Industry_Questions_Upload__1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Eastern Western Operational Communications Services (EWOCS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2521-19-R-A018
About this file
This document provides notice of a solicitation for the Eastern Western Operational Communications Services (EWOCS) federal contract opportunity. The solicitation number has changed from FA2521-18-R0029 to FA2521-19-R-A018. The EWOCS sources sought, RFIs, industry day information, draft RFP, PWS, CDRLs, SSIs, and pre-solicitation conference materials can be found under the previous number. An updated draft RFP has been posted with this notice. The Air Force Space Command seeks to award a total small business set-aside IDIQ contract for launch operations and mission assurance communications services at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Patrick Air Force Base, and Vandenberg Air Force Base. The final RFP is expected to release on or around August 30, 2019.
The accompanying government file provides responses to industry questions on the EWOCS draft RFP and PWS. It addresses items such as past performance evaluation criteria, cost/price proposal requirements, security classification needs, GFP responsibilities, and performance work statement details regarding facilities, vehicles, equipment, and systems support.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 40
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
Set #1 Contractor Name RFP Section/ Exhibit/Attachment Page/Paragraph Number Other (specify)
| 1. Question? | |||
| We request clarification on and reconsideration of the past performance relevancy ratings. All of the rating criteria shown in Table 3.2 for ‘Very Relevant’ essentially limit past performance citations to DoD/USAF contracts. Please provide the rationale for such a restriction (e.g., Federal or DoD procurement regulation, Air Force instruction, customer preference). Many non-DoD/USAF contracts provide communications operations services similar in size, scope, and complexity as those anticipated under EWOCS. In some cases, these same contracts support Air Force base activities and users. Please consider allowing all Federal government contracts, especially those providing mission support services to USAF customers via USAF shared infrastructure, to be equally evaluated for high relevancy. Restricting “Very Relevant” contract evaluations to only DoD/USAF past performance citations severely limits competition and potentially denies EWOCS users the benefits of industry best practices, innovations, and process improvements proven successful throughout non-DoD/USAF marketplaces. | Section M | M–3.1.2/pp.8–9 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Since this contract is an USAF contract, additional DoD and AFI regulations will be required to include specific T.O.s. Due to these reasons and the complexities this solicitation requires, the Government feels that the relevancy ratings should stay as they stand. | |||
| 2. Question? | |||
| In the 30SW and MDA Services matrix, under PWS 3.7.19, 'Perform Continuity of Operations (COP) support at NCC locations', there is an entry in the 'Workload Data' column reading 'Current workload 10 per year +/- 10%'. We believe this entry is in error, especially given that the same entry appeared in the draft RFP opposite 3.7.18.1, 'on-console communications focal point support'. If the text in cell E163 is valid, please clarify what '10 Continuity of Operations support' means. | Appendix A | 30SW&MDA Services tab. Cell E163 | |
| Answer: | |||
| The Government is reviewing and will make corrections if required. | |||
| 3. Question? | |||
| We note that the Government has not asked for any key personnel to be identified by name and qualifications. The top management positions are extremely important to ensuring success of the EWOCS contract. We recommend adding to the proposal instructions and evaluation criteria, at a minimum, a requirement for the offeror to identify the Program Director, Deputy Program Director, and MDA Lead. | Sections L and M | NA | |
| Answer: | |||
| Offerors are welcome to submit any information suitable to respond to the evaluation criteria. | |||
| 4. Question? | |||
| The Government provides a plug number for overtime support—$75,000 per contract year per ER/WR—but does not escalate this number throughout the period of performance. Given the anticipated acceleration in launch tempo throughout the EWOCS PoP, we recommend escalating this number. | Section B | CLINs 0106, 0206, 1106, etc. | |
| Answer: | |||
| The Government is not escalating the plug numbers in calculations for future years cost projections. | |||
| 5. In the response to Industry Day question #58, the Government stated "A mixture of switches is used: Cisco, Avaya, Orion and Compunetix". However, the EWOCS GFP Listing identifies numerous Cisco devices (searching on either Cisco or Catalyst) but no Avaya, Orion, or Compunetix devices, or the Nortel 100 MSL switch or remotes. Please advise whether the equipment list is complete and up to date. | 2._GFP_Listing.xlsx; industry day Q&A | Question #58 | |
| Answer: | |||
| An updated GFP list will be provided for property related to Launch Operations and Mission Assurance Communications Services in the RFP amendment. | |||
| 6. Question? | |||
| The PWS states that the contractor shall: "Implement an interim plan for all EWOCS managed data, including legacy data." Please define the interim (i.e., between what endpoints). Also, if this interim plan is a formal requirement, please consider creating a CDRL entry for it. | PWS | p. 12; para. 2.4.13 | |
| Answer: | |||
| The PWS will be updated to remove the word "interim." No CDRL is required. | |||
| 7. Question? | |||
| The PWS states that the contractor shall: "Conduct an inventory of all facilities and provide a Space Utilization Report within 90 days of contract start." If the Space Utilization Report is a formal requirement, please consider creating a CDRL entry. | PWS | p.13; para. 2.4.15 | |
| Answer: | |||
| This is a requirement for the contractor to assess and identify space utilization for their benefit, not as a formal deliverable for the Government. | |||
| 8. Question? | |||
| The cited Air Force Manual AFMAN 17-1303, Cybersecurity Workforce Improvement Program, cannot be found online (AF website links purporting to access the PDF version are non-functional). Will the Government kindly provide a copy of this document? | PWS | p. 8; para. 2.1.6.4 | |
| Answer: | |||
| As of 9 Aug 2019, Air Force Guidance Memorandum to AFMAN 33-285, CYBERSECURITY WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM supersedes AFMAN 17-1303 [CYBERSECURITY WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM]_AFGM2018-01. Please reference this new Air Force Guidance Memorandum. | |||
| 9. Question? | |||
| The cited paragraph states that "Blocks [in Appendix A] containing a marking represent the services and systems to be provided on day one of the contract." Should this be day one of operational performance (i.e., following phase-in)? | PWS | p. 20; para. 2.9.2 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Yes. | |||
| 10. Question? | |||
| Paragraphs 2.6.7.2 and 2.6.7.3 are misnumbered as 2.6.8.2 and 2.6.8.3; there is no paragraph 2.6.8; paragraph 2.6.9 is misnumbered. | PWS | p. 16; para. 2.6.7–2.6.9 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Corrections will be made in the next PWS update and will be posted with the RFP amendment. | |||
| 11. Question? | |||
| GFP listing includes a "CRANE, 90 TON" at CCAFS – BUILDING 66505 – ROOM DRMO. It is not clear what purpose this crane provides in the scope of EWOCS or why that crane would become contractor responsibility. Please advise. | GFP Listing | Tab: EWOCS GFP Listing from ROS, Row 949 | |
| Answer: | |||
| The crane is listed in error and should not be part of the EWOCS GFP listing. Please disregard this item. Correction will be made in next GFP update and will be posted with the RFP amendment. | |||
| 12. Question? | |||
| The cited entry includes reference to "IT Web/Applications Development 3200 +/- 10%" as a 'work load factor' for MDA. Please clarify which subsection of PWS 3.12, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Requirements (Western Range Only), this work supports. | Appendix A, Comm Systems and Services Matrix | Tab: Appendix A-1 30SW&MDA Services; cell E494 | |
| Answer: | |||
| It pertains to all of the requirements specified within PWS 3.12. | |||
| 13. Question? | |||
| The answer reads, in part, "Inside cable plant requirements are included in the matrix as required by PWS paragraph 3.11." However, there is no discussion of cable plant requirements in PWS 3.11. Should this read "PWS 3.10.8"? | Responses to Industry RFP Questions issued 8/21/19 | Question 212 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Inside cable plant requirements are inclusive in para 3.11.1.4, where reference is made to "...all communications systems, to include but not be limited to: cabling, circuits, wiring, conduits and instruments..." | |||
| 14. Question? | |||
| Description of Block 4 states, "The contractor shall develop and deliver an interim and long-term plan for providing a single interface to all EWOCS program management." The description of Blocks 12 and 13 states "Draft due 60 working days AWD. Final due 10 days after receipt of requiring office comments or approval." Question: Are "interim" and "long-term" the same quantities as "draft" and "final" plans? If not, please define. | CDRL | A001; blocks 4, 12, 13 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Yes | |||
| 15. Question? | |||
| Description of Block 4 states, "The contractor shall develop and deliver an interim and long-term plan for providing a single interface to all EWOCS program management." Question: Please elaborate on "interface". Is "a single interface to all EWOCS program management" the same thing as the "integrated data management system" that is required on this contract? If not, please state whether the desired interface is an application, tool, dashboard, human being, or some other type of interface? | CDRL | A001; block 4 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Both. Single interface for CDRLs, documents and deliverables will be on the IDMS. There also should be single human interfaces for the ER, WR and MDA. Single interface denotes a person who has authority to make decisions like the Program Director at Patrick AFB and Deputy Program Director at Vandenberg AFB. | |||
| 16. Question? | |||
| The description of Blocks 12 and 13 states "Draft due 60 working days AWD. Final due 10 days after receipt of requiring office comments or approval." Question: Should the due date of the final read "10 working days", as the draft due date does? | CDRL | A001; blocks 12 & 13 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Yes, and it will be posted with the RFP amendment. | |||
| 17. Question? | |||
| The PWS states the contractor shall "Develop, maintain, deliver and execute a Program Management Plan (PMP) that defines the approach to the entire contract inclusive of cost, schedule and performance management, staffing structure plan for each task order (with skills, experience and certifications of each individual) to include a labor strike plan. The PMP shall be submitted as a DD Form 1423-1, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) deliverable. (CDRL A001)" | |||
| Question: The PWS and A001 descriptions of the PMP are markedly different. Please standardize and/or clarify the description. | PWS, CDRL | PWS 2.1.2; CDRL A001 | |
| Answer: | |||
| The CDRL further elaborates on areas to be addressed in the deliverable to meet the overall requirement in the PWS. | |||
| 18. Question? | |||
| Please clarify how many task orders will be issued with the EWOCS IDIQ award. | |||
| Answer: | |||
| At the initial award, one (1) Phase-In Task Order will be awarded. A minimum of three (3) task orders will be awarded on the first day of full performance of the contract. Task Orders after that point will be based on the number of customers and level of support customers require consistent with contract limits. Please see Section H of the RFP Paragraph 2.3. Task Order Negotiation & Award for additional information. | |||
| 19. Question? | |||
| The cited sections, "Past Performance Volume Organization" and "Specific Volume Requirements" directly conflict with each other on the specifics and the order of data to be provided. Recommend deleting Section 3.4—especially given that the data requested therein pertain to each individual citation and do not define a 'volume organization'. | Section L | p. 12; L–3.4, 3.5 | |
| Answer: | |||
| The order of paragraph 3.4 has been corrected and will be posted with the RFP amendment. | |||
| 20. Question? | |||
| The cited subsections require: |
e. Provide a brief narrative for each contract or subcontract listed. Explain the nature of the work involved and the extent the work involved was/is similar to this EWOCS acquisition.
g. A description of the relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance with respect to the areas in each evaluation factor.
| Question: Both quoted sections ask for the offeror's accounting of the relevancy of the past performance: "the extent the work involved was/is similar", "description of the relevancy". Recommend synthesizing the two requirements into one. | Section L | p. 12; L–3.5.e and 3.5.g | |
| Answer: | |||
| The Government has decided to leave it as it is. | |||
| 21. Question? | |||
| The cited subsection requires: "f. A description of the differences between the resources the Offeror used to perform the past effort and the resources the Offeror proposes to use for EWOCS." We respectfully question the wisdom of a requirement to describe ways in which a past performance citation is irrelevant. | Section L | p. 12; 3.5.f | |
| Answer: | |||
| The Government is giving Offerors the opportunity to describe the differences (if any) in the approach used for a past effort versus how you propose for EWOCS (i.e., simply an opportunity to explain any differences). | |||
| 22. Question? | |||
| PWS 2.1.5 refers to CDRL A002 as "minutes" to various meetings. Similarly, PWS 2.4.6, 3.12.3, and 3.12.10.10 all refer to CDRL A002 as meeting minutes. This seems to contradict PWS 2.1.2, which identifies CDRL A002 as a quarterly "Program Management Review" or documentation thereof; it also contradicts the title and subtitle listed on the CDRL item itself: "Contractor's Progress, Status, and Management Report / Management Review". Please advise. | PWS, CDRL | PWS 2.1.4, 2.1.5; CDRL A002 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Consider this CDRL as inclusive of various types of management and technical-related meetings. | |||
| 23. Question? | |||
| The cited section pertains to phase-out and thus should seemingly be located in paragraph 2.5. | PWS | p. 11; para. 2.4.2 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Will review and move if the Government determines the where it best fits. | |||
| 24. Question? | |||
| Subsections 2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.2, and 2.1.1.4 to Subfactor 1 contain "IAW PWS" references to one or both of 3.11 and 3.12. It is unclear why the Government would wish the contractor to include any discussion of Dynamic Communications Services and MDA Communications Services in Subfactor 1, when those PWS services are manifestly the subjects of Subfactors 3 and 4, respectively. Please advise or clarify the intent here. | Section L | p. 9; para. 2.1.1 | |
| Answer: | |||
| There are communications services in 3.11 and 3.12 that relate to the elements under Subfactor 1. | |||
| 25. Question? | |||
| In the General Instructions to the Past Performance Volume, the Government advises that relevant projects may only be submitted for "the Offeror, Major Subcontractors (15% of total contract value), Teaming Partners, or Joint Venture Partners". Please explain what is meant by "teaming partner". If this designation refers without restriction to any subcontractor, it does not make sense to retain the reference to "Major Subcontractors" at the 15% threshold. What constitutes a 'teaming partner'? | Section L | p. 11; L–3.1 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Teaming Partners are contractors in a team arrangement. FAR 9.601 states, “Contractor team arrangement,” as used in this subpart, means an arrangement in which -- |
(1) Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or
(2) A potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program.
| 26. Question? | ||
| We request additional information about the evaluation process for Past Performance. It is not clear what "relevancy" for Subfactor 4 would consist of, as distinct from Subfactors 1 and 3. In Table 3.2, Section M.3.1.2.2, the text that establishes "Very Relevant", "Relevant", "Somewhat Relevant", and "Not Relevant" is practically identical in the columns for subfactors 3 and 4. Please provide some guidance on how the Government sees the MDA Communications Services distinguished from "Eastern/Western Communications Services" and "Dynamic Communications Services". | Section M | pp. 6–10; M-3 |
| Answer: | ||
| The MDA Communications Services evaluation will be based on the criteria listed in Table 3.2. | ||
| 27. Question? | ||
| We request additional information about the evaluation process for Past Performance. Table 3.2 in Section M–3.1.2 presents criteria for past performance citations to be considered ‘Very Relevant’, ‘Relevant’, ‘Somewhat Relevant’, or ‘Not Relevant’. The use of ‘and’ to join said criteria suggests that the offeror’s work relative to a given subfactor must meet all three of the ‘Very Relevant’ criteria in order to be evaluated as ‘Very Relevant’. For example, if an offeror presented recent work in which they ‘Operated and maintained large voice, data, video and comm infrastructure to include Comm Focal Point (CFP) for Air Force base activities with 5000+ users’ and also ‘Install[ed], operate[d], maintain[ed] unclassified and classified networks for large complex DoD infrastructure’—both ‘Very Relevant’ under Subfactor 1—but their experience ‘Operat[ing] and maintain[ing] large complex client service centers 24/7/365’ did not cover "multiple locations", would that work as a whole necessarily be rated as ‘Relevant’ instead of ‘Very Relevant’? Or would the two ‘Very Relevant’ ratings outweigh the single ‘Relevant’ rating? | Section M | pp. 8–9; Table 3.2 |
| Answer: | ||
| In order to receive a specific rating, all criteria for that rating must be met. | ||
| 28. Question? | ||
| We request additional information about the evaluation process for Past Performance. Section M–3.1.2 states that ‘The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis.’ Does this mean that three past performance citations for a single subfactor may garner a ‘Very Relevant’ rating if, in the aggregate, they meet all three ‘Very Relevant’ criteria, even if each single citation meets only one ‘Very Relevant’ criterion? | Section M | pp. 8–9; Table 3.2 |
| Answer: | ||
| As stated in Table 3.2 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, "The Magnitude per Government Fiscal Year requirement can be met by the accumulation of the 3 Program Management citation submissions. All other requirements have to be met by a single subfactor citation submission." | ||
| 29. Question? | ||
| We request additional information about the evaluation process for Past Performance. Which is more important to the Government: quality or quantity? In other words, is it possible for an offeror who presents a single, excellently regarded/rated citation for each subfactor to receive a ‘Substantial Confidence’ rating overall? Within any given Subfactor as described in Table 3.2, is there an evaluative rubric you can share regarding how a single ‘Very Relevant’ citation would measure up against three citations ranging from ‘Very Relevant’ to ‘Somewhat Relevant’? | Section M | pp. 8–9; Table 3.2 |
| Answer: | ||
| It is up to the Offeror to determine how many citations they should provide to the Government within the maximum number allowed per the solicitation to enable the Government to determine risk of offeror's successful or unsuccessful performance as stated in the RFP. | ||
| 30. Question? | ||
| We request additional information about the evaluation process for Past Performance. The third relevancy criterion for subfactors 3 and 4—pertaining to "Experience performing DoD COMSEC, OPSEC, A&A, cyber requirements IAW RMF"—is verbatim between "Very Relevant" and "Relevant," making it effectively impossible to earn a "Relevant" score. Please clarify the difference between "Very Relevant" and "Relevant" for subfactors 3 and 4. | Section M | pp. 6–10; M-3 |
| Answer: | ||
| Relevancy criterion for subfactors 3 and 4 have been updated and will be provided with amendment. | ||
| 31. Question? | ||
| Answer #237 of the Q&A published August 21, 2019 referred to "the bidders' library". Has such a library been established and how are offerors to access it? It would be helpful to have access to numerous documents cited in the RFP; e.g., the Data Acquisition Documents by which the CDRL items are authorized; or the Air Force Manual AFMAN 17-1303 cited above. | Q&A published 08/21 | Q#237 |
| Answer: | ||
| Contractors should consider the EWOCS portion of the FBO.gov website to be the "bidders library" repository for documents available regarding EWOCS. Other documents referenced by the PWS (instructions, manuals, technical orders) should be accessible via Air Force electronic publications (e-pubs). | ||
| 32. Question? | ||
| Can the Government confirm whether the GFP listing file is or is not comprehensive of all assets the EWOCS contractor will be responsible for? As currently configured it appears not to have any equipment expressly linked to PWS 3.11, Dynamic Communications Support. Please confirm that this is the intention or provide further clarification. | GFP Listing | |
| Answer: | ||
| An updated GFP list will be provided for property related to Launch Operations and Mission Assurance Communications Services in the RFP amendment. At the time of award, an updated GFP listing be provided also. | ||
| 33. Question? | ||
| CDRL A0013, Block 8 requires the submission of a draft Phase in Plan for USG review and approval at AWD. It further states that USG review is required for Draft and Final. Contractor must allow 10 WD for this review. If USG comments are not received in this time period then the contractor must request guidance from the COR for disposition actions. Update as work requires maintaining current work planning. However, the PWS requires that the Phase in Transition Plan (full draft) is due within 5 business days after contract award. Please clarify when the draft and full draft versions of CDRL A013 are due, accounting for up to 10 working days of government review. | CDRL A013, Block 8; PWS p. 18, para. 2.4.7 | |
| Answer: | ||
| The full draft Phase-in Transition Plan is due within five days of contract award, as stated in PWS para 2.4.7 and in CDRL A013, Block 12. The reference within the narrative of the same CDRL incorrectly states the draft is due at contract award. This CDRL will be corrected in the RFP amendment. | ||
| 34. Question? | ||
| Will the subcontractor/teaming partner letters of consent count against the page limit in Volume II? | Section L | p.11; L–3.2 |
| Answer: | ||
| The subcontractor/teaming partner letters of consent will not count against the page limit in Volume II. This information will be updated in the RFP amendment. | ||
| 35. Question? | ||
| The Government's response to question #116 in the Q&A published August 21, 2019, states that there are no maintenance agreements which will transfer from the current comms support contracts to EWOCS. The GFP does not list software licenses. Can the Government please clarify whether the EWOCS contractor is not responsible for establishing any vendor maintenance contracts for version currency, patch management or problem fixes? | Draft RFP Q&A; GFP Listing | Q116 |
| Answer: | ||
| In some instances, the EWOCS contractor will have some vendor maintenance responsibilities. For example, EWOCS will be responsible for the vendor license and maintenance for Solarwinds Network Management System suite at 45 SW until the Air Force installs a Government-provided NMS system in the future. Also, 30 SCS currently has a maintenance contract for Land Mobile Radios (LMRs) whereby responsibility will transfer to EWOCS requiring that LMRs be proven to be intrinsically safe. | ||
| 36. Question? | ||
| Will the Government please clarify/call out the abbreviation "AWD" as used in the CDRL? We suspect it means 'after award' but would like confirmation. The abbreviation does not appear in DoD 5010.12-M. | CDRL | Various |
| Answer: | ||
| Yes, AWD denotes contract award. |
Set #2 Contractor Name RFP Section/ Exhibit/Attachment Page/Paragraph Number Other (specify)
| 1. Question? | |||
| Our understanding is that the directions in the PPQ form instruct offerors (primes) to send PPQs directly to our subcontractors' points of contact (Government CORs), and the subcontractors will sign Consent Letters and send them directly to their CORs. Is that correct? | RFP L, Attachment L-05 Past Performance Questionnaire | 11 of 13 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Yes | |||
| 2. Question? | |||
| Within the RFP section L instructions for Volume II - Past Performance, paragraph 3.2 instructs offerors to submit Consent Letters from their subcontractors. Is it the Government's intention for offerors to include the Consent Letters in the Past Performance volume? If so, can the Government indicate where to locate the consent letters within the volume and confirm that such letters do not count against the page count? | RFP L, 3.2 | 11 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Submit the Consent/Client Letters as an Appendix to Volume II Past Performance. The Consent/Client Letters will not count against the page count requirements. This information will be updated in the RFP amendment. | |||
| 3. Question? | |||
| Historically, how many work requests/trouble tickets per year have there been for equipment located at GSUs? | PWS 3.10.10 | 69 | |
| Answer: | |||
| 45SW has approximately 6-10 trips per year to each GSU site. 30SW has approximately 6-10 total for all their sites. Quarterly PMIs and trouble calls for all sites are included within these numbers. | |||
| 4. Question? | |||
| The solicitation, on page 153 of 158, contains a Section L in which item (b) requires offerors to provide with their offer a plan to perform essential contractor services. Can the Government verify that this is a requirement of the Technical volume? If so, which subfactor should include this plan, and will this change the page allocation? | RFP Section L - Instrs., Conds., and Notices to Offerors | Page 153 of 158 | |
| Answer: | |||
| This is a requirement of Volume IV – Administrative Documents. Please see Section M Paragraph 5.4. Volume IV does not have a page count limit. | |||
| 5. Question? | |||
| The Attachment 14 CLOIS bridge agreement, in paragraph 6, references the primary InDyne Union Agreement, but that agreement does not appear to be included with the attachments. Could the Government please provide this agreement? | RFP attachment 14 | Page 2, item 6. | |
| Answer: | |||
| The InDyne Union Agreement doesn’t include the labor categories needed to execute the requirements on the EWOCS Contract. The InDyne Union Agreement is for requirements that will remain on the CLOIS contract. It is not applicable to EWOCS. | |||
| 6. Question? | |||
| To lessen the burden on the Government customers and help expedite timely completion of PPQs, will the Government consider limiting questionnaires to one PPQ per contract, regardless of the number of times that a particular contract is cited across the four subfactors? | RFP L, 3.5, item h | 13 | |
| Answer: | |||
| It is the Offerors decision how many PPQs to provide to the Government. Contractors can submit one PPQ per contract. A PPQ can cover more than one subfactor. | |||
| 7. Question? | |||
| How many Remedy Tier 2 tickets for end user support should the EWOCS contractor expect at ER and WR per year? | PWS 3.7.34 | 50 | |
| Answer: | |||
| For the 45SW, Tier 2 support with regards to PWS paragraph 3.7.34 is only required for P/C's, printers, and peripheral equipment within the Contractors work force. As such it would be dependant on offeror's technical solution. For the 30SW, there are 3400 Tier 2 tickets per year. For the 45SW, there are 8400 Tier 2 tickets per year. | |||
| 8. Question? | |||
| Comment: Section L 4.2.1 (2) instructs offerors to provide a "List of Major/Minor Subcontractors and Vendors and their estimated total price." Conversely, Paragraph L 4.2.2.1.6 stipulates, in part, that "Subcontractor cost documentation shall be submitted at the same level of detail and in the same format as the prime’s cost proposal." Furthermore, it says that subcontractor information can be "submitted directly to the PCO." | |||
| Questions: (1) Since prime offerors are to include the "estimated total price" of subcontractors with the initial cost submittal, are subcontractors required to submit initial cost information? (2) Which items from Paragraph 4.2.2.1 are subcontractors required to provide with Part II, Complete Cost/Price Proposal volume? | L 4.2.1 (2); 4.2.2.1.6 | 13; 16-17 | |
| Answer: | |||
| (1) Yes, subcontractors required to submit initial cost information. |
(2) See Paragraph 4.2.2.1.6. Subcontractor Information for the items needed from the subcontractors including the Subcontractor Tabs in the Cost/Price Workbook.
| 9. Question? | ||
| Please elaborate on what specifically is required to satisfy the requirement for "rates and factors…for the entire effort to include options on a total cost basis." We are guessing that "rates and factors" refers to the following: direct labor rates, escalation rates, indirect rates (i.e. similar to the information required for Section L Table 4.1.1.5A Indirect Rate Table), and Profit/Fee rates. That is, providing the AF with the numbers used for pricing only with the "Preliminary" submission without a narrative description of how the rates were developed. The narrative description of all cost rates and factors would later be provided in the "Complete" submission. Is this correct? | Section L-4.2.1.(5) | Page 14 |
| Answer: | ||
| Yes. | ||
| 10. Question? | ||
| Can the Government please clarify the number of mission support communications systems that EWOCS personnel will be required to support? | PWS 3.7.34 | 50 |
| Answer: | ||
| The systems are identified in Appendix A Matrix. | ||
| 11. Question? | ||
| For inventory management, at the ER and WR, can the Government please define the scope of responsibility regarding the number of property accounts, the number of inventory items within each account, the number of quotes required per year, number of warranties, and number of software licenses to track? | PWS 3.4 | 37 |
| Answer: | ||
| Please refer to the IT Asset worksheet in the GFE/GFP workbook. | ||
| 12. Question? | ||
| Are Major First Tier Subcontractors required to complete ONLY the following tabs in the RFP Attachment L-04 Cost/Price Excel Workbook: |
1. Escalation Rates
2. Sub Indirect Rates & Fees
3. Sub CLIN X102
4. Sub CLIN X301
5. DCAA and Accounting System?
-- or, stated another way --
| Is the following a complete list of the tabs from RFP Attachment L-04 Cost/Price Excel Workbook that are required to be completed by Major First Tier Subcontractors for the Preliminary Cost/Price Proposal? (see list above) | Section L-4.2.1.(6) | Page 14 |
| Answer: | ||
| All subcontractors should complete the tabs listed. Another tab has been created for Sub Escalation Rates. All prime and subcontractor submissions should equal the proposed price. The updated cost/price workbook will be included with the RFP Amendment. | ||
| 13. Question? | ||
| Are the following items Not Required of Major First Tier Subcontractors for the Complete Cost/Price Proposal? |
1. Item # (4) Purchasing System Information
2. Item # (6) Subcontractor Information
| 3. Item # (8) Professional Employee Compensation Plan | Section L-4.2.2.1. | Page 14 | |
| Answer: | |||
| See Paragraph 4.2.2.1.6. Subcontractor Information for the items needed from the subcontractors to include the Subcontractor Tabs in the Cost/Price Workbook. | |||
| 14. Question? | |||
| Is Contractor Facility safeguarding required, as indicated in DD Form 254 item 1b? Given item 8a lists the actual performance locations to be Patrick AFB and two locations at Vandenberg AFB, under what situations would the contractor store or process classified materials at a contractor owned/leased facility? | DD Form 254 and continuation sheet | DD Form 254, Page 1 |
DD Form 254 continuation sheet, Page 1
| Answer: | ||
| Successful offeror would only be storing classified materials at CCAFS, Patrick AFB and Vandenberg AFB. | ||
| 15. Question? | ||
| If Contractor Facility safeguarding is required, is Top Secret (DD Form 254 item 1b) accurate? DD Form 254 continuation sheet for items 11d and 11f states that the highest level required is Secret, not Top Secret. We have been unable to otherwise identify a reference for Top Secret in the DD Form 254, its continuation sheet, or the PWS. Please clarify. | DD Form 254 and continuation sheet | DD Form 254, Page 2 |
DD Form 254 continuation sheet, Page 3 and 4
| Answer: | ||
| Yes, the Contractor should have personnel with Top Secret, Reference sections for PWS 3.11.1 for the ER. MDA also has a TS requirement for the Cyber security work anticipated as part of this contract. It stemmed from an IA requirement that anyone with root access have a TS clearance (no SCI requirement). MDA requirement is for 2 individuals with this clearance. | ||
| 16. Question? | ||
| Could the Government please confirm the PWS requirement for Contractor Facility (not on Government property) hardware storage? | PWS (generally) | n/a |
| Answer: | ||
| The contractor would only be responsible for storing hardware within facilities that the Government has provided to the contractor in performance of the contract. | ||
| 17. Question? | ||
| Could the Government please confirm the PWS requirement for Contractor Facility (not on Government property) for classified information system (AIS)? If required, what is the highest level of information to be accessed/stored? | PWS (generally) | n/a |
| Answer: | ||
| All classified information systems will be on Government property. | ||
| 18. Question? | ||
| Please confirm that the Reimbursable CLINs (X103, X203) should be listed as plug-in values? | Section B | 3-22 |
| Answer: | ||
| For the Proposed Total Contract Price, the Reimbursable CLINs should be listed as plug-in values. | ||
| 19. Question? | ||
| Do the current contracts have phase-out clauses? | PWS 2.4.2 | 11 |
| Answer: | ||
| Phase out paragraphs are included in the PWS of the current contracts. | ||
| 20. Question? | ||
| Approximately how many mobile wireless devices will the EWOCS contractor be responsible for supporting at the ER and WR? | PWS 3.8.3 | 58 |
| Answer: | ||
| For the 45SW, the Contractor will only be responsible for wireless devices within their workforce. For the 30SW, the Contractor will only be responsible for approximately 2000 devices related to LMR system. The phones and PWCS are government services. | ||
| 21. Question? | ||
| Will the Government confirm that contractors are not required to have JOCAS II certification? | PWS 2.6.5.3 | 15 |
| Answer: | ||
| The contractor is not required to have JOCAS II certification. | ||
| 22. Question? | ||
| Historically, what vehicles are necessary to lease? | PWS 2.9.4 | 23 |
| Answer: | ||
| Number of vehicles leased is dependant on offeror's technical solution. | ||
| 23. Question? | ||
| Will the Government provide a warehouse for spares and bench stock? | PWS 2.9.8.4-5 | 24 |
| Answer: | ||
| Warehouse will need to be integrated within the space allocated to the successful offeror. | ||
| 24. Question? | ||
| Are Non-Normal hours reimbursable? | PWS 2.16.2 | 32 |
| Answer: | ||
| Question is vague please rephrase. There are non-duty hours within both the FFP and CPFF CLINs. Please be specific on the requirement in question. | ||
| 25. Question? | ||
| Can the Government provide Real Property Allocation documents? | PWS 2.19.8 | 35 |
| Answer: | ||
| No, the facilities will not be assigned until transition. | ||
| 26. Question? | ||
| Can the Government provide historical number of hours for Secure Telephone Services on-call and after hours support? | PWS 3.8.2.8 | 58 |
| Answer: | ||
| For the 45SW and 30SW Secure Telephone Service is not applicable. See current PWS. | ||
| 27. Question? | ||
| The Wage Determinations supplied with the solicitation are not the current versions. Will the Govt supply the most current versions? | Wage determination | |
| Answer: | ||
| The current wage determinations will be included with the RFP Amendment. | ||
| 28. Question? | ||
| In Section L, Page 5, the paragraph states "Additionally, the Government requests early submission of the information requested in paragraph 5.2.3. Contractor Responsibility Information no later than…" Paragraph 5.2.3 on Page 21 is in reference to Organizational Conflict of Interest whereas Contractor Responsibility Information is 5.2.4. Please confirm that the intended reference for the early submission is 5.2.4 Contractor Responsibility Information. | Section L attachment | 5 |
| Answer: | ||
| Section L Paragraph 1.2.1 has been updated to state paragraph 5.2.4. The change will be included with the RFP Amendment. | ||
| 29. Question? | ||
| The General Instructions in RFP L, 3.1 say "Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume to include information requested in the Past Performance Questionnaire." Does the Government intend this to mean that information asked for in the PPQ should be included within the submitted volume, in addition to the information specified in RFP L, 3.5 Specific Volume Instructions? | RFP L, 3.1, and 3.5 | 11 and 12 |
| Answer: | ||
| Yes, a narrative or summarization of the information asked for in the PPQ should be submitted with the volume, but not the PPQ itself, because the completed PPQs will be sent directly to contracting from the POC who completed the questionnaire. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .