3IS III_Consolidated QA from Industry_v5.0.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 92 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Innovation, Integration, and Information Support (3IS) III Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2518-23-R-0007
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 43
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
2nd Set of Q&A RFP
| Document | Reference | Question | Answer | Amendment |
| General | Could the Government please provide a list of approved tools including any proprietary tools used on the Government’s behalf? | All the tools required to support this effort are listed in the Bidder's Library and Attached at the end of the 3IS III PWS. These tools will be provide by the Government to the contractor to support this effort. Also added the GFE Software Tool & Program Used in 17 TES and WESP, and the Tactics Validation Overview. These additional documents are available when requested from the CO. | ||
| Section L | L.6.1.2, page 12, Organization and Management |
L.8.2.7 Subcontractor / Interdivisional Transfer Cost Proposal L.8.2.7.4, page 21 L.8.3.3.2, page 23 Probable Subcontractors L.8.3.4.1, page 25 Services and Subcontracts L.8.3.5, page 25, Basis of Estimate (BOE) for Task Order 0002 (392 CTS) L.8.3.5.2, page 25 L.8.3.5.5, para 6, pg 26 L.8.3.6.7, page 28, CFY Rates Worksheet Would the Government please clarify the intent of the term inter-divisional / interdivisional?
| We believe the intent is to interpret based on company organizational structure. The term interdivisional may not align with company structure; therefore, please confirm that the term inter-divisional / interdivisional does not preclude the term inter-company to represent organization structure that uses inter-company transfers, inter-company-rates, inter-company cost, etc. | To the Government interdivisional and inter-company means the same thing. So yes this is acceptable. | |||
| Section L | General | The RFP currently addresses interdivisional transfers but does not address intercompany transfers. Will the Government confirm that intercompany transfers should be addressed in the proposal consistent with interdivisional transfers? | As stated above, the Government interpreted interdivisional the same thing as inter-company. So the Government will treat it as such. | |
| Section L | Table 1 - Proposal Organization | Phase 1 Volume 1 Technical Qualification Gate is limited to 36 pages. Given that we are allowed up to 3 citations for each of the 12 elements, that is a total of 36 citations. To adequately and fairly evaluate the technical qualifications and for the Offerors to “demonstrate your experience” will the Government consider increasing the page limit for Phase 1 Volume I to 40 pages? | Section L language remains unchanged. | |
| Section L, para 2.2.2 | ||||
| Section L, para 6.1.3 | Table 1 – Proposal Organization | Table 1 states the Attachment E1 Cross Reference Matrix is required in Volume II Executive Summary. However, Section L paragraph 6.1.3 states Attachment E1 shall be completed and submitted with the Technical and Cost/Price Volumes in which reflects only technical and Cost/Price volumes. |
| Could the Government please clarify in which volume(s) Attachment E1 is required? | Changed Section L, Para 2.2.1, Table 1, added under Executive Summary, Attachment E1 "To Reflect All Volumes." Under Factor 1: Technical, added "Attachment T6: Technical Cross Reference Matrix to Reflect Only Technical" with an unlimited page count. Under Factor 3: Cost/Price, added "Attachment C4: Cost/Price Cost Reference Matrix to Reflect Only Cost/Price Volume" with Unlimited Page Count. Changed Section L, Paragraph 6.1.3 to read "As part of the offerors’ proposals, an overall cross-reference matrix shall be completed and submitted with the Executive Summary as Attachment E1 in which reflects all the Volumes. Under Technical Volumes, the offeror shall submit a separate cross reference matrix in which reflects only the Technical as Attachment T6. Under Cost/Price volume, the Offeror shall submit separate cross reference matrixes in which reflects only the Cost/Price as Attachment C4." Changed Section 6.1.3, Table 4, 3rd Row to read "Cost/Price". Changed Section L, Para 7.1.4, added "Attachment 6: Technical Cross Matrix. Changed Section L, Para 8.3, to add "Attachment C4: Cost/Price Cross Matrix". | |||
| Section L | L.2.3.1 Electronic Copies | In light of SAFE outages and issues experienced with other solicitations, would the Government consider establishing a readily available POC for 3IS III bidders to facilitate SAFE submittals? | The COs will be facilitating the proposal submissions as stated under Section L 2.3.1. However, I would recommend emailing or calling the CO once you have submitted to ensure they received your proposal. | |
| Section L | L.2.3.1 Electronic Copies | “Each Volume must be submitted as a separate file, with the appropriate Title (see “Proposal Labeling” naming convention Para 3.3 below), with a Word/Excel version.” |
| Would submitting as PDF instead MSWord be acceptable? | Section L language remains unchanged. | |||
| Section L | L.3.1 Proposal Delivery; L.8.2.7.4 | Can the Government confirm the discrepancy between the proposal delivery instructions listed in L.3.1 and L.8.2.7.4 and that Cost/Price proposals, which include TECP are not required to be submitted to cognizant DCMA//CAO and DCAA offices? | Changed Section L, Para 8.2.7.4, to delete "and the cognizant DCMA/CAO and DCAA offices." | |
| Section L | L.3.1, L.8.2.7.1 and L.8.2.7.2 | (L.3.1) The Government will only accept proposals from the Prime contractor or Joint Venture.; (L.8.2.7.1) Subcontractors shall submit cost/price proposals with the same level of details as the offeror and may submit cost/price proposals directly to the CO if the cost information is considered proprietary data; and (L.8.2.7.2) If a subcontractor considers any portion of its cost information proprietary, it may submit that portion of the documentation under separate cover directly to the PCO or under seal in the offeror's proposal. |
| Please clarify whether or not direct proposal submission by subcontractors is acceptable. If so, please provide instructions for how subcontractors are to submit their proposals via DoD SAFE. | Subcontractors should submit their unsantized/ unburden cost/proposal and Employee Professional Compensation Plans the same way the prime would via DoD Safe as indicated in 3.0. | |||
| Section L | L.3.3 Proposal Labeling | Is the file naming convention for subcontractor-submitted files the same as for the Prime contractor-submitted files? | Yes. Because the prime offeror should be indicated in their executive summary their subcontractors/teammates. | |
| Section L | L.4.1.1 Instructions on Submission of Examples | Section L Instructions on Submission of Examples requests specific contract information for each example provided, including “The name and contact information of at least one, no more than three, references that can substantiate the experience. Task Order/Contract Number. Only one task order/contract per example; Agency the contract was performed for: Task Order/Contract Period of Performance (effective date and expiration date); Task/Order Contract value; Task Order/Contract Type.” |
Section L also requires the organization of the Phase 1 Volume 1 to be divided into 4 separate sections aligned to the Mission Areas.
| Please verify that contract information should only be included one time and that if the same contract is used as an example in 2 different Mission Areas we do not need to include all of the contract data again a second time. | Phase I, Volume I does not need to be separated into 4 separate sections aligned to the Mission Areas. If a contract/task order is used more than one time to substantiate the experience then under each Element the Offeror should list that contract/task order and indicated it was provided under Element 1, 2, etc. | ||
| Section L | L.4.3.1 Information Technology Element 1 | Section L defines Element 1 as “Demonstrate your experience providing information technology levels I, II, and III maintenance (to include troubleshooting, technical solutions and installation) on Unclassified, Secret, and Top Secret (TS)/Sensitive compartmented Information (SCI)/Special Access Program (SAP) networks, systems, and VTCs at local and off-site locations (CONUS and OCONUS).” |
In both Attachment 1 PWS and Attachment 7 IT PWS, “Level 2 maintenance” is defined; however, there is no reference to Level I, II, and III maintenance.
Will the Government please provide a definition of Level I, II, and III maintenance and clarify if “level II” and “Level 2” refer to the same thing? Level I - First line support, handles basic customer issues. (account unlocks, troubleshooting issues like slow computer, monitor problems, password resets, install/uninstall applications, placing PCs on the network)
Level II - In-depth support requiring advanced troubleshooting and analysis (build PC image, replace client system components, service builds, STIG implementations)
Level 3 - Expert support handles the most complex or advanced problems.
(specialized knowledge of systems, includes network engineers, system engineers, cybersecurity engineers ( performs engineering diagnostics, network design, collaborating with system developers, in-depth vulnerability assessments)) Section L L.4.6 Test and Evaluation Element 12 asks bidders to “demonstrate your experience developing and accrediting modeling and simulation tools.”
We assume this means getting our developed tools through the accreditation process versus being the accrediting authority.
| Could the Government confirm our assumption that we demonstrate our experience getting our developed tools “accredited”? | The contractor is not expected to be the accrediting authority but be responsible for getting models and simulations through the accreditation process (e.g., writing an accreditation plan). It would be beneficial for the government that the contractor be able to demonstrate that they have the ability in accrediting a model and simulation (not to be confused with accrediting tools for a PC). | |||
| Section L | L.4.6.2 Element 11 | Element 11 requires demonstrated experience with WSEP, however the SBMW and IDIQ PWS do not define the WSEP program. Please provide clarification on the WSEP program. | 17 TES WSEP Guidebook and 17 TES Tactics Guidebook added to bidder's library explaining in detail what these two test activities comprise. These additional documents are available when requested from the CO. | |
| Section L | L.7.1.4 Technical Volume Organization | “Attachments to Technical Volume” |
| May we submit the Volume III Staffing Matrices (Attachments T1 – T4) as separate Excel files to Volume III? | Yes. | |||
| Section L | L.8.2.7 Subcontractor / Interdivisional Transfer Cost Proposal | Is it acceptable for the Prime to include any interdivisional transfer in its Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal and Cost/Price Workbook as long as any differences are addressed? | Yes. | |
| Section L | L.8.2.7.1 Submission of subcontractor proposals | Are all subcontractors required to submit their unsanitized Volume IV Cost/Price proposals to include Total Professional Compensation Plan, Attachment 13 PECPs, their Attachment 12 Cost/Price Workbooks which include the same level of detail as the Prime, regardless of their subcontract size, classification Major or minor or contract type? | Yes. | |
| Section L | L.8.2.7.4. | 8.2.7.4 “The prime shall ensure subcontractor(s) and interdivisional organizations deliver, by the date and time specified in Section L-4, Paragraph 2.2.1, copies of their unburdened / unsanitized cost/price proposals for Task Order 0002 (392 CTS) and |
Professional Employee Compensation Plan each proposal required to the PCO and the cognizant DCMA/CAO and DCAA offices.”
| Does the Agency intend for the DCMA/DCAA to conduct analysis of Subcontractor proprietary documents? | See answer #8. Changed Section L, Paragraph 8.2.7.4 to delete "…the cognizant DCMA/CAO and DCAA offices.” | ||
| Section L | L.8.3.2 Section 1 – General Information | Section 1 asks for DCMA/DCAA Letters and Reports on subcontractor business systems. These documents are Proprietary to each subcontractor. |
L.8.3.2.3 asks for DCMA DCAA Letters and Reports as well.
| Does the Agency require the Prime to submit these Subcontractor Proprietary documents with its proposal in addition to the Subcontractors submitting the same detail in their proposals, or if they deem proprietary, can Subcontractors submit these letters and reports directly to the Agency, OR their cognizant DCMA/DCAA ACO(s)? | Changed Section L, Para 8.3.2.3, 2nd Sentence, to read, "State whether the offeror’s purchasing system has been reviewed and approved by the cognizant ACO at DCMA and if so, provide evidence of such approval, to include DCMA points of contact (name, email address, and phone number)". Deleted "for prime, subcontractors, and joint ventures." | |
| Section L | L.8.3 Cost/Price Volume Organization |
| L.9.14 Attachment 13, Professional Employee Compensation Plan. | Section L.8.3 Cost/Price Volume Organization, lists the following as the attachment titles: | ||
| • | Attachment C1 – Basis of Estimate (BOE) | ||
| • | Attachment C2 – Cost/Price Workbook | ||
| • | Attachment C3 – Professional Employee Compensation Plan | ||
| However, under Section L.9.14, Attachment 13 is referred to as Attachment C1 to the Volume IV. Can the Government confirm that the correct Attachment titles which should be used in Volume IV are correct under Section L.8.3 and that the Offeror, should use those three attachment titles as the separate MS Excel 365 files submitted along with Volume IV and in accordance with Section L.3.3? For example for the Basis of Estimate it would be submitted as: Company Name_Phase #_Vol#_ Attachment C1 – Basis of Estimate (BOE).xls? | 1. Changed Section L, 9.14, 2nd sentence to read, "This is to be utilized and provided by the Offeror as part of Factor 3, Cost/Price, as Attachment C3 to Volume IV. " 2. Naming of titles and submissions as stated as an example is correct. | ||
| Section L | L.8.3.5.2 | Section 4 – Basis of Estimate (BOE) for Task Order 0002 (392 CTS) and specifically L.8.3.5.2 states, “The offeror shall prepare separate BOEs for each Task Order.” |
| Can the Government clarify whether a BOE is required for the CLIN 0001 Transition-In? If so, are offerors to use the same format as provided under the Attachment 12, under the tab titled: TO 0002_BOEs? | No BOEs are required for CLIN 0001, Transition In. | |||
| Section L | L.8.3.7.1 | Can the Government confirm that the labor categories on the 3IS III contract will NOT include Service Contract Act (SCA) roles or roles covered by Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA)? | SCA does not apply and there are no Wage Determinations or CBAs since these are Professional Employees. | |
| Section L | Section M | |||
| Section L | Section M.3.0 states “Each element has a list of sub-elements. To pass an element experience must be provided that substantiates the element and all sub-elements (list of aspects within each element).” |
Section L.4.1 states “Offeror needs to provide at least one example but no more than three examples to meet all aspects (sub-elements) of each element.” However, within each Element 1-12 there are no additional sub-elements numbered or otherwise delineated.
| Will the Government please verify that the sub-elements include only those specific items listed in the Element description in Sections 4.3 through 4.6 in Section L, pages 10-11? | See 1st Set of Q&A, Q&A #10 & 101. | ||
| Attachment 1 PWS v5.0 | Para. 1.3.8.2 | “The 26th SAS is a Reserve associate unit to the 527 SAS in a total force integration partnership. Both squadrons are co-located in Buildings 24 and 815.1.3.1.3 Support required includes…” |
| Could the Government please confirm the “1.3.1.3” is unintentional? | Changed PWS Para 1.3.8.2, to delete "1.3.1.3". | ||
| Attachment 9 392 CTS PWS v1.0 | FTE headcounts | Attachment 9 has section titles with specific work to be performed, for example: Sec. 3.a 392 CTS Operations Support (10) (16.7). |
| Are we to assume that the first number in the section header is the Government-estimated number of FTEs required to perform the work? If so, will the Government please confirm that they are assuming that the task outlined in Attachment 9 is specifying that 60 FTEs are required to perform the work for this task. 60 is the sum of the numbers in all the section titles in section 3 (Sec. 3.a to 3.k)? | Addressed in 1st Set of Q&A. | |||
| Attachment 9 392 CTS PWS v1.0 | Attachment C, Service Summary #2, Performance Threshold | The performance threshold statement is incomplete. Could the Government provide the complete performance threshold statement? | Addressed in 1st Set of Q&A. Corrected in Amendment 0001. | |
| Attachment 12 Cost Price Workbook | ||||
| Section L.3.1 and L.8.2.7.4, L.8.3.4.1 | Row 20 Labor Costs (Insert Categories) | Does the information under TO 002_Summary of Cost per EOC, fulfill the requirement under Services/Subcontracts Summary (L.8.3.4.1 #6 to list Subcontractor labor category(ies), skill mix, hours, rates and cost proposed)? If yes, should the Prime offeror duplicate TO 002_Summary of Cost per EOC for each subcontractor to capture that information? | Yes. An Offeror can add additional tabs to Attachment 12 to capture the labor categories, rates (burden), hours for each subcontractor and then tie it into the primes. | |
| Attachment 12 Cost Price Workbook | ||||
| Section L.3.1 and L.8.2.7.4 | Row 20 Labor Costs (Insert Categories) | Are the Labor Costs section where Offerors are to list Prime labor categories? | Yes. Again lines 4 is for Subcontractor total cost and line 15 is for Interdivisions / intercompany total costs. Breakout of these total costs from your subcontractors / interdivisions/ intercompany can be listed in "added" tabs to the workbook which show the cost breakout per cost element of your subcontractor's/ interdivision's/intercompany' s/etc. labor. | |
| Attachment 13 PECP v2.0 | Column J | As health benefits and corporate contributions vary depending on health plans and employee coverage choices (for example, whether they opt for vision coverage), can the Government specify which figures need to be included in column J? | An Offeror should propose the actual health plans each FTE selects. And then you can explain that they reason for the variance is because they choose not to include dental, etc. | |
| Attachment 13 PECP v2.0 | Column K | Can the Government define the Professional/Service/Neither designations or specify the source agency (such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics) that defines them? | No. This is for the Offeror to define for the Government what their labor categories map to. |
1st Set of Q&A_RFP
| No. | RFP Reference | Page Number | Paragraph # | Question | Answer | Amendment |
| 1 | Attachment 15, Section L | 15 | 7.1.6 | The RFP states "Provide a narrative on the staffing matrix for each of subfactor". Per the instructions for the Staff Matrix, offerors are allowed to use their format as long as it includes all relevant information. Please confirm that it was acceptable for offerors to provide the staffing narrative as part of the Staffing Matrix? Is it the government's intention that offerors provide this narrative within the same file as the staffing matrix, or should the staffing matrix narrative be included within the technical approach? If the government intends for the staffing matrix narrative to be included within the technical approach, please consider increasing the page limit for each technical subfactor. | 1. Do not include any narrative in the staffing matrix. 2. Narratives need to part of the technical approach and addressed there while referring to the staffing matrix which will show the specific labor categories to include experience, certification, etc. 3. Page limitation remains unchanged. | No change. |
| 2 | Attachment 15, Section L | 30 | 9.2 | The RFP states offerors must comply with the Limitations on Subcontracting clause and "shall submit certification and demonstrate how they intend to perform at least 50% of the 3IS III PWS." Please clarify what the government would accept as certification/demonstration of compliance with FAR 52.219-14. | Changed Section L, Para 9.2, to delete "IAW FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, Prime (or Joint Venture) shall submit certificates and demonstrate how they intend to perform at least 50% of the 3IS III PWS. | Changed Section L. |
| 3 | Attachment 16, Section M | 2 | 1.1.6 | The RFP states "The prime contractor must be an 8(a) company under NAICS Code 541715 Research & Development (R&D) in the Physical, Engineering & Life Sciences, with a small business size standard of 1000 employees, and perform at least 51% of the work." |
| This statement conflicts with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). FAR 19.505(b)(1)(i) states "For a contract or order assigned a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for services (except construction), the concern will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractor that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count towards the concern's 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes both services and supplies, the 50 percent limitation shall apply only to the service portion of the contract." Please amend this requirement to reflect the current regulations defined in the FAR regarding Limitations on Subcontracting. | Changed Section M, Para 1.1.6, to read "The prime contractor must be an 8(a) company under NAICS Code 541715 Research & Development (R&D) in the Physical, Engineering & Life Sciences, with a small business size standard of 1000 employees, and perform at least 50% of the work." | Changed Section M. | |||
| 4 | Attachment 16, Section M | 5 | 4.2.4 | The RFP states "An “Unacceptable” combined technical/risk rating for any of the Factor 1 four (4) technical subfactors or an unacceptable rating for the phase-in plan may render an offeror’s overall proposal as unawardable." |
| Due to the complex and critical nature of this work, an "Unacceptable" score for any of the Factor 1 subfactors or Factor 2 would present significant performance risk to the government. Please consider revising this statement to read "An “Unacceptable” combined technical/risk rating for any of the Factor 1 four (4) technical subfactors or an unacceptable rating for the phase-in plan SHALL render an offeror’s overall proposal as unawardable." | Suggested language remains unchanged. | No change. | |||||
| 5 | Attachment 16, Section M | 5 | 4.2.4 | Due to the complex and critical nature of this work, a "Marginal" score in any of the Factor 1 subfactors would present significant performance risk and would not represent the best value to the government. As the government states that adequate competition is expected (paragraph 1.1.3) and that it intends to award without discussions (paragraph 1.1.4), please consider revising paragraph 4.2.4 Unawardability for Phase II to include the requirement that offerors must score at least "Acceptable" on all four subfactors to be considered for award. | Suggested language remains unchanged. | No change. | |
| 6 | Solicitation | 20-21 | 252.215-7011 | 1. Can the Government provide the POC information for the Contract Auditor and Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) referenced in this section? | |||
| 2. Does this requirement pertain only to TO proposals IAW with Section H, Special Contract Requirements or is this applicable to submission of responses to this RFP as well? | Changed Solicitation, Section I, and deleted DFARS clause 252.215-7011. | Changed Solicitation. | |||||
| 7 | Attachment 16, Section M | 3 | 1.1.7 | Please confirm the statement "and not graduating from the 8(a) program before award" is correct? Per FAR 19.816 and 13CFR 124.501(h) competitive 8(a) award eligibility is determined by SBA based on the initial date specified for receipt of offers, not on award date. | Changed Section M, Para 1.1.7 to read "IAW FAR 19.816(c), a contractor that has completed its term of participation in the 8(a) program may be awarded this acquisition if it was an 8(a) participant eligible for award of the contract on the initial date specified for receipt of the offers contain in the solicitation and if the contractor continues to meet all other applicable eligibility criteria." | Changed Section M. | |
| 8 | Attachment 15, Section L | 32 | 9.15, Attachment 14 | Section L.9.15, states a requirement that a joint venture to be approved by SBA prior to contract award. In 2020, however, SBA revised its regulations to eliminate joint venture agreement approval for 8(a) competitive awards. FAR 19.805-2(d)(2) now reflects this change. Previous Q&A regarding this solicitation pointed out that the SBA no longer approves 8(a) JV Agreements for competitive solicitations, and the government response was that the solicitation would be modified to reflect this change. Will the Government correct this requirement to reflect current SBA JV approval requirements? | Changed Section L, Para 9.15, to read "Joint Ventures and Mentor protege are allowable on competitive 8(a) award and must contain the provision under 13 CFR 124.513(c). Before a Participant may be awarded a competitive 8(a) contract, SBA must determine the Participant's eligibility which is based upon the criteria listed under 13 CFR 124.501(g)." | Changed Section L. | |
| 9 | Solicitation Section B | 3 - 5 | N/A | Which elements, if any, of the Section B table are the bidders to complete? | None. | No change. | |
| 10 | Section L | pg 8 of 34 | para 4.1 | States "Offeror needs to provide at least one example but no more than three examples to meet all aspects (sub-elements) of each element. This causes confusion as to what is an aspect and what is a "sub-element." Elements are clearly defined and numbered however; "sub-elements" are not. Recommend removing "sub-elements". If not, then provide a clearly defined list of "sub-elements" similar to the 12 Elements. | Suggested language remains unchanged. Sub-elements (or aspects) are all the items described in the element paragraphs. | No change. | |
| 11 | Attachment 16, Section M | 2 | 1.1.6 | Please correct the statement "If a Joint Venture, then the 8(a) company needs to perform at least 51% of the work." This statement conflicts with the Solicitation and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Solicitation page 36, para (g)(1) and (2), states the 8(a) participant must perform at least 40% of the work. As well, 13 CFR 124.513(d)(2) states "The 8(a) partner(s) to the joint venture must perform at least 40% of the work performed by the joint venture." | Changed Section M, Para 1.1.6, to read "If a Joint Venture, then the 8(a) company needs to perform at least 40% of the work." | Changed Section M. | |
| 12 | Section L, VOLUME II, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | RFP L.6.1.1, L.6.1.2 | The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY is limited to three pages. Yet it requires an overview of the team, a description of organization, management, roles, and responsibilities, and two organization charts. Will the Government please increase this page limitation to at least five pages to allow full detail? | Changed Section L, Table 1, Executive Summary to 5 pages. | Changed Section L. | ||
| 13 | Section L, Page 7; Font size limits | RFP L.2.2.3 | To accurately depict staffing within the page limitations, will the Government allow font size for graphics (including charts and tables ) to be no smaller than 9 point? | Suggested language remains unchanged. | No change. | ||
| 14 | RFP L.4.1 | Paragraph L.4.1 states that “offerors need to provide at least one example but no more than three examples to meet all aspects (sub-elements) of each element”. Will the Government confirm that the compellation of experience must meet all aspects (sub-elements) of each element? | Combination of the examples submitted (whether this is one or three) needs to address each of subelement. | No change. | |||
| 15 | Attachment 15 | L 8.2.7.1 Permits subcontractor to submit cost/price proposals directly to the CO. Should subcontractor submit their cost/price proposals via DoD SAFE or via email? | Subcontractor like the prime should be submitting their cost/price proposal via DoD safe. | No change. | |||
| 16 | Attachment 15 | L. 8.2.7.4 states that subcontractor/interdivisional organizations provide “copies of their unburdened / unsanitized cost/price proposals” to the government. Where subcontractor are FFP or T&M, we assume cost/price proposals show the full cost build up, including amounts for direct and indirect costs, as well as any other burdens. Is that correct? | Yes. | No change. | |||
| 17 | Attachment 15 | L/ 8.3.3.5 States |
“Rate and Rate Systems Reviews. The offeror shall state whether the cognizant ACO has reviewed and approved for proposal pricing purposes the proposed labor and burden rates. If the offeror has a Forward Pricing Rate Approval (FPRA), Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR), Provisional Billing Rates, or Incurred Audits, the offeror shall provide this documentation with the negotiated rates. The offeror shall submit an FPRA / FPRR for itself and other team members; otherwise, the offeror shall submit a letter stating that its FPRA is currently under review by DCMA/DCAA”
Question: As this is a set-aside for 8(a) small businesses, CAS does not apply, nor do any requirements for FPRAs or FPRRs. Please remove the requirement or provide either an FPRA / FPRR or a letter stating that its FPRA is currently under review by DCMA/DCAA.
| CAS does not apply but there is a possibility that an audit may have been conducted by DCMA/DCAA. Changed Section L, 8.3.3.5. to delete the last sentence, "The offeror shall submit a FPRA/FPRR for itself and other team members; otherwise, the offeror shall submit a letter stating that its FPRA is currently under review by DCMA/DCAA." | Changed Section L. | ||
| 18 | Attachment 15 | L. 8.3.3.6 | |
| Would the government remove this requirement? As this is a set-aside for 8(a) small businesses, CAS does not apply, nor do any requirements for FPRAs or FPRRs not need to provide to DCMA, DCAA or other audited relevant documentation as it relates to this requirement. | As stated above, CAS does not apply. However, there is a possibility an audit may have occurred. Changed Section L, 8.3.3.6, 2nd & 3rd Sentences to read, "To support an Offeror's proposed indirect rates, the Offeror shall provide three years of historical data to suport these rates. Further, the offeror's subcontractors shall provide if applicable DCMA, DCAA or other audited relevant documentation as it relates to this requirement when they submit their unsanitized /unburden cost/price proposal." |
| Changed Section L. | ||
| 19 | Solicitation Document, section I | Section I contains DFAR 252.215-7011 |
| As this is an 8(a) set-aside, CAS does not apply. As CAS does not apply, there is no requirement for offerors to provide proposals to DCMA. Would the government please remove this clause and its associated requirements? | Changed Solicitation, Section I, and deleted DFARS clause 252.215-7011. | Changed Solicitation. |
| 20 | Attachment 9, 392 CTS PWS |
Performance Work Statement For 392d Combat Training Squadron APPLICABLE PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS) PARAGRAPHS This task order (TO) expands on or invokes the provisions of the following 3IS2 PWS paragraphs and all included subparagraphs: 1.3.2, 1.4.2, 1.4.4, 1.4.6.1.1.10, 1.4.6.1.1.18, and 1.5.14. Paragraphs not specifically referenced remain applicable to the scope of work performed under this task order.
| Question: There are no such paragraphs as 1.4.6.1.1.10 or 1.4.6.1.1.18. Will the government please provide corrected paragraph numbers? | Updated paragraph to reflect correct 3IS III PWS references. | Changed Attachment 9. | |||
| 21 | Attachment 1, PWS Page 38, Section 3. | The Government will provide the contractor facilities on Schriever SFB required for the contractor to perform the requirements of this contract. Will the Government also provide facilities at all locations denoted in section 1.2.1? For example, 4 TES is at Peterson SFB. | Yes. We expect personnel located at those location. This will be addressed in the specific task order PWS. | No change. | |
| 22 | Attachment 1, PWS Page 5, Section 1.3 | Why are Delta 11 organizations described but there is no specific PWS language describing the type of contract support that is required as stated in 1.1? | This is placeholder for future work. | No change. | |
| 23 | Attachment 1, PWS Page 4, Section 1.1 | Describe the support to 14 TS. There is no PWS language beyond describing the organization. | This is placeholder for future work. | No change. | |
| 24 | Attachment 1, PWS Page 4, Section 1.1 | Describe the support to 527 SAS. There is no PWS language beyond describing the organization. | This is placeholder for future work. | No change. | |
| 25 | Attachment 1, PWS Page 4, Section 1.1 | Describe the support to 57 SAS. There is no PWS language beyond describing the organization. | This is placeholder for future work. | No change. | |
| 26 | Attachment 1, PWS Page 4, Section 1.1 | Describe the support to 25 SRS. There is no PWS language beyond describing the organization. | This is placeholder for future work. | No change. | |
| 27 | Attachment 1, PWS Page 4, Section 1.1 | Describe the support to 98 SRS. There is no PWS language beyond describing the organization. | This is placeholder for future work. | No change. | |
| 28 | Attachment 8, PWS. Page 3 Para 3.a.1.a | Contractor shall recommend solutions for, and be prepared to support, set up and connection of Government-provided virtual capabilities for use at wargame events if available, feasible, necessary, and designed for the appropriate classification level. Are the SW sites already in a "warm" status or will contractor be required to fully install government provided virtual systems? | Most of the selected wargame execution sites have the infrastructure – the Wargame IT support element will need to enter the facility, set up our TS//REL or S//REL server and clients using the existing IT infrastructure. In some instances, the Wargame IT support element will set up the server run cabling to the clients for a closed-loop “wargame system in a box” to meet the requirements. As such, it’s not a full virtual system, it’s a traveling server/client set up. | No change. | |
| 29 | Attachment 8, PWS. Page 3 Para 3.a.1.b | The contractor shall provide wargame developers with space, cyberspace, intelligence, policy (strategic, operational, national, and international), modeling and simulation, space launch, and operational planning expertise…then, shall recommend to the Government appropriate space and other domain subject matter experts (SMEs) for participation in wargame events and in specific cells for play during wargame events in accordance with, and in support of, wargame scenario(s) and objectives. Is contractor providing all SMEs or making recommendations to the Government for additional SME support from outside of the primary contract support? | The selected company will provide the SMEs as wargame developers, then make recommendations for participants for the wargame across DoD, Commercial, Civil, Policy, etc. The participants are not on contract or subcontract, they’re planners and players at the wargame participating under their own auspices. | No change. | |
| 30 | Attachment 8, PWS. Page 4 Para 3.a.1.e | The contractor shall provide draft invitations and/or read-ahead documentation for key wargame events for Government review and approval. Are these documents to be provided at all classification levels? What systems are required? | Invitations are UNCLASS; read-ahead documentation may be at all classifications up to and including above TS/SCI. Systems which may be required include NIPR, SIPR, JWICS, SIC, SGN, and PDAS – systems required will be provided for use by the government. | No change. | |
| 31 | Attachment 8, PWS. Page 5 Para 3.a.1.i | The contractor shall also maintain coordination and coordinate participation (if requested) with the Government with other appropriate wargames and exercises (e.g., Space Warfighter and Analysis Center (SWAC) Wargames, Loki’s Gambit, Thor’s Hammer, Global Engagement, Air Force Futures, Space Flag, Global Sentinel, Global Thunder, Global Lightning, Global Integrated Wargame, Naval War College games, USSTRATCOM games, USAFA i5 Wargaming, and international partner wargames) to include integrating their lessons learned or best practices into STARCOM Wargaming events, as appropriate. Is contractor' involvement only if requested? The scope of this SW portion of the RFP doesn't direct planning and execution of all of these events. | The selected company will field a team of wargame SMEs who are capable of supporting and participating in aligned wargame efforts for “White Cell” support. We routinely support Red Cell, Adjudication Cell, and planning for a variety of wargame efforts to maintain connection and collaboration within DoD wargaming. While not directive for planning, it does require participation as appropriate and directed/approved by the government. | No change. | |
| 32 | Attachment 8, PWS. Page 6 Para 3.a.1.l | The contractor shall assist the Government in defining requirements for robust Modeling and Simulation (M&S) support for wargame execution. Is this M&S system government provided, or is contractor responsible for developing or providing this capability? | The selected company will define the requirements, but the Government will procure the solution, perceptibly with the contract team’s support. | No change. | |
| 33 | Attachment 8, PWS. Page 7 Para 3.a.1.s | The contractor shall participate in non-STARCOM wargame events (e.g., SWAC events, Global Engagement, Thor’s Hammer, AF Futures Game, USSPACECOM events, Space Flag, Naval War College wargames, Global Integrated Wargame, Joint Warfighting Construct, etc.) during this Pope. Para 3a1i says "contractor will coordinate participation" in these events, but this paragraph says "shall participate". Is this a separate requirement? | The coordinated participation is for the STARCOM Wargame team to participate as able or requested with Government leadership concurrence and direction based on STARCOM Wargaming battle rhythm and availability. Para 3a1i, as answered above, refers to coordinated participation for the wargame team. | No change. | |
| 34 | Attachment 8, PWS. Page 7 Para 3.a.1.u | The contractor shall operate and maintain a usable off-line Access database. Is this database provided by the Government or is this to be acquired by contractor? | Database software (Access) is provided by the Government and will be maintained, updated, and used by the incoming contract team. | No change. | |
| 35 | Attachment 8, PWS. Page 8 Para 3.a.1.w.i | For the CTOC and USTOC systems, administration and maintenance will be performed based on the architecture chosen and provided by the government. The CTOC and USTOC architecture is called out as "provided" by the government, but what about collateral floor systems? Are NIPRNet and SIPRNet included in the government provided systems? | The collateral systems (i.e., GameNet) are provided at the S//REL and TS//REL level as a stand-alone wargame system with a server architecture and ~150 clients and removable hard drives to allow changing the classification level. NIPR and SIPR are provided by the government within the office location, but are not used as gaming capabilities. The selected contract company must be capable of maintaining, through the IT portion of the contract, all levels of our wargaming systems to include collateral and above TS/SCI. | No change. | |
| 36 | Attachment 8, PWS. Page 12 Para 3.a.e.1 | The contractor shall provide space, adjudication, and when appropriate, SAP, wargaming expertise for Air Force Title 10 Wargames Global Engagement and AF Futures Wargame as well as USSF SWAC-developed and hosted wargames. Does this mean "office space" as in a location for these meetings? | No…it’s means Space, as a domain (i.e. knowledge and understanding of USSF and other Space capabilities) | No change. | |
| 37 | Attachment 8, PWS. Page 13 Para 3.a.f.1 | The contractor shall provide space, adjudication, and, if appropriate, SAP wargaming expertise for other events supporting mission and international partner’s wargames (e.g., USSPACECOM Wargames, Thor’s Hammer, UK Wargames, French Wargames, etc.). Does this mean "office space" as in a location for these meetings? | No…it’s means Space, as a domain (i.e. knowledge and understanding of USSF and other Space capabilities) | No change. | |
| 38 | Attachment 1, 3IS III PWS Page 4, Section 1.2.1 | "The primary workplace for the effort will be the Government designated facilities". Will the Government guarantee desk space and connectivity to necessary IT systems at the respective locations listed 1.2.1.1 through 1.2.12? (Might be addressed in section 3.2 and 3.3) | The government will provide the necessary desk space and IT systems. | No change. | |
| 39 | Attachment 1, 3IS III PWS Page 16, Section 1.4.4.2.6 | "Design, develop, and deliver analytical software tools (to include ensuring these tools are verified and validated)" Will the Government guarantee desk space and connectivity to necessary IT systems at the respective locations listed 1.2.1.1 through 1.2.12? (Might be addressed in section 3.2 and 3.3) | Confirmed. | No change. | |
| 40 | Attachment 1, 3IS III PWS Page 17, Section 1.4.4.8 | "The contractor shall provide a software tool developer able to program (e.g., macros and utilize in programs such as MATLAB, JMP Standard, JMP Pro, Microsoft Word, Python, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, and Microsoft Project) and develop software tools for test planning, test execution, and to assist in the collect, reduction, and analysis of test data." Will the Government be providing all of the required software suites as well as environments that are accredited at the appropriate classification levels of the work requested? | Yes. Will provide all this. | No change. | |
| 41 | Attachment 7, IT PWS Page 16-17, Section 3.11.1 | "Media 100 and Adobe Premiere; 2-dimensional animation and compositing tools; 3-dimensional animation suites including Alias/Wavefront Maya, NewTek Lightwave, and Discreet 3D Studio Max; image editing using Adobe" | |||
| Photoshop; PowerPoint and Showcase presentation support; illustration, desktop publishing, page layout, and end-to-end distribution media tools. Will the Government be providing recent versions of the listed software suites and an IT environment where the suites will be able to be utilized effectively? | Yes. Will provide all this. | No change. | |||
| 42 | Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 12, Paragraph j | "The contractor shall provide 392 CTS SF/AT Liaison Officers (LNOs) associated with Deltas 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, C2 (which includes Delta 5 and NSDC), and NRO." Are these enumerated liaison positions expected to be full time positions (1 each) per Delta unit they are supporting? | Currently have LNOs at Delta 5 and Delta 4 (as well as JS/J7). The rest were put in as place holders for future possibilities. Can be left, reworded, or removed. | No change. | |
| 43 | PWS page 15, T&E 1.4.4.1.3 | "Support annual tests in support of 1 TES, Det 2, Cheyenne Mountain SFS, CO in the role of contractor test analyst, project manager, assistant project manager, and/or data collector and/or test tool developer. " Will the contractor be expected to support quarterly test activities by 1 TES in support of the Joint Enterprise Testing/Joint Operator in the Loop Test (JET/JOITL) as well? This support requires access to the portals at Schriever, building 400, SAP clearance. | Yes. Yes. | No change. | |
| 44 | PWS page 15, Test Planning 1.4.4.2.3 | Lead or provide support to all test planning sub-phases including developing the initial test approach, developing a feasible test concept, and the executable test concept. Will the contractor supporting the test team be required to assist in routing the Test Strategy and TEMP to DOT&E for programs on DOT&E Oversight? | They will be supporting the process but they will not be doing the routing. This is Government to Government. | No change. | |
| 45 | PWS page 15 Test Planning 1.4.4.2 | Add: Provide support to the test director/team in drafting the initial Test Resource Plan (TRP) to STARCOM S5/8. The TRP is the primary resource the test team has to request resources (Funding: Manning, Equipment, TDY Funds etc.) either from the program office or STARCOM to support all test activities | Language in PWS remains unchanged. | No change. | |
| 46 | PWS page 16 Test Planning 1.4.4.2.9 | add: measures workshops to the list of activities Measures workshops are attended by key stakeholders and these events shape the MOE/MOS and MOP development, provides a platform for the test team to inform initial test design and get feedback from the operational users, program office and could include DOT&E. | Language in PWS remains unchanged. | No change. | |
| 47 | PWS Page 18 1.4.4. 19 | There are no requirements to support 17 TES. Are requirements to support 17 TES spelled out elsewhere in the PWS? in 1.3.5, the 17 TES mission is spelled out, and 1.3 is the mission statement. | We roll T&E rqmts across all TES. | No change. | |
| 48 | Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1 | This task order (TO) expands on or invokes the provisions of the following 3IS2 PWS paragraphs and all included subparagraphs: 1.3.2, 1.4.2, 1.4.4, 1.4.6.1.1.10, 1.4.6.1.1.18, and 1.5.14. Paragraphs not specifically referenced remain applicable to the scope of work performed under this task order. The paragraph references the 3IS2 PWS; does this also apply to the current 3IS3 PWS with the same or different paragraphs? | Updated paragraph to reflect correct 3IS III PWS references | Changed Attachment 9. | |
| 49 | Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 4, Section 3a, Paragraph b | The contractor shall maintain detailed system expertise on all aspects of operating 392 CTS M&S and Command, Control, Computer and Communications (C4I) equipment. This includes Systems Administration support, as required, with no-earlier-than 7 working days’ notice of alternative schedule support. Is the expectation that 3IS contract will provide Sys Admin support for the current 392 CTS equipment, in addition to current Sys Admins? Assumption is that Sys Admin training will require extensive training beyond planned operations training. | The 392 CTS pays for 2 FTEs that reside in 12 DOS. If support is required during non-business hours, that's when the 7 days' notice happens. | No change. | |
| 50 | Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 4, Section 3a, Paragraph b | The contractor shall maintain detailed system expertise on all aspects of operating 392 CTS M&S and Command, Control, Computer and Communications (C4I) equipment. This includes Systems Administration support, as required, with no-earlier-than 7 working days’ notice of alternative schedule support. Shorter notice support will require mutual agreement between 12 Delta Operations Squadron (12 DOS), SPACE DELTA 12, and 392 CTS leadership. Support is estimated at being needed for no more than 25 days per year. Is the referenced 25 days per year of support specific to the shorter notice support with 12 DOS, DELTA 12, and 392d leadership, or the Systems Administration support? | All related, as the 392 CTS Sys Admin support works for 12 DOS, but is paid for by us. | No change. | |
| 51 | Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 5, Section 3a, Paragraph j | The contractor shall provide technical and communications support for new and emerging M&S capabilities provided by the government. The support shall include testing, coordinating and operating new and emerging M&S capabilities with designated mission partners. The government shall provide training, funding and time to become proficient on the applicable systems before requiring the contractor to operate new and emerging M&S systems capabilities. Does this support also include System Administration support for the new and emerging M&S capabilities? | Yes | No change. | |
| 52 | Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 6, Section 3b, Paragraph 2c | Scenarios within the training environment shall enable space warfighters to conduct mission rehearsals. Mission rehearsals is a generic term in this context, correct? And not specific to mission rehearsals prior to launch of a certain capability to assess readiness? | Correct - generic phrase. | No change. | |
| 53 | Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 6, Section 3b, Paragraph 4a | The contractor shall integrate Space and Cyber Special Access Program (SAP) Special Access Required (SAR) Advanced Program (AP) capabilities into CCMD, joint, service, and USSF exercises, as required. Will the Government provide sponsorship for eligible contractor to be cleared to the referenced SAP SAR AP capabilities? | Yes | No change. | |
| 54 | Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 7, Section 3c, Paragraph 1a | The contractor shall maintain, sustain, and upgrade the 392 CTS DMOC-S computer (hardware, software, etc.) and communications infrastructure. This includes establishment and sustainment of the communications and computer architecture and the configuration requirements for each exercise, DMO, or advanced training event. The Government may authorize specialized training as required. What is the scope for upgrading hardware equipment and software? Does this include Acquistion efforts to obtain the hardware, procurement, and installation? If so, who is the acquisition office the contractor will work with? | No acquisition efforts. Software would be provided by the government for install. | No change. | |
| 55 | Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 12, Section 3e, Paragraph 1i | The contractor shall integrate Special Access Program/Security Access Required (SAP/SAR) capabilities into SF exercises and AT events, as required. Will the Government provide sponsorship for eligible contractor to be cleared to the referenced SAP SAR AP capabilities? | Yes | No change. | |
| 56 | Attachment 9, 392 PWS, Page 19, Section 3j Paragraph 1f | The contractor shall maintain, sustain, and upgrade the BattleLab (hardware, software, etc.) infrastructure. This includes establishment and sustainment of the computer architecture and the configuration requirements for each exercise or advanced training event. Will the Government provide sponsorship for eligible contractor to be cleared to the referenced SAP SAR AP capabilities? | Yes | No change. |
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 .