Govt Response to Questions for Final RFP FA489025R0006_21 Aug 2025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 59 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA489025R0006
About this file
This document is a Government Response to Questions for Final Request for Proposal (RFP) FA489025R0006 for Operations, Maintenance, and Support (OM&S) of Air Combat Command (ACC) Primary Training Ranges (PTR). The solicitation is a competitive procurement set aside 100% for small businesses, seeking a contractor to perform maintenance and support services for eight training ranges across different Air Force locations, including Electronic Combat, Electronic Warfare, and Bombing and Gunnery ranges. The anticipated period of performance includes a 60-day transition period, a nine-month base contract period, and four one-year option periods, with a single Firm Fixed Price contract.
The RFP closing date was extended to 5 September 2025 at 11:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, with the government anticipating award on or about 12 January 2026. The ranges accommodate basic to intermediate air-to-surface training and require comprehensive support including personnel, equipment, tools, materials, and supervision. The document contains extensive questions and answers addressing various aspects of the solicitation, including technical requirements, manning matrices, equipment maintenance, and pricing considerations. Key agencies involved include the Department of the Air Force Air Combat Command, with the procurement managed by the ACC Acquisition Management Integration Center (AMIC).
View the file
Other files
Show all 25
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question and Answer Matrix for FA489025R0006 - Operations, Maintenance, and Support (OM&S) of ACC Primary Training Ranges (PTR) | ||||||
| Offerors | Government | |||||
| Q# | Document | Pg # | Paragraph / RFP Text | Comment/Question | Disposition | |
| 1 | SF33 | Section B, Page 3, CLINs 2011, 3011 & 4011 | "...required to perform Option Year one (OY-1)…" | The Additional Descriptive Data for Option Years (OYs) 2–4 appear to be duplicates of the language used in OY1. Will the Government please confirm that this duplication is intentional and that the current language is correct as written? If not, will the Government please amend the RFP to reflect the correct data for each OY? | Confirming that the language is correct. Please note, the Government did make some changes to both the NTE amount and descriptive data based off of answers from other questions. | |
| 2 | SF33 | Section B, Page 3, CLINs 2011 & 3011 | NTE $1,300,000 | Will the Government please confirm the NTE value for each OY is $1,300,000 with no escalation? | The not-to-exceed (NTE) values for each OY have been updated. Please be aware of the update. | |
| 3 | SF33 | Section B, Page 3, CLIN 4011 | NTE value is not listed | Will the Government please amend the RFP by providing the NTE value for CLIN 4011. | Corrected, NTE value added for CLIN 4011. | |
| 4 | Section L | L-8.2 & L-8.3 pg. 7 | L-8.2. Signed SF33 and amendments if applicable. No page limit. | |||
| L-8.3. Representations and Certifications. No page limit. | The Government indicates only two volumes: |
Volume I Technical Volume II Price - Attachment 7
| However, per the instructions the excel document (Att 7) would be a separate document from the signed SF33, amendments, and Reps & Certs. Does the Government have a specific naming convention it would like for us to use for that volume? | The excel document should be named as follow "[Offeror name]_[Volume #]_[Document/File Name]". See L.6.3.3. for additional info. | |||||
| 5 | Attachment 5 | Entire Document | The WDs listed are not the latest available. | Will the Government please provide the latest WDs available for all locations. | Attachment 5 updated. | |
| 6 | SF33 | Section B, CLIN X011 | Fuel/Travel/Supplies/Parts/Extended Maintenance. | Will the Government confirm whether all ODC purchases — including vehicles, equipment, and similar items — are to be included under this CLIN? If not, will the Government please provide a plug value for these required costs, and indicate which CLIN the offeror should use to account for them? | The X011 CLIN series will only be used for the supplies/services as described under the CLIN description. All other costs, including those related to vehicles/contractor provided equipment, will be captured at the corresponding location CLIN within the firm fixed price amounts proposed (i.e. costs, including vehicles/contractor provided equipment, at Avon Park shall be placed in Avon Park CLIN series X005, costs, including vehicles/contractor provided equipment, at Snyder shall be placed in Snyder CLIN series X010, etc.). |
The Government will not provide a plug value for these required costs as this is a performance based acquisition, not a level of effort.
| 7 | SF33 | Section B | Vehicles, equipment, and similar items. | Given the variability in the condition, age, mileage, and overall value of current vehicles and similar equipment anticipated under this requirement, will the Government please consider providing a COST-type CLIN structure with associated plug values or estimated unit costs to account for the broad range of potential acquisition scenarios under this contract? | No; the Government does understand the large capital expenditures associated with SOW para 2.8/Technical Exhibit 4. Any unforeseen/unplanned events that may occur will be processed as a Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA). |
| 8 | Section L | Section L Instructions pg. 5 & 6 | L-7.4.1.3.2. "...The offeror shall submit a maximum of three (3) contract references corroborating recent and similar scope work as the prime contractor. If the Offeror does not have any technical experience where it performed as a prime contractor, the Government will accept technical experience from a teaming partner, mentor/protégé, subcontractor, or where the offeror performed as a major subcontractor if the portion of the work completed was similar in size/scope to this requirement." | Government stated in the Q&A Teaming partners can provide contract references up to the total maximum of 3. However the language did not change from the Draft to the Final. Can the government please clarify if the maximum is 3 for the Prime and Three for major teaming partner. Or was it the governments intent to allow for 3 maximum for all team members and if so will the Government please confirm the three experience references can be a combination of the prime and teaming partners past performances. | Offerors may submit a maximum three (3) references for all prime and teaming partners. The Government will accept a combination of prime and teaming partner past experiences. |
Example - Offerors may submit 3 references as a prime, 3 references as a major subcontractor/teaming partner, OR combination of the two (i.e. 2 references as a prime and 1 reference as a major subcontractor/teaming partner).
| 9 | RFP Attachments | Technical Exhibit 4 and Attachment 3 | The site specific Vehicle/Equipment listed in Technical Exhibit 4 does not match the Vehicle/Equipment listed in Attachment 3. For Example AVON Park TE4 includes a Disc Plow; Beach Comer; John Deere Bucket 741; John Deere 7320 Farm Tractor; Barber Surf Rake Model 61552; Equip FHH282099 Flexible Hitch Harrow; Husqvarna Z254F Zero turn mower; and Kawasaki KAF620-E MULE but are not included in Attachment 3. | Request the Government confirm which document is the correct vehicle/equipment listing. | TE4 is a list of Government Furnished Vehicles/Heavy Equipment. Attachment 3 is a list of GFE (the purpose of Attachment 3 is to list GFE that are not vehicles/heavy equipment). |
| 10 | Section L | Section L Instructions pg. 5 & 6 | L-7.4..3.1 Summary. Describe roles of offerors and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners in relation to technical experience information IAW paragraph L-7.4.1.3.2.1. This summary shall include the contract number/task order number, contracting organization, and government point(s) of contact for the contract. The Government reserves the right to contact the POC to validate the technical experience submitted. | Will the Government confirm that it is requesting a summary for each of the three (3) citations consisting of an overview of who performed the work, how they were involved and how it is similar in scope to the current SOW for each technical experience citation? | Confirming that the Government is requesting a summary for each of the three (3) references for past experience. |
Per L-7.4.1.3., The offeror shall include (1) a summary of the technical experience, (2) contract references corroborating recent and similar technical scope experience.
| 11 | SOW | Page 6 Section 1.7.1 Management Plan | Development and implementation of a web-based Management Information System (MIS) for program management, financial management, maintenance and logistics data reporting (i.e. equipment status, trend analysis), purchase status and other aspects of program execution. HQ ACC/A3AR, ACC AMIC/PKB, the CORs at each PTR location, and others as agreed-to between the contractor and the Government shall have access to web-based management system information pertaining to the management and execution of the PTR contract. Format will be at the contractor’s discretion. Upon request, the contractor shall provide the government with electronic copies of web based products for use on government web sites | Does the Government currently utilize or plan to provide a preferred MIS platform for use on this contract (e.g., AFEMS, IBPES, or LIMS-EV)? Or is the contractor required to fully furnish and manage their own MIS environment? | The contractor is required to fully furnish and manage their own MIS environment | |
| 12 | SOW | Page 6 Section 1.7.1 Management Plan | MIS | Are there any required security or accreditation standards (e.g., FedRAMP, IL4, NIST 800-171, RMF compliance) that must be met for the web-based MIS, particularly if hosted in a commercial cloud? | There are no Government required security or accreditation standards since this system does not have to interface with any existing Government systems. | |
| 13 | SOW | Page 6 Section 1.7.1 Management Plan | MIS | Can the Government clarify whether the MIS must interface with any existing Government systems? Or is the MIS expected to be a standalone reporting and analysis tool? | No, MIS does not have to interface with any existing Government systems. It can be a standalone reporting and analysis tool. | |
| 14 | SOW | Page 6 Section 1.7.1 Management Plan | MIS | Does the MIS need to provide real-time operational dashboards, or is it sufficient to generate scheduled static reports for equipment status, maintenance actions, trends, and logistics data? | No, it does not have to be real-time, but it is fine if it is real-time. | |
| 15 | SOW | Page 6 Section 1.7.1 Management Plan | MIS | Is it expected that MIS-generated reports be integrated directly with contract reporting deliverables (e.g., Monthly Maintenance Plan, Equipment Availability Reports in Table 1-4)? If so, can you confirm which reports must be MIS-sourced? | No, the reports don't have to integrate directly, but it is fine if they do. | |
| 16 | DRAFT RFP | Draft RFP Attachment 1 Q&As Workload Estimate | Workload Estimate Labor Categories | |||
| The Labor Categories provided on the Draft RFP Attachment 1 and the CBAs for the respective sites do not match. For example the CBA for Grand Bay includes a Herbicide/Pesticide Applicator position which is not included on Draft RFP Attachment 1 provided with the RFP. Another example is the Dare County CBA lists a Water Treatment Operator position which is not included on the Draft Attachment 1. | Request the Government advise which labor positions are required and if there has been a scope change that has reduced or changed the labor categories required to support the PTR mission requirements that is not reflected in the CBAs? |
Is the Draft RFP Attachment 1 a notional workload estimate that is not all inclusive of all the labor categories required to support the PTR mission?
Is the Attachment 1 Q&A Workload Estimate a valid document since it is marked Draft and there is no indication the draft Attachment 1 Q&A Workload Estimate was ever incorporated into the final RFP? The Government will not advise which labor positions are required and there has not been a scope change to the labor categories. Please note that this acquisition is performance based and not a level of effort. The Offeror should propose the skill mix and manning laydown that it would require to perform the contract based on its expertise.
As the name entails, the "FA489025R0006 DRAFT RFP Q and A Govt Response Attachment 1 - LCAT Workload Estimate" is an estimate, meaning that it is not all inclusive. Please refer to the SOW for all workload estimates. The LCAT document was provided as an aid with the draft RFP to assist with planning/preparation purposes. It is not included in the final RFP.
| 17 | SOW | SOW Technical Exhibit 2 Workload Estimate | Real Property - Buildings | |||
| The real property Buildings listed in TE 2for each of the sites have Janitorial/Housekeeping maintenance tasks listed. The Draft Attachment 1 Q&A Workload Estimate and CBAs do not have Janitorial/Housekeeping labor categories list. | Will the Government please indicate who is currently providing the Janitorial/Housekeeping personnel to accomplish these tasks? | No. Please keep in mind this is a performance based acquisition, not a level of effort. | ||||
| 18 | Section L | Section L-2 Access to Bidders Library / Site Visit, p.1 | L-2.1 / L-2.1.1 Bidders Library | |||
| No Index included of document names (and classification thereof) available to Offerors to view in Snyder, TX. | Will the Gov't please provide an Index of the available documents physically located within the Bidders Library in Snyder, TX, along with any applicable demarcations (i.e., CUI)? | See Master Library Index 14 Aug 2025 | ||||
| 19 | RFP | General | General | The current submission date of September 1st falls on a Holiday (Memorial Day). In addition, there are a number of questions poised that may take a while to respond to. In addition, the preferred method of submission via DoD SAFE (L-4.1) and no guarantee Gov't personnel will provide confirmation of receipt of the submission until after the due date. Will the Gov't please extend the due date to Tuesday, Sep. 16, 2025? | The Government will extend the due date to Friday, 5 September 2025 at 11:00am Eastern Standard Time. | |
| 20 | SF33 | Section B | Section B | Please clarify the Period of Performance for Transition and Base Period. | Transition Period: 30 January - 31 March 2026 |
Base Period: 1 April - 31 December 2026
See Section F of the SF33 (Solicitation - FA489025R0006) for additional info
| 21 | SOW and SF33 | SOW para 2.4 and SF33 CLINS | SOW Para 2.4 and SF33 CLINS | Please clarify if unscheduled maintenance/inspections falls under the FFP CLINS and the contractor will not be reimbursed for it. | Yes, this falls under the FFP CLINS and Offerors should build this into their pricing. |
| 22 | DRAFT RFP | Attachment 1 LCAT | Attachment 1 LCAT | The level-of-effort, provided in the Attachment 1 LCAT Workload Estimate released with the DRAFT RFP Q&A, appears to be insufficient to meet all of the SOW requirements and comply with the staffing levels required by SOW 1.3. The LCAT Workload Estimate released with the DRAFT RFP was also missing RFP provided labor categories (Assistant Program Manager and Assistant Site Managers). Is it correct to assume this was an incomplete estimate and it’s the responsibility of the offerors to develop and ensure their individual technical approach and manning solutions meet the SOW requirements, workweek tables, and Technical Exhibits provided? | See response to question 16. |
| 23 | SOW | Pages 4 and 38 | SOW 1.3 Table 1-2 and 3.1.11 | Given the Table 1-2 requirement to support four (4) Large Force Exercises (LFEs) at Avon Park and SOW 3.1.11 description of an LFE consists of 128 hours per week of range support four times a year. Is it a correct assumption that at Avon Park, in support of LFEs, a full crew is required for the 128 hour per LFE supporting range operational availability? | Yes. That is a correct assumption. |
| 24 | SOW | Page 4, 144 and 145 | Table 1-2 and TE-2 (Holloman site) | Table 1-2 for the Holloman Range complex states "69 (hours) per week Range Control Officer operations" and TE-2 Holloman (Real Property section) shows Oscura range and Centennial range as both having RCO towers plus the Holloman Range Operation Center where a RCO could be located. The 69 hours of RCO operational support appears to be range operational hours and not individual man-hours of RCO support. Please clarify. | One RCO is required at Oscura and one at centennial range at the same time since geographically separated both ranges need to have multiple shifts as well to cover daily operations |
| 25 | SOW | Page 5 | SOW 1.4 Table 1-3 | Table 1-3 states that Avon Park range complex requires the following additional hours of operational range support "100 full crew and 150 RCO only per year" Is it a correct interpretation of Table 1-3 that a full crew includes the RCOs needed for the range and that the 150 RCO hours are in addition to the 100 full crew hours? | Yes, that is correct. |
| 26 | SOW | Page 5 | SOW 1.4 Table 1-3 | Mountain Home and Grand Bay B&G range complexes state "200 per year" of Additional Hours of Operation to Propose as Part of Firm Fixed Price. Since Holloman B&G specifies when an RCO is needed, it is unclear if this is with or without RCOs. Please clarify if the "200 per year" hours for Mountain Home and Grand Bay is a full crew with an RCO. | SOW has been updated for clarity |
| 27 | SOW | Page 6 | SOW 1.7.1 | 1.7.1 states, "Development and implementation of a web-based Management Information System (MIS) for program management, financial management, maintenance and logistics data reporting (i.e. equipment status, trend analysis)..." will be part of the MIS. Please provide further details on equipment and maintenance status that must be provided in the contactor's MIS. | At a minimum, equipment and maintenance status should include: Equipment Type (Mini-Mutes), Serial Number, Status, (red, amber, green), How Malfunction, Maintenance Deferment Reason, Estimated Repaired Date. |
| 28 | SOW | Page 10 | SOW 1.9 | SOW 1.9 Key Contractor Personnel states, "The contractor shall provide a list of PTR range key personnel (Program Manager, Quality Manager, Site Manager, Alternate Site Manager, and Chief Range Control Officer (RCO)." The APM is not mentioned. However, the following paragraph states, "Primary and Alternate Program Managers - Program management experience of a DoD aircraft training range within the last 5 years..." Please clarify if the APM is a key position. | APM is a key position. SOW has been updated. |
| 29 | SOW | Pages 21 and 29 | SOW 1.22.3 Table 1-4 and 2.9.1 | 2.9.1 states, "The contractor shall coordinate with the supporting Wing, Logistics Readiness Squadron Vehicle Management Activity to provide documentation and receipts for input into the Defense Property Accountability System (DPAS)." It also does not appear in Table 1-4 Deliverables SOW 1.22.3. It is unclear what this documentation is and how often it must be submitted. Please provide additional data on type of information, frequency and what format or Air Force form is to be used. | This is a requirement of equipment accountability. An inventory is required on an annual basis. Vehicles will need to be added or removed from listings when required. Listings and changes are handled in the web-based system, DPAS. |
| 30 | SOW | Pages 29 and 30 | SOW 2.8 and 2.9.1.4 | 2.8 states, "The contractor shall be responsible for decisions and costs to replace GFE/Vs when they reach their end of life based on cost of maintenance, reliability, and/or major repairs that are determined to be uneconomical based on remaining life expectancy." and SOW 2.9.1.4 states, "The contractor shall notify the Government if a vehicle has reached an uneconomical to repair state and should be considered for disposition to Defense Logistics Agency- Disposition Services (DLA-DS)." This seems to significantly contrast with the last set of Government Q&A's that stated GFV uneconomical repair status is based on comparison of the needed repair costs against the one-time repair cost limit in the Government vehicle database. Given that response, then the contractor is outside the decision making process for determining if a GFV is economical or uneconomical to repair. This decision seems based on the Government database information not the contractor's decision. Please clarify the exact process for determining if a GFV is economical or uneconomical to repair. | The Contractor is responsible for determining if a vehicle is beyond economical repair. The sentence in SOW 2.9.1.4 has been removed. |
In regards to questions related to this on the draft RFP, the Government answered them incorrectly.
| 31 | SOW | Pages 30 and 31 | SOW 2.9.4 and SOW 2.9.4.3 | SOW 2.9.4 states "All costs associated with contractor furnished vehicles and heavy/agricultural equipment shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Exception: POL is reimbursed in accordance with para 2.13." However, SOW 2.9.4.3 states "No government tools, equipment, or consumables shall be used for CFV and equipment maintenance and operations." Fuel is a consumable. Please clarify if Fuel is reimbursable consumable? | Fuel is not reimbursable. SOW has been updated. |
| 32 | SOW | Pages 30 and 32 | SOW 2.9.1.1, 2.9.1.2 2.9.1.3, 2.11 and Table 2.1 | 2.9.1.1, 2.9.1.2 and 2.9.1.3 all state variations of the phrase, "The contractor shall be responsible for procurement of all materials, parts, and tools required to maintain the Government provided vehicles/agricultural equipment." However, SOW 2.11 states, "The Government will reimburse the contractor for expendable and non-expendable parts and supplies required to maintain Government furnished equipment and facilities on a cost reimbursable basis exclusive of fee or indirect rates when the parts, supplies materials, and services are not readily available through Government channels ..." and Table 2.1 has a row for Part Procurement approval levels. These sections of the SOW seem to contradict each other. Please clarify. | Parts procurement for capital equipment maintenance is used for supporting government equipment except vehicles and heavy/agricultural equipment. SOW has been updated. |
| 33 | SOW | Pages 30 and 32 | SOW 2.9.1.2 and 2.11 | 2.9.1.2 states, "All labor, materiel, parts, tools and sub-contracted repairs required for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance shall be the responsibility of the contractor. Government provided vehicles and heavy/agricultural equipment are listed in Tech Exhibits 4." We assume that "responsibility" means actual "costs" as well as the activity and labor to transport and repair, in other words, these are NON-REIMBURSIBLE repairs. However, Table 2.1 in SOW 2.11 provides reimbursement for this. Please clarify. | See response to question 32. |
| 34 | SOW | Page 38 | SOW 3.1.10 to SOW 3.1.10.3 | 3.1.10 states, "POP-UP AND MOVING TARGETS (AVON PARK, GRAND BAY, HOLLOMAN, POINSETT AND MOUNTAIN HOME)." However, the sub-paragraphs 3.1.10.1 to 3.1.10.3 do not discuss pop-up target specifics at either Grand Bay or Poinsett range complexes. Please provide information. | Poinsett: Does not have pop-up or moving targets, it has been deleted from SOW para 3.1.10 |
Grand Bay: SOW para 3.1.10.4 has been added
| 35 | SOW | Pages 38, 158-162 | SOW 3.1.10 and TE-2 Poinsett B&G | 3.1.10 states, "POP-UP AND MOVING TARGETS (AVON PARK, GRAND BAY, HOLLOMAN, POINSETT AND MOUNTAIN HOME)." However, TE-2 Poinsett B&G does not list any pop-up targets. Please provide the number and quanity of pop-up targets that must be maintained at the Poinsett B&G range. | Poinsett: Does not have pop-up or moving targets, it has been deleted from SOW para 3.1.10 |
| 36 | SOW | Page 39 | SOW 3.1.18 | SOW 3.1.18 states, "The contractor shall perform limited OPFOR support when operationally scheduled. Support will be limited to vehicle operations or ground movement to simulate aggressive forces, operations of pyrotechnical equipment, and simulated threat equipment." This is very vague and ill-defined set of requirements especially when Holloman is actually three ranges (Centennial, Red Rio and Oscura) plus TE-2 Workload Data has no workload data for OPFOR support at any of the range complexes listed. This OPFOR support will divert manning from normal range operations (RCO, R/C target and WISS scoring duties) and range maintenance (roads, grounds, facilities and targets). Please provide the following data needed to ensure sufficient staffing is provided in Sub-factor D-Aspect I Manning: |
(1) Is the contractor expected to use COCO fleet vehicles or GFE vehicles?
(2) On an average how many vehicles must be provided?
(3) On an average how many personnel are required to support OPFOR operations?
(4) What is the frequency and average duration in hours of OPFOR support? The Range Manager will deconflict O&M and OPFOR support. Examples of pyrotechnical and simulated threat equipment includes Smokey SAMs, small arms fire simulators, rocket propelled grenade simulators, and shoulder launched missile laser guidance simulators.
1) The awardee is expected to use either COCO vehicles, GFE vehicles, or a combination of the two.
2) On average, one to three vehicles must be provided.
3) On average, two to four personnel are required.
4) The frequency and average duration are as follows:
Holloman: Only used to support one day event (Large Force Ex) once a quarter.
Grand Bay: 2 hours, as needed.
Dare County: 2 hours, as needed.
| 37 | SOW | Page 44 | SOW 3.2.3 | Please clarify if the NMDOT requires overweight and oversize permits to move heavy equipment and scrap on U.S. Hwy 54? | Offerors are required to follow all federal, state and local laws and regulations. The Government will not provide an exhaustive list of all the federal, state, and local laws as Offerors should have the expertise to meet the requirements. |
| 38 | SOW | Page 44 | SOW 3.2.3 | Please clarify if the NMDOT requires a USDOT registration number and a Certificate of Insurance (COI) to apply for and get overweight and oversize highway permits? | See response to question 37. |
| 39 | SOW | Page 49 | SOW 3.6.2.1 | It appears that the SOW requires firefighters at Holloman AND Mountain Home range complexes. Please clarify that firefighters are also required at Mountain Home. | All employees at Mountain Home Range will be qualified to fire fight from vehicles. Training will be provided. |
| 40 | SOW | Page 52 | SOW 4.2.1.1 | We understand the the USG no longer supports/allows use of Mircrosoft Access databases. However, SOW 4.2.1.1 requires its continued use: "The contractor shall use the Government’s Equipment Status Reporting (ESR) Microsoft Access based software program to input all reportable maintenance actions." Will Microsoft Access continue to be the Government's platform for ESR? | Added "or similar program (Approved by ACC/A3AR PTR PM)" |
| 41 | SOW | Page 52 and 53 | 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.1.1 | Since Access Databases are becoming more difficult to maintain, can the ESR be installed, operated and maintained in a different platform? | Yes, If approved by ACC/A3AR PTR PM. |
| 42 | SOW | Pages 52 and 53 | SOW 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.1.1 | What are the hardware specifications and software operating system requirements to run the ESR Access Database software? | Minimum requirements to run Microsoft Access on modern Windows |
Hardware (per Microsoft 365/Access system requirements):
• OS: Windows 11
• Processor: 1.6 GHz, dual-core or faster.
• RAM: 4 GB for 64-bit Office; 2 GB for 32-bit Office.
• Disk space: 4 GB available.
• Display: 1280 × 768 minimum (some Access product pages show 1024 × 768; target 1280 × 768 to be safe).
Software:
• Microsoft Access (licensed standalone or via Microsoft 365)
Compatibility and Risk Notice While modern versions of Microsoft Access can open older Access 2000/2002–2003 (.mdb) files [like the ESR], these files operate in “legacy mode.” This means newer Access capabilities are unavailable unless the database is converted to the current .accdb format.
More importantly, running the ESR database on updated hardware and software will not automatically correct existing issues in its design—such as faulty calculations, outdated VBA code, or inefficient queries. These problems will persist, and in some cases may become more visible, until the database is refactored and fully retested.
| 43 | SOW | Pages 52 and 53 | SOW 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.1.1 | Does the Government require on-line access to the ESR Access database software? | No. |
| 44 | SOW | Pages 52 and 53 | SOW 4.2.1.1.1 | SOW 4.2.1.1.1 states "The contractor shall also sustain and maintain the ESR Access based database software by integrating enhancements, implementing modernizations, accomplishing minor upgrades and correcting software code issues reported by operational locations in the field using established Problem Reporting processes." Are there any anticipated software modifications, upgrades or enhancements to the ESR database application planned for during the base year of the contract? | No. |
| 45 | SOW | Page 53 | SOW 4.2.1.1.1 | 4.2.1.1 states "The software and if required, hardware, will be installed along with the necessary upgrades at the various PTRs as required after successful tests are completed." Please confirm if the hardware (computers) referenced in SOW 4.2.1.1 are contractor or Government owned. | Contractor owned. |
| 46 | SOW | Page 143 | TE-2 | Please clarify if each B&G range will have their own RCOs and if range complexes are required to have more than one RCO on duty simultaneously. | Yes each B&G range will have their own RCOs. |
Only Holloman Range will require more than one RCO on duty simultaneously because the ranges are geographically separated.
| 47 | SOW | Page 146 | TE-2 | Is it correct to assume that in addition to the front end loader and grader, a dozer must also be transported between ranges on HWY 54? | Yes |
| 48 | SOW | Pages 155 and 156 | TE-2, Mountain Home, Section 4 Grounds Maintenance and Section 6 Targets to be Maintained | It appears the TE-2 has been updated to reflect more accurately the numbers of items to be maintained from the current SOW now in effect, but the number of workload Man-hours was not adjusted. Case-in-point, for Mountain Home Range Complex (Saylor Creek, Juniper Butte and 5 No-Drop sites), "Unimproved Road Maintenance" was 25 miles at 68 hours per month in the current SOW, but was changed to 38 miles, but the workload man-hours remained the same at 68 hours. Also at Saylor Creek Firebreaks Interior was 20 miles at 10 hour quarterly then adjusted to 30 miles but still 10 hours quarterly. Additional examples are "Targets to be Maintained" at Saylor Creek's Villages/Compound/Facility was 450 conex shipping containers at 40 hrs. per month, but has now increased to 2,200 conex shipping containers, but still only shows the workload at 40 hours per month. Also Airfield buildings in the current SOW are 20 connex shipping containers at 10 hours monthly and is now increased to 300 conex shipping containers but still remains at only 10 hours per month. These are examples of gross distortion of the real required level-of-effort based on the changes in range items to be supported and will cause bidders to incorrectly provide manning for the ranges. When the quantities of items to be supported are adjusted, the estimated workload hours also need to be adjusted proportionally. This was not done in many instances. Mountain Home was used as an example, but there many other incorrect man-hours estimates at Mountain Home and other PTR sites due to change in item to be supported. It appears than when the quantities of supported items were increased there was no adjustment in the corresponding workload man-hour estimates. Please update the TE-2 man-hours for the adjusted items to be supported. | Reviewed TE 2 and made the follow changes: |
-Unimproved road maintenance workload estimate is now 102 hours monthly -Saylor Creek Firebreaks in now 20 hrs quarterly -Airfield building is now 20 hrs monthly -Current: Villages/Compd/Faclity requirement is ~450 Conex and the work load estimate is 40 hours monthly. Proposed: Villages/Compd/Faclity requirement is 2200 Conex and the work load estimate is 100 hours monthly.
| 49 | Section L | Page 2 | L-4.1.1 | With the due date of September 1, Labor Day, please clarify the DoD Safe site will be open for submissions. | See response to question 19 and updated Section L. |
| 50 | Section L | Page 3 | L-6.3.3 | L-6.3.3 states, "Offerors shall label each document with the volume and section numbers to which it belongs." It goes on to state, "The offeror shall use the following labeling format for their submissions: [Offeror Name]_[Volume #- Section#]_[Document/File Name]: i.e.,Acme_Vol III_Price]." Volume I Technical is broken down by Subfactors and Aspects, please clarify what "section" is referring to. | L-6.3.3. has been updated to remove "section" and added "Subfactor" and "Aspect." |
| 51 | Section L | Pages 4 and 6 | L-6.3.5 and L-7.4.1.4.1.b | L-6.3.5 states the Organization chart is exempt from page count. L-7.4.1.4.1.b outlines what must be in the organization and it states "Provide an organizational chart that depicts the breakdown of all personnel from top-level management to the lowest organizational element and identifies functional relationships. Show lines of authority and the chain of command to include teaming partners and subcontractors." This is a significant amount of information given there are eight (8) PTR Range Complexes and a PMO. Even using 11x17 page format there may be insufficient space to show all the Range Complexes, their lines of authority and chain command plus functional relationship so that it is clear and readable. This is complicated by the fact that because of the locations, equipment, different training missions (B&G or EW - some both) and multiple sub-sites/ranges, all PTR site organizations are difference, some significantly. Can L-6.3.5 be interpreted as all pages with organization charts only are considered exempt from page count to account for the large organization and need for extra organization chart pages? | Yes, pages that are only an organizational chart will be exempt. If any additional info/text is included on the page, it will be counted towards the page count. |
| 52 | Section L | Page 5 | L-7.4.1.2.a and L-7.4.1.2.b | Sections L-7.4.1.2.a and L-7.4.1.2.b of the solicitation state: |
“An Excel workbook capturing all three requirements is acceptable and will count as one (1) page. Refer to paragraph L-6.3.3 for MS Excel submission requirements.”
However, there is ambiguity regarding the intended method of submission for this Excel workbook when read in conjunction with Section L-6.3.3.
| Should the Excel workbook be embedded within the Technical Volume as a clickable object (such as an icon or attachment within the submitted PDF file), or should it be submitted as a separate, stand-alone file in accordance with the filename and labeling conventions described in Section L-6.3.3? | It should be submitted as a separate, stand-alone file IAW the filename and labeling conventions described in L-6.3.3. | |||||
| 53 | Section L | Page 5 | L-7.4.1.2.a and L-7.4.1.2.b | If the Excel workbook is to be submitted as a separate file (rather than embedded within the Technical Volume PDF), we respectfully request clarification on the following: | ||
| Should the separately submitted Excel workbook be explicitly referenced within the Technical Volume, and will the separately submitted Excel file count as one page toward the total page count for the Technical Volume, as indicated in Sections L-7.4.1.2.a and L-7.4.1.2.b? | Yes, the separately submitted Excel workbook should be explicitly referenced within the Technical Volume, and will count as one page. | |||||
| 54 | Section L | Page 5 | L-7.4.1.2.b | L-7.4.1.2.b states, "Provide key milestones, a process flow chart, and proposed timeline for staffing phase-in at each location to prevent interruption in services to include a transition organizational chart and proposed staffing and timeline for each position..." We typically see proposed staffing and timelines for the contract as a whole not each individual position. Please clarify if the Government is requesting we list each individual position in our timelines for each location. | Yes, the Government is requesting each offeror list each individual position in their timelines for each location. | |
| 55 | Section L | Page 6 | L-7.4.1.3.2 | Section L-7.4.1.3.2 Technical Experience References states, "the offeror “shall submit a maximum of three (3) contract references corroborating recent and similar scope work as the prime contractor. If the Offeror does not have any technical experience where it performed as a prime contractor, the Government will accept technical experience from a teaming partner, mentor/protégé, subcontractor, or where the offeror performed as a major subcontractor if the portion of the work completed was similar in size/scope to this requirement.” That same paragraph also states, “Contract references are required on the offeror and any teaming partner or major subcontractor that will perform at least 20% of this effort.” Please clarify if contract reference requirements for major subcontractors or teaming partners are in addition to the offeror’s 3 references or are only allowed if the prime contractor does not have three to provide. | See response to question 8. | |
| 56 | Section L | |||||
| Section M | Page 6 | |||||
| Page 4 | L-7.4.1.4.1.a | |||||
| M-2.1.5.1.a | L-7.4.1.4.1.a states "Clearly explain which resources will be internal or external to the company and how they will be utilized." M-2.1.5.1.a states "...identifies which resources will be internal or external and how they will be utilized." Please clarify what is meant by external. Does this mean subcontractors or some entity or person(s) outside the bidding team (e.g. vendors, consultants, or other elements of the company)? | External means subcontractors and entity or person(s) outside the bidding team (e.g. vendors, consultants, or other elements of the company) | ||||
| 57 | Section L | Page 6 | L-7.3.1.3.2 | L.7.3.1.3.2 states "The offeror shall submit a maximum of three (3) contract references corroborating recent and similar scope work as the prime contractor." it goes on to state "Contract references are required on the offeror and any teaming partner or major subcontractor that will perform at least 20% of this effort." So if a prime has a major subcontractor performing 20+% of the work, then the offeror needs to submit three (3) prime contract citations for themselves plus one (1) for each subcontractor doing more 20% or more of the effort. Is this correct? | That is incorrect. The last sentence in that paragraph is in reference to the sentences prior: "If the Offeror does not have any technical experience where it performed as a prime contractor, the Government will accept technical experience from a teaming partner, mentor/protégé, subcontractor, or where the offeror performed as a major subcontractor..." |
See response to question 8 for additional info.
| 58 | Section L | Pages 6 and 10 | L-7.4.1.4.1.a and Section L Attachment 2 | Neither L-7.4.1.4.1.a or Attachment 2 instructions state if the numbers in the PTR Site Manning Matrix are to represent actual personnel bodies, direct labor hours, Full Time Equivalents (FTE) or something else. If FTEs are what is required in the PTR Site Manning Matrix, what is the FTE productive hours to be used since holidays (not all CBAs are the same), vacation and sick time varies among the CBA and is based on longevity at the PTR site, and the other Personal Time Off (PTO) categories are also not uniform between the seven CBA and one WD. Please clarify and provide guidance. | The numbers in the PTR Site Manning Matrix are to represent hours. The Offeror should propose the skill mix and manning laydown that it would require to perform the contract based on its expertise. | |
| 59 | Section L | Page 7 | L-7.4.1.4.3 (all), L-8 (all) | Is it unclear where all the cost information that supports the contractor's response to Section L-7.4.1.4.3 (Subfactor D, Aspect III - Contractor Equipment) is to be placed in the Volume II, Factor 2 -Price and what format is to be used. This includes contractor's pricing for Contractor Owned Contractor Operated (COCO) fleet vehicles, COCO heavy/agricultural equipment, contractor leased/rented vehicles and equipment, required GFE vehicle/equipment replacement costs (TE-4), vehicle maintenance costs (to include tires replacments, tire repair, preventive and corrective maintenance and repair parts), licences and registration fees, DOT required medical exams and DOT required drug testing, and over-size vehicle permits. | Offerors should use their expertise to develop their price proposals and be prepared to provide supporting data if required. However, per Section M, M-2.2.9. "Supporting price back-up data is not required at this time. In the event such data is required, an evaluation notice will be issued to the offeror(s) requesting such information, and in a format prescribed by the government." | |
| 60 | Section L | Page 7 | L-8 to L-8.3 | Section L-8 provides little details regarding the Price volume. Respectfully request answers to the following questions: | ||
| 1. | Should the offeror include costs associated with the New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax (NMGRT) associated with each period of performance (e.g. Transition, Base Period and all Option Periods) shall be included in the unit price and extended price proposed for the Holloman AFB CLIN(s). | |||||
| 2. | Should the offeror provide supporting data to explain the methodology used in developing our price including but not limited labor hours and rates for each year for each site and supported costs for providing the Contractor provided Equipment? | |||||
| 3. | Where should the costs for contractor provided equipment be placed within Section B? | |||||
| 4. | Should offerors comply with FAR Clause 52.222-43 for their price proposal with regard to employees covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards. If so, we assume proposed option year prices shall not include allowances for any contingency to cover increased wage or benefits costs not already included in existing CBAs, correct? | 1 - Per L-8, the Government is not requesting back up data. The Government is requesting that the CLIN prices (Section B - Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs) be provided. Per M-2.2.4., The price of each offeror will be evaluated on the TOEP, which will be determined by totaling all Contract Lines Item Numbers (CLINs). |
2 - No, supporting data is not required AT THIS TIME. See Section Evaluation Factors for Award for requirements under volume II
3 - Costs for contractor provided equipment should be placed with the corresponding location within the firm fixed price amounts proposed (i.e. costs for contractor provided equipment at Avon Park shall be placed in Avon Park CLIN series X005, costs for contractor provided equipment at Snyder shall be placed in Snyder CLIN series X010, etc.) See response to question 6 for more detail.
4 - Correct, offerors shall comply with FAR Clause 52.222-43 and shall not include allowances for any contingency to cover increase wage or benefits costs. See SF33, Section I - FAR clause 52.222-43 is incorporated and so the awardee will be entitled to wage and benefit increases IAW the clause.
61 Section L Page 7 L-8 to L-8.3 Pricing Volume is totally lacking in typical Pricing Volume instructions even for a FFP contract. There are no instructions on labor rates, labor categories, and specific workbooks or any typical FAR references for pricing like FAR Subpart 15.403-1(b) or FAR subpart 15.402-3(a). Please clarify what is required for Volume II Price. Per L-8, offerors are only required to complete the Schedule of Supplies or Services and Prices or Costs. No price narrative is required AT THIS TIME. A SAMPLE pricing table excel workbook has been provided to assist in populating the Schedule of Supplies or Services. Additionally, the pricing table has been updated to a more comprehensive SAMPLE pricing table. See response to question 59 for more detail.
Please reference Section M, M-.2.2. for evaluation factors concerning price (including labor/CBAs).
| 62 | Section L | Page 8 | Attachment 1 Technical Experience Form | In order to include the Technical Experience Form in Volume I, is it acceptable to convert the form to Word format? If not, would the Government please provide a Form Fillable PDF? | The Government has provided a Word version. | |
| 63 | Section L | Page 8 | Attachment 1 Technical Experience Form | Please clarify what "UIEE Number" is? | That should read UEID; Section L Attachment 1 has been updated accordingly (UEID = Unitque Entity ID) | |
| 64 | Section L | Page 10 | Attachment 2 | Attachment 2 lists Belle Fourche as a Bombing and Gunnery range complex, when it in fact it is an Electronic Combat range complex. Please update. | Section L, Attachment 2 updated | |
| 65 | Section L | pg 10 | Section L Attachment 2 | Attachment 2's second column is labeled "SCA Labor Category title" and Column three is "SCA/CBA Position." It seems as though Column 2 is a duplicate of Column 3's information and is not needed. Please clarify | Correct, the two column's have been combined to one. | |
| 66 | Section L | Page 10 | Section L Attachment 2 | It is unclear what is requested in Attachment 2's Column three, "SCA/CBA Position" If we provide the Department of Labor's SCA 5 digit code, what do we provide for CBA positions? There is no code or position abbreviations for CBA positions. Please clarify what is an acceptable response for Column three, SCA/CBA Position. | For CBA positions, offerors should provide the CBA Labor Category/Position Title | |
| 67 | Solicitation - FA489025R0006 | |||||
| Section L | Page 1 | |||||
| Page 2 | SF 33 | |||||
| L-4.1.2 | Proposal due date is 1 September, Labor Day. With this being a holiday, please clarify how we can comply with L-4.1.2 to receive confirmation of our submission. | See response to question 19. | ||||
| 68 | PTR Site Visit Pre-Conference slide set | Site Visit PowerPoint | Slide titled “Special Interest Items” | We understand that Grand Bay has heavy equipment and agricultural equipment not shown on the GFE listing. Is it safe to assume this heavy equipment and agricultural equipment is to be contractor provided? | Yes. 2 tractors, a road grader and a bat-wing mower | |
| 69 | FA489025R006 Draft RFP Q&A Attachment 1 LCAT workload |
| SOW TE-2 | Page 1 | Attactment 1 LCAT workload dated 6/30/2025 | The final SOW TE-2 had recent major workload revisions that are not reflected in the Attachment 1 LCAT issued on 6/30/2025 since it was based on dated TE-2 workload requirements. The following are examples of changes to the newly released TE-2 workload that makes the 6/30/2025 issued Attachment I LCAT workload obsolete . TE-2 at Mountain Home for Unimproved Roads went from 25 miles to 38 miles a 50% increase, Airfield Buildings went from 20 to 300 at 1500% increase, MOUT conex shipping containers went from 450 to 2,220 a 488% increase in workload. These are just a few of the many changes to the final RFP's TE-2. We recommend the Government put out a statement indicating the 6/30/2025 Draft RFP Q&A Attachment 1 LCAT workload is incorrect and does not reflect the current SOW TE-2 revised workload and should not be used due to serious and significant inaccuracies. | See response to question 16. | ||
| 70 | SOW and Attachment | Technical Exhibit 6 | Technical Exhibit 6 | TE 6 lists inspection items, not inspection criteria. Please provide inspection criteria for the items included in TE 6. | Towers are built to the TIA-222 standards. Refer to Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas Manuals. | |
| 71 | SOW | 39 | 3.1.18 | Please clarify if the Government will provide uniforms and other accoutrements for personnel performing as OPFOR? | No, the Government will not provide uniforms and other accoutrements. Personnel performing as OPFOR under this contract will not require uniforms or any other accoutrements. | |
| 72 | Attachment+1+-+PTR+SOW+-+25+Jul+2025.pdf | 32 | Table 2.1 (follows paragraph 2.1.1) | Table 2.1, Parts Procurement and Labor For Gov’t Provided Vehicles and Heavy/Agricultural Equipment, referes to para 2.8.1, there is not a paragraph 2.8.1. | Part procurement, labor and cost for governemnt provided vehicles and heavy/agricultural equipment is the sole responsibility of the contractor. SOW has been updated. | |
| 73 | Attachment+1+-+PTR+SOW+-+25+Jul+2025.pdf | 27 | 2.4 COMMUNICATION TOWER MAINTENANCE AND DOCUMENTATION (BELLE FOURCHE AND HOLLOMAN) | The last sentence of paragraph 2.4 notes: "Reimbursement for materials will be provided utilizing the site’s reimbursement CLIN".This para is not included in table 2.1. | ||
| Should SOW paragraph 2.4 be included in Table 2.1? | This paragraph is about the communication towers. The tower itself would fall under real property and the equipment on it would be covered by capital equipment maintenance. | |||||
| 74 | Attachment+1+-+PTR+SOW+-+25+Jul+2025.pdf | 123 | 6. Targets to be Maintained/Replaced; row #4 | For Avon, the SOW states, "The contractor shall support four(4) LFEs per year. Each LFE is seven (7) consecutive days in duration (including weekend days). The contractor shall provide manpower for fourteen (18) hours each operational day of the exercise." | ||
| Is the time to be supported fourteen or eighteen hours? Also, what are the required Labor categories and how many personnel are required, or alternatively, describe the support required? | LFEs are 7 consecutive days, 18 hours per day min manning three (one RCO, two Smokey Sam operators), maximum manning (0700 – 16:00) eight (all Labor categories). | |||||
| 75 | Section L |
Section M
SOW 1.9 6, 7
10 L-7.4.1.4.1. Aspect I – Manning. (c) (d)
M-2.1.5.1. Aspect I – Manning. Proposed (c) (d)
| SOW 1.9 | Can the government please provide a complete list of PTR required certifications for key personnel identified at SOW para 1.9.? Thank you. | No, the Government will not provide a complete list of PTR required certifications for key personnel identified at SOW para 1.9. Please refer to SOW para 1.9 for key personnel and minimum requirements. |
| 76 | Draft RFP Q&A Response; Draft RFP Q&A Response Attachment 1 | |
| FA489025R0006+DRAFT+RFP+Q+and+A+Govt+Response.xlsx; FA489025R0006+DRAFT+RFP+Q+and+A+Govt+Response+Attachment+1+-+LCAT+Workload+Estimate.pdf | 1, |
| 1 | Draft RFP Q&A government response to Question #6 and Draft RFP Q&A Response Attachment 1 | Range staffing question | ||||
| In response to Question #6 of the Draft RFP’s Q&A’s, the government provided (Draft RFP Q&A) Attachment 1 "LCAT Workload Estimate". In this Attachment 1, a table was provided which depicts FTE/LCAT hours across ranges. This table identifies general maintenance workers to provide range support services at some ranges but not at others. How are these services provided where there are no hours for these staff (Avon Park, Dare, and Grand Bay)? If there are known hours associated with the FTE/LCATS that are not listed, can the government please provide an updated table. | See response to question 16. | |||||
| 77 | SOW 3.1.19.1 and 3.1.19.2 | 40 | 3.1.19.1 and 3.1.19.2 | The descriptions for the Weapons Safety Footprints and Explosive Safety Plans list hours "(240 hours annually and 1 time a week [55 hours])" respectively. What is the purpose of listing those hours? | It’s the workload estimate for these activities at these specific locations. This has been added to TE2 for clarity. |
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 .