Industry_Questions_Upload__2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Eastern Western Operational Communications Services (EWOCS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2521-19-R-A018
About this file
This document contains questions from industry relating to a solicitation for Eastern Western Operational Communications Services. Key details include that the solicitation requires offerors to provide operational communications services, including maintenance of voice, data, video and communications infrastructure, for multiple Department of Defense test ranges and the Missile Defense Agency. Services must be performed at various locations 24/7/365. Offerors must submit past performance citations demonstrating experience in areas like operating large service centers and performing communications services in time-sensitive environments. The document provides answers to industry questions seeking clarification on requirements for past performance submissions, treatment of subcontractors, completion of questionnaires, and other contractual and technical aspects of the solicitation.
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/Paragragh Number | Other (specify) |
| 37. Question? | |||
| Section L.3.5.h states that offerors must "Describe contract performance in terms of the items listed in the Past Performance Questionnaire." However, the questionnaire is not arranged in accordance with technical subfactors. The questionnaire has sections for Technical, Program Management, Transition/Phase-in, Employee Retention/Attraction, and Cost Performance. Does this mean that a past performance citation included in Volume II specifically for its relevancy in (for example) "Experience performing comm services in an extremely time-sensitive, event-based environment on a DoD test range" or "Operating and maintaining large, complex client service centers at multiple locations 24/7/365" must include all technical and management topics addressed in the questionnaire to be responsive? This seems to jar with the instructions focus on the technical subfactors; and it is likely to be very problematic in terms of fitting all this information in the volume's page limit. Please advise. | Section L, Past Performance Questionnaire | L.3.5.h | |
| Answer: | |||
| In order to receive a specific relevacy rating, all criteria listed in Table 3.2 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method for that rating must be met. | |||
| 38. Question? | |||
| As noted above, the past performance questionnaire is not arranged in accordance with technical subfactors but includes questions about full technical, management, phase-in, retention, and cost management performance. Therefore it is not clear how the Government representative who completes the questionnaire will know what aspect or aspects of the current or previous job the offeror is being rated on. Please advise. | Section L, Past Performance Questionnaire | L.3.5.h | |
| Answer: | |||
| Technical requirements, management, phase-in, retention, and cost management performance are applicable to all citations regardless of technical subfactor. The past performance questionnaire has a space for none applicability. If it is not applicable to that specific citation, N/A should be used. | |||
| 39. Question? | |||
| There appears to be no explicit instruction regarding the completion and submission of past performance questionnaires to the Government. Section L.3.1 states that "Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume to include the information requested in the Past Performance Questionnaire." Does this mean that the offeror must obtain customer feedback from our Contract and Technical references and include them in the volume? Typically the Government representatives who complete the questionnaire submit them directly to the procuring agency. Please advise and/or add explicit Section L instruction regarding disposition of the quesionnaires. | Section L | L.3.1 | |
| Answer: | |||
| 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. | |||
| 40. Question? | |||
| The final RFP removed the term "COMSEC operations and management" from the instruction at L.2.1.4.2: "Provide an approach to perform unique MDA vulnerability management, COMSEC operations and management, and A&A via the RFM process." Also, COMSEC does not and did not appear even in the draft RFP's Section L instruction for Subfactor 3. Furthermore, the term "COMSEC" does not appear anywhere in PWS 3.11 or PWS 3.12. If COMSEC operations and management are not an integral part of the EWOCS contractor's responsibility with respect to Eastern Range Dynamic Communications Services or MDA Communications Services (as the cited deletion suggests) we recommend removing it from the relevancy criteria in Table M.3–2 for both subfactors 3 and 4. | Section L, Section M, PWS | L.2.1.4.2; M.3.1.2; PWS 3.11 and 3.12 | |
| Answer: | |||
| COMSEC was not removed as an evaluation element, and it is an integral part of the EWOCS contractor's responsibility and an important aspect of contract’s Information Assurance. COMSEC is addressed in PWS section 3.6 and Section L 2.1.1.2., which includes PWS paragraphs 3.11.2 and 3.12. COMSEC is across the entire EWOCS contract for the Eastern and Western Ranges to include MDA and Dynamic COMM. Evaluating COMSEC in past performance provides the Government confidence that the requirement can be met. The Government will not be removing COMSEC from the relevancy criteria. | |||
| 41. Question? | |||
| Section L.3.5.d advises offerors must submit contact information for "Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs), Administrative Contracting Officers (ACOs), and Contract Administrators." In our experience, most contracts to not have separately identified Contract Administrators as official points of contact. Please confirm that in such cases, two points of contact—the [A]CO and COR—will suffice. | Section L | L.3.5.d | |
| Answer: | |||
| If the contract does not have separately identified Administrative Contracting Officers (ACOs), and Contract Administrators, the CO and COR will be sufficient. | |||
| 42. Question? | |||
| DFARS clause 252.237-7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services, instructs that "The offeror shall provide with its offer a written plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in PWS Paragraph 2.0 Performance of Services during Crisis declared by the Nation Command Authority or Overseas Combatant Commander, during periods of crisis. The offeror shall—" (and subsequent specific instructions). FAR 252.237-7023 provides generic definitions of 'essential contractor service' and 'mission-essential functions'. However, the RFP does not enumerate specific 'essential contractor services' or functions; and the cited language 'Performance of Services during Crisis...' does not appear in the current PWS. For purposes of creating the required written plan for continuation of essential services, can we assume that all EWOCS support functions are essential services? If not, please advise or define these services more fully. | Solicitation - FA252119RA018.pdf | P. 153 of 158/ Section L (not Attachment L-01), DFARS Clauses Incorporated by Full Text (b) | |
| Answer: | |||
| DFARS clause 252.237-7024 in the solicitation will be updated to read PWS paragraph 2.0, Performance of Contractor Services. As stated in PWS paragraph 2.0, the mission essential personnel and crisis response will be based on type and location of crisis. | |||
| 43. Question? | |||
| DFARS clause 252.237-7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services, instructs that "The offeror shall provide with its offer a written plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in PWS Paragraph 2.0 Performance of Services during Crisis declared by the Nation Command Authority or Overseas Combatant Commander, during periods of crisis." Please provide instruction where this written plan is to be included in the proposal and whether it is to be included in any relevant page count. | Solicitation - FA252119RA018.pdf | P. 153 of 158/ Section L (not Attachment L-01), DFARS Clauses Incorporated by Full Text (b) | |
| 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. |
Set #2
| Contractor Name | RFP Section/ Exhibit/Attachment | Page/Paragraph Number | Other (specify) |
| 1. Question? | |||
| Is the private security firm referred to in this paragraph an organization we are responsible to “subcontract” or is the firm hired by the customer? Is it correct to assume our personnel will train and monitor the security firm and they in turn will monitor all work activity in the restricted area, which would include our own personnel? | PWS/Exhibit 1; PWS 3.12.8.2.1.2.2 | 77 | |
| Answer: | |||
| There are many contract firms involved in different aspects of MDA operations on any location on any given day. Occasionally, they hire contracted security firms to handle their security requirements. The EWOCS contractor will monitor all work and security related activity within the MDA restricted area, to include that of any existing contractor or their subcontractor. | |||
| 2. Question? | |||
| Is there standing permission to record (audio) all unclassified meetings and reviews to facilitate the development of accurate meeting minutes and action items? | EWOCS PWS/Exhibit 1, PWS 3.12.2 | 73 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Successful offeror would need to advise the meeting participants that they are recording but this method is acceptable. | |||
| 3. Question? | |||
| The RFP states to "define all labor categories as Junior, Journeyman, and Senior based on years of experience…" and provides a fourth category, Subject Matter Expert. Did the government intend to say, "Junior, Journeyman, Senior, and SME?" | Section L | 2 | |
| Answer: | |||
| There are 4 types of labor category experience levels to include a SME, but the years of experience, education, and duties/responsibilities definition only pertains to the Junior, Journeyman, and Senior experience levels. | |||
| 4. Question? | |||
| Please confirm that the Consent/Client Letters in the Past Performance Volume are excluded from the page limits. | Section L, 3.2 | 11 | |
| Answer: CONS | |||
| 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. | |||
| 5. Question? CONS | |||
| Please clarify locations and CAGE code requests for work regarding, "this same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s) where work is to be performed..." | Section L, 5.2.2 | 20 | |
| Answer: | |||
| The locations are those listed in the PWS and the RFP. | |||
| 6. Question? | |||
| For the "listing of contracts performed by the prime contractor within the last three years," may these be limited to contracts with an annual value of at least $2.5M in order to demonstrate some level of relevant responsibility by the offeror? | Section L, 5.2.4 | 21 | |
| Answer: | |||
| The Government is requesting the listing of contracts performed by the prime contractor within the last three years in paragraph 5.2.4. to determine contractor responsibility. It is the contractor's responsibility to determine which of their contracts best determines this. | |||
| 7. Question? | |||
| We respectfully request that the relevancy factor under Eastern Western Communications Services, "operated and maintained large voice, data, video and comm infrastructure to include CFP for Activities with ### users" remove the CFP requirement so offerors may appropriately determine relevancy of their services (both in and outside of the Air Force). This would allow offerors to fully demonstrate their highest relevancy for this subfactor. | Section M, Table 3.2 | 8 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Having a Comm Focal Point (CFP) with a large number of users is a specific and a large part of this requirement. The relevant and somewhat relevant definitions do not dictate that the work had to be performed for the Air Force. It states Federal Government Agencies. | |||
| 8. Question? | |||
| Please clarify the method the government will use to evaluate relevancy per subfactor. For example, is it acceptable for an offeror to be "Very Relevant" if they meet 2 out of the 3 requirements for a subfactor? | Section M, Table 3.2 | 8 | |
| Answer: | |||
| In order to meet a specific relevancy rating, all criteria for that rating must be met. 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." | |||
| 9. Question? | |||
| Section 2.13 of the PWS, Local Restoral Plan, defines LRP and COP as Local Restoration Plan and Contingency Operations Plan, but section 3.10.4.15 defines them as Local Restoral Plan and Continuity of Operations Plan. Would the government clarify which of these is the correct meaning of LRP and COP? | PWS 2.13 and 3.10.4.15 | 29 and 65 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Local Restoral Plan (LRP) and COP as Contingency Operations Plan. Para 3.10.4.15 will be updated. | |||
| 10. Question? | |||
| The PWS is missing numbers 2.6.8., 2.6.8.1., and 3.7.22. Would the government please identify these missing requirements? | PWS, Section 2.6 and 3.7 | 16 and 48 | |
| Answer: | |||
| PWS will be updated. | |||
| 11. Question? | |||
| Would the government please confirm that requirement 3.5.46.16. is actually 3.5.45.16.? | PWS, Section 3.5 | Page 43 | |
| Answer: | |||
| PWS will be updated. | |||
| 12. Question? | |||
| Will REMEDY or government approved replacement system and access be provided as GFE? | PWS 3.7.33 | 50 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Yes | |||
| 13. Question? | |||
| Within Section 3.5, there are multiple instances stating that the contractor will work with cryptographic devices, but these are not listed in the GFE listing. Are these devices GFE? | PWS 3.5 | 38-45 | |
| Answer: | |||
| The cryptographic devices would be TACLANES. The contractor will not be maintaining these devices. | |||
| ] | |||
| Currently Appendix A, Section 3.10.5 Infrastructure has several subfactors (3.10.5.1-3.10.5.4) marked as Yes that are describing Outside Cable Plant both for 30th and 45th. During industry days/discussions, there was to be no outside cable plant work on the contract. Would the government clarify this requirement? | PWS Appendix A, Section 3.10.5 | 66 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Outside cable plant services will not be called up for the base communication requirements on day 1 of the contract. However, there are some dynamic communication requirements that may require some limited outside cable plant support. | |||
| 15. Question? | |||
| Under PWS 3.9.4 Visual Imagery and Intrusion Detection Systems, section 3.9.4.2 states: "Monitor and direct performance checks of television and intrusion detection systems." Question: Is active monitoring a 24x7 function performed by EWOCS, or does a separate contract do the active monitoring and response? We believe the monitoring performed by EWOCS will be just for O&M of the systems but would like to confirm. | PWS 3.9.4.2 | 61 | |
| Answer: | |||
| EWOCS will just be performing the O&M | |||
| 16. Question? | |||
| Are the CIPS CSIRs up to date or is there a backlog of changes pending? | PWS 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 | 37 | |
| Answer: | |||
| They are up to date. |
Set #3
| Contractor Name | RFP Section/ Exhibit/Attachment | Page/Paragraph Number | Other (specify) |
| 1. Question? | |||
| RFP L, Table 1.3 calls for paper copies of the cost volume, and RFP L 4.2.1 requirements for the organization of the volume also seem to indicate paper copies. However, RFP Attachment L-04 includes tabs in which to provide all of the information required in the initial Cost/Price volume, seeming to imply that the Government intends Attachment L-04 as the means by which offerors should submit the Preliminary Cost/Price Proposal. Can the Government please clarify whether it desires paper-copy submittal for the Preliminary Cost/Price Proposal? | RFP L and RFP Attachment L-04 | 6 and 13 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Offerors shall provide a paper copy of paragraph 4.2.1.(1-5). For paragraph 4.2.1.(6), the EWOCS Cost/Price Workbook is required in Excel. | |||
| 2. Question? | |||
| RFP L 4.2.1 (6) requires item 6 of offerors' Preliminary Cost/Price Volume to be the "EWOCS Cost/Price Excel Workbook as provided within RFP Attachment L-04," which is unclear since RFP Attachment L-04 is the "EWOCS Cost/Price Workbook." Is there a tab within Attachment L-04 that the Government intends offerors to include as item 6 in their Preliminary Cost/Price Proposal Volume? | RFP L and RFP Attachment L-04 | 13 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Paragraph 4.2.1.(6) has been reworded to state, "EWOCS Cost/Price Excel Workbook provided as RFP Attachment L-04 (to include formulas with notional numbers for all elements of cost. For all indirect costs, factors, CERs, etc. include all bases, calculations and backup data to arrive at computed amounts)." | |||
| 3. Question? | |||
| Will the Government confirm that it expects to provide working space for all contractor personnel supporting EWOCS including program office staff, including during phase-in? | PWS | 2.15.2 | |
| Answer: | |||
| Yes |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .