FA480925Q0001 Q and A.pdf

Question # Question Answer

1 Please confirm that the Small Unit Tactics (SUT) exercise will be a 4-day event.

Yes, the SUT exercise will be a 4-day event, 3.1.3.1 in the PWS states "SUT: Start - Day 1, 1200; End - Day 4, 2359, FTX: Start - Day 1, 1200; End - Day 5, 2359.

2 Will Role Players be required to have rifles and blank ammunition?

Yes, in 3.1.3 in the PWS it states, "The personnel shall provide and use: Automatic or semi-automatic rifles with blank ammunition, and Night Vision Goggles (NVG) to combat friendly forces." and in 3.3.1 "The contractor shall provide all OPFOR/Role-players with:

Rifles capable of semi-automatic fire; Blank ammunition for rifles chambered in 7.26 or

5.56mm (5000 rounds per SUT and FTX iteration)

§ 3.1.4.1 states that "Role Players will be available on a 24-hr basis within the following schedule for

FTX...FTX: Start – Day 1, 1200; End – Day 5, 2359". But the CLINs Description under Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs states that “Specialized role players to support SUT and Final Training Exercise." • Will Role Players be required to support the FTX exercise only? Or both SUT and FTX?

Role Players will support the FTX only. The solicitation has been ammended to reflect this clarification.

Are the Quantity and Unit [15 days] listed under Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs for Role Players CLINS [0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, 4003, 5003] correct?

Yes, it encompasses the days required for CLIN 0002, 5 days multipled by the 3 jobs.

5 Do the 15 days support both SUT and FTX exercises? No, the 15 days on CLINS X003 are for FTX support only.

Can you please provide guidance on the differing units for Role Player CLINS (Days) versus the OPFOR CLINS (Job)?

The Unit is Days for Role Player CLINS to allow for accurate invoicing as the Government may clarify the actual number of days Role Players will be required for the FTX during the planning phase. The Unit is Job for OPFOR CLINS as OPFOR will be required for the duration of SUT's and FTX's.

To accurately price the Specialized Simulated Village CLINS, please clarify the total number of days required. § 2.6.1. states that the "Simulated village for FTX events will cover an approximate 96-hr period" and §3.2.1 states that "approximately 72 hours to conduct mission planning and scenario immersion and Contractors will be expected to have this facility available during all class dates in case of unexpected changes to the class location." As a cost savings solution for the Government, we recommend that the Unit for the Specialized

Simulated Village CLINS change from Job to Days in order to accommodate the Government’s unknown need for usage of the Specialized

Simulated Village.

The Simulated Village is required to be available for the duration of the training events, however, will only be used (if necessary) for a maximum of 72 hours per event.

Recommended CLIN structure is noted, however, the Government cannot currently provide a notification period for required use of the village and, as such, is not requiring offerors to submit more itemized pricing. The Government will remain open to bilaterally modifying this CLINS structure with the successful offeror should notification terms be clarified in the future.

In order to be considered for award, are Offerors required to implement NIST SP 800–171 and have a current assessment?

No, this contract will not require the use of a covered contractor information system and, as such, an assessment is not required.

What font type and size should be used for the submission? Is there a preferred or required font (e.g., Times New Roman, Arial) and size (e.g., 12-point)? Is there a preferred margin?

The Government does not have specific formatting requirements, the offer should be clear, concise, legible, and in line with standard industry practice for submission of quotes. See

52.212-1 and Addendum in solicitation for further details.

We highly recommend the government require a past performance questionnaires (PPQs) or evaluation from the past performance customer used as past performance as part of the evaluation process? Given that PPQs offer direct client insights into a contractor’s reliability, quality of performance, and ability to meet contract requirements, including them could provide a more comprehensive assessment of a contractor’s suitability, particularly for the specialized needs of this contract. It also ensures that past performance submitted is legitimate and true.

The Government has requested up to (3) past performance references and will contact references directly for input. Offerors shall assure provided contact information for references is accurate in accordance with Provision Addendum 52.212-1 part IV.

Will the government apply a price realism analysis to assess whether proposed costs are realistic for the required quality, experience, and equipment standards?

The application of cost or price analysis techniques, to include price realism, will be conducted as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer during the price evaluation as part of the Best Value Determination.

Will the evaluation criteria for past performance favor contractors with a proven history in handling the unique challenges associated with this contract’s role-playing and OPFOR scenarios?

In provision addendum 52.212-2 Section ii, "The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. A more relevant past performance record may recieve a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record." And stated below section ii, is the requirements to be determined Very Relevant to Not Relevant. Relevancy will be determined by effort involved in similar scope, magintude of effort and complexities.

To support fair and balanced pricing, would the government consider historical pricing data for similar contracts as a reference point for determining unbalanced pricing? Additionally, if further analysis is needed to assess price reasonableness, will pricing expectations previously established for comparable services be factored into the Fair and Reasonable price determination?

The Government will determine proposed prices are fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 13.106-3. Additionally, the Government may utilize proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. This may include historical pricing data if determined necessary for either or both the unbalanced pricing evaluation and determination of price fair and reasonable.

To ensure a comprehensive assessment, could the government clarify how it will prioritize past performance sources like FAPIIS, SPRS, and

CPARS over less formal sources when evaluating offerors’ records? Additionally, how will corrective actions on past contracts be factored into the confidence rating, particularly when consistent positive trends are evident despite isolated issues?

In provision addendnum 52.212-2 Section v, "Present/Past Performance information may be obtained from FAPIIS, SPRS, and CPARS. The Government reserves the right to use past performance information from other federal sources or commercial services." The above stated entities that provide past performance information are required by regulation. Other sources may be used but aren't mandatory. -- In provision addendum 52.212-2 Section vi, "Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overalll work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends."

To ensure consistency and reliability, will the government prioritize contractors with directly relevant, recent past performance on similar contracts, especially in terms of handling the scope, complexity, and specific requirements outlined in this solicitation? Additionally, given the emphasis on a unified performance record and corrective actions, will past performance that spans multiple entities within a joint venture be assessed as less favorable than a cohesive record from a single, established contractor with directly comparable experience?

In provision addendum 52.212-2 Section ii, "The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. A more relevant past performance record may recieve a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record." And stated below section ii, is the requirements to be determined Very Relevant to Not Relevant. Past performance submitted regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 25% or more of the work) will be assigned an appropriate relevancy rating which will factor into the overall confidence rating.

Sheet1