcontractor that provides past performance.

35. Question: This paragraph describes the security clearance requirements for the various PWS task areas contained within the IDM section. It mentions an exception related to task area 5.1.1.4, however, there is not a 5.1.1.4 task area. Please clarify the clearance requirements for 5.2.1.

Answer: See Question #19.

36. Question: Based on draft sections L and M, in order to be relevant, cited past performance must be similar in scope and magnitude to the services being procured under this solicitation. Specifically: “References with a dollar value of at least $35 million dollars per year/PoP are considered of essentially the same magnitude to the current requirement.” The magnitude rating scale seems to be unduly high for this particular acquisition. In order to receive the top rating, an offeror must cite a program with an annual value nearly two times that of the small business size standard assigned to this contract ($19.5M). Therefore, any offeror with a contract of this size would exceed the small business size standard and could not qualify as a prime bidder. Further, the incumbent contract, normally considered the most relevant possible citation, does not even meet this qualification. According to FPDS data, incumbent contract W911S020C0007 historically has never reached the $35M/year threshold. Will the Government please reduce the dollar value required for a citation to be considered “Essentially the Same” magnitude so that small business offerors are capable of providing past performance that has the potential to receive a “Very Relevant” rating?

37. Question: Will the Final RFP include a Section H (Special Contract Requirements), and is so, will any SOFA related requirements be included?

Answer: Yes, a Section H will be included and it will have SOFA related information related to the Government’s requirement for the use of the Synchronized Predeployment

Operational Tracker (SPOT) when the need arises under the awarded contract.

38. Question: Section L.4.4.6.3 notes a 1-month phase-in period and an 8-month base period.

Section F provides a PoP confirming the 1-month phase-in period but lists dates of August to April for the base period, which would be 10 months. Please confirm if the base period after the phase-in period will be 8 or 10 months.

Answer: August to April is an 8-month period.