AFMS3 3.0 RFP Comment Matrix Answered FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 71 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Request For Proposals: Air Force Modeling and Simulation Support Services (AFMS3) 3. 0 Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA701425R0001
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers matrix for the Air Force Modeling and Simulation Support Services (AFMS3) 3.0 RFP, containing 41 industry questions and government responses. Key clarifications include: AFMS3 3.0 is a service contract rather than an IT contract, cloud services are not in scope, and work will be performed at government sites. The government updated labor category qualifications in Attachment 3 and clarified that a single IDIQ rate is required for each labor category.
Notable administrative updates include: allowing subcontractors to submit proprietary information directly to the government, clarifying proposal formatting requirements, updating PPQ submission processes, and confirming that certified cost/pricing data will be required from the apparent awardee. The file also provides key dates including questions due December 30, 2024, a virtual pre-proposal conference on January 10, 2025, and proposals due January 31, 2025. All correspondence must be sent to afdw.pk.afms3_30@us.af.mil or alternatively to the Contracting Officer at richard.snyder.12@us.af.mil.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Request For Proposals: Air Force Modeling and Simulation Support Services (AFMS3) 3. 0 has more files on GovTribe.
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
Sheet1
| # | Severity: High, Routine, Low | Document (i.e. PWS, Self Socring Matrix) | Paragraph (if applicable) | Comment/Question | Government Response |
| 1 | High | Attachment 3 - AFMS3 3.0 Labor Categories | The nature of the work, as outlined in the the PWS, requires an extremely complex, highly technical workforce to perform under the contract. However, the LCAT qualifications in Attachment 3 are low (high school degree and minimal years of experience at the most senior level). Recommend the Government revise the Attachment 3 qualifications for all labor categories, both engineer/PM and others, into one table to align with the OASIS levels and qualification substitutions (equivalencies), such that level 1 (junior) equates to up to 3 years of experience and a BA/BS degree, level 2 (journeyman) equates to 3-10 YOE and a BA/BS or MS, level 3 (senior) equates to over 10 YOE and a MA/MS, and a level 4 (SME) is an individual whose qualifications and/or particular expertise are exceptional and/or highly unique. | Attachment 3 has been updated |
| 2 | High | Attachment 6 - Section L | IAW with the instructions contained with Attachment 6 - AFMS3 3.0 Section L, instruction 3.4.1.3 subparagraph 3b, the preponderance of documentation to be supplied as substantiating evidence is required to be submitted to the Government directly by the Prime Offeror, including subcontractor work samples. At present, Section 3.5.1.3. is the only instruction that recognizes the proprietary nature of the information, as contained in CPARS data, and thus allows for subcontractor teammates to directly submit this evidence to the Government. Due to the inherently proprietary and competitively sensitive nature of all substantiation data that may be provided under this RFP response, would the Government be willing to accept direct submissions of all subcontractor substantiating data in the same manner? | Yes, 3.4.1.3 subparagraph 3b has been updated. | |
| 3 | High | Attachment 6 - Section L | The information contained in Team Members’ substantiating evidence (not only CPAR/PPQ) may contain proprietary information and/or competition sensitive data. In order to appropriately protect this information, will the Government accept a direct submission from our subcontractors for some or all their substantiating data (similar to the submission of CPARS/PPQ as documented in Section 3.5.1.3)? | Yes, 3.4.1.3 subparagraph 3b has been updated. | |
| 4 | How does PMO procure DISA/NSA-accredited cloud services currently? | AFMS3 uses already established Air Force IT support | |||
| 5 | Which USAF cloud procurement vehicle will AFMS3 utilize for cloud service procurement? Such vehicles include, but are not limited to: CloudOne, DAF CloudWorks, JWCC etc. | AFMS3 is not procuring cloud service | |||
| 6 | Will cloud procurement be “in scope” and/or a CLIN on AFMS3 contract? | No | |||
| 7 | For cloud-base workloads, which Identity will AFMS3 workloads utilize? Will AFMS3 managed their own Identities or use the DAF365 Identity? | AFMS3 will utilize existing Air Force IT support | |||
| 8 | What are AFMS3 requirements for integrating Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) and/or Platform as a Service (PaaS) with DAF365-hosted Software as a Service (SaaS) tools like Salesforce, ServiceNow, Microsoft365 etc. | AFMS3 3.0 is a service contract and not a IT contract | |||
| 9 | Which Impact Levels will AFMS3 cover? | AFMS3 3.0 is a service contract and not a IT contract. | |||
| 10 | Are commercial cloud services required? | No | |||
| 11 | Will AFMS3 require DISA Raise the Bar (RTB) cross domain solutions (CDS)? If so, which data flows are the priorities for Option Year #1 and Option Year #2? | No | |||
| 12 | Attachment 5, Labor Pricing Template | N/A | It is unclear what locality should be used when developing the base rates in the "Rate Buildup" and "Rate Summary & Profit-Fee" tabs. When populating the rate buildup tab, should offerors assume the national average when developing rates, and therefore enter 0% for the locality percentage for "All Others/Remote"? | Section L para 3.6.1.1 has been updated in regards to how offerors price out for 'locality' | |
| 13 | Attachment 5, Labor Pricing Template | N/A | Will the Government please confirm that costs such as relocation assistance, cost of living allowance, DBA insurance, etc. will be captured as an ODC at the Task Order level? | Confirmed | |
| 14 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.1.9.2.1, L.3.4.1 | The RFP states "page size shall be 8½ x 11 inches." In Section L.3.4.1, it states, "Font, text size, and margin requirements established in sections 1.9 do not apply to work sample submissions." |
| Contract documentation may be in page sizes other than 8 1/2 x 11 inches. Would the Government consider changing the sentence in L.3.4 to read "Font, page size, text size, and margin requirements established in sections 1.9 do not apply to work sample submissions"? | Corrected | |||
| 15 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.1.9.2.1, L.3.4.3, L.3.4.5 | L.1.9.2.1 states that "The font shall be Times New Roman and no less than 12 points in size." L.3.4.5 states that, "The Offeror shall provide a signed teaming agreement between the Prime Offeror and each team member" in Volume IV. |
| Please confirm that the font requirements in L.1.9.2.1 do not apply to signed teaming agreements provided to satisfy the requirement in L.3.4.5. | Confirmed, corrected | |||
| 16 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.1.9.5, L.1.9.6, L.1.9.2.3 | Sections 1.9.5. and 1.9.6 require proposals to include a Table of Contents and a Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms in each volume. However, Section 1.9.2.3 states, " Offerors shall use separate electronic files for each proposal section listed in Table 1 to permit rapid location of all portions of the proposal. Exhibits, annexes, and attachments which are provided in support of a section shall be included in the electronic file for that section." |
| If Offerors are required to submit sections within volumes as separate electronic files, please clarify where Offerors should include the Table of Contents and Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms for Volumes I, IV, V, VI, and VII, which have multiple, separate electronic files. Can Offerors provide the Table of Contents and the Glossary as separate electronic files, independent of each section file? For example, the Government requires Offerors to submit all sections of Vol. I Administrative as separate electronic files. In order to include the Table of Contents and Glossary in Volume I, these subsections would need to be separate files as well. Alternately, Offerors could include all sections within a volume as a single, consolidated file. Please give more specific guidance as to how you would like Offerors to submit each section of the proposal volumes. | There shall be one Table of Contents and Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms per volume. Table of Contents and Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms shall be separate files for each volume. L.1.9.2.3 has been updated | ||||
| 17 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.1.13 | Section L.1.13 lists Appendix F as "PPQ Cover Letter", but Appendix F's title is "Past Experience Questionnaire Cover Letter". Please clarify the correct title of this appendix. | Corrected | |
| 18 | Attachment 6, Section L and Section L, Appendix D | L.1.13 and L.3.5.1.1 | The RFP requires Offerors to provide contract information, including comments about compliance and performance, for 10 work samples (see bulleted list in Section L.3.5.1.1). In the draft RFP, this information was to be provided via the Past Performance Information Sheet (Appendix D to Section L). The Past Performance Information Sheet is listed as an appendix to Section L in Section L.1.13, of the final RFP but no instructions are provided as to how to include this sheet within Volume V. |
Does the Government intend for Offerors to use the Past Performance Information Sheet to provide the contract information required in Section L.3.5.1.1? If so, will the Government revise Table 1 to provide clear guidance for proposal organization?
| If the Government does not intend for Offerors to use the Past Performance Information Sheet to provide contract information required for Volume V, could the Government revise Section L.1.13 to remove Appendix D and provide instruction as to where to provide the information required in L.3.5.1.1.? | The Government has decided to remove Appendix D from the RFP as it is the same information required in Appendix A. Para 3.5.1.1 has been updated. | |||
| 19 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.2.1 | L.2.1 states that "The proposal shall be accompanied by a cover letter prepared on the company’s letterhead stationery. The cover letter shall identify all enclosures being transmitted and shall be used only to transmit the proposal and shall include no other information with the exception of acknowledging amendments as an attachment." In Section L.3.1.1, the requirement for the first section of Volume I is "The Offeror shall provide a cover letter with all the following company information: Name, Address, CAGE Code, Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), System for Award Management (SAM.gov) registration date, proposal validity statements, Contracting and Technical Point of Contacts (POCs) (name, email address and phone number)." |
| Does the cover letter required in Section L.3.1.1 satisfy the requirement for a cover letter in Section L.2.1, or does the Government require two separate cover letters? | Yes the cover letter from 3.1.1 satisfies the requirement in 2.1. Para 2.1 has been updated | |||
| 20 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.2.3 (Table 1), L.3.4.5 | Table 1 in Section L.2.3 lists Team Structure, Teaming Arrangement, and Team Agreements as separate sections of Volume IV; however, requirements for all three are described in only one section (L.3.4.5). |
Please confirm the following:
| Will the submission of a completed Appendix C (Team Structure Format) and signed teaming agreements from all subcontractors in Volume IV satisfy the requirements of Table I and Section L.3.4.5? | Yes | ||||
| 21 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.2.3 (Table 1) | Table 1 lists one of the components of Volume V as Technical Past Experience Submissions (PPQs and CPAR documentation). Instructions in Section 3.5.1.1.1 state, "The questionnaire recipient will e-mail completed questionnaires directly to the contracting office listed on the questionnaire." Please specify which documentation Offerors should include to satisfy this component of Volume V in proposals. Will the blank questionnaire (with Section 1 completed) suffice? | The Government has removed PPQ as a required submission as the recipient will email to the contracting office | |
| 22 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.2.3 (Table 1), L.3.5.1.1.1 | Table 1 in Section L.2.3 lists "Company_AFMS3 3.0_V_PPQ" as a possible filename for files submitted as part of Volume V. Does the Government require Offerors to submit the PPQs sent to clients (with Section 1 completed by Offerors) as part of Volume V? | No, PPQ's will be sent to the Government by the PPQ recipient | |
| 23 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.2.3 (Table 1), L.3.5.1.1.2 | L.3.5.1.1.2 requires offerors to address Small Business utilization and subcontracting to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance on the ten (10) Work Samples. However, Table 1 of L.2.3 does not provide guidance on the location or page count for this information within Volume V. |
| Please revise Table 1 and L.3.5.1.1.2 to provide clear guidance on where Offerors are to provide this information. | Para 3.5.1.1.2 has been removed | |||
| 24 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.4.1 | L.3.4.1 states "All Task Orders written on a multi-award IDIQ with their own Task Order CPARs will be counted as a single Work Sample." |
| Will multi-award IDIQ contracts that receive a single CPAR count as one work sample? | Yes, 3.4.1 has been updated | ||||
| 25 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.4.1.3 | We have work samples that qualify across multiple elements which have substantiating documents that are marked CUI (e.g., PWS). Please confirm that it is acceptable to submit CUI information via DoDSAFE. | Confirmed | |
| 26 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.4.1.3, items 3a and 3b | The Government authorizes Joint Venture submissions for Category 1 Prime Offeror Work Samples. However, the Government is silent on Joint Venture submissions under Category 2 Subcontractor Work Samples. |
| Please confirm that Category 2 work samples are authorized from subcontractor joint ventures. | Confirmed, corrected | |||
| 27 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.4.1.3 (item 3.a) and L.3.4.3 | The Government authorizes subsidiaries and their legal entities submissions for Category 1 Prime Offeror Work Samples. However, the Government is silent on subsidiaries and their legal entities submissions under Category 2 Subcontractor Work Samples. |
| Please confirm that category 2 work samples are authorized from subcontractor subsidiaries and their legal entities. | Confirmed, corrected | ||||
| 28 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.4.5, L.3.5.1.2 | Section L.3.4.5 states, "The Offeror shall provide a subcontractor or team member consent letter for each subcontractor or team member included in the team structure." Is this the same consent letter that is described in Section L.3.5.1.2? If it is not, please specify the topic of consent for each letter. If this is the same letter, please confirm that Offerors should submit the consent letter as part of Volume V, not IV, and that it is limited to two pages. | These are two different letters; one is a teaming agreement letter, the other is a consent letter for disclosing subcontractor past performance to the prime | |
| 29 | Attachment 6, Section L | L. 3.5.1.1.1, Appendix F | In Section L.3.5.1.1.1, the RFP states, "Questionnaires received directly from Offerors will not be evaluated. Past Performance Questionnaires are requested to be received by the issuing office by the proposal due date" (January 31). However, the PPQ cover letter (Appendix F) gives the due date for completed PPQs as January 15. |
| Please confirm that completed PPQs are due to the Government by the proposal due date (January 31). | Confirmed, corrected | ||||
| 30 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.5.1.3 | L.3.5.1.3 states, "PPQ scoring are to be inputted the same way as CPARs, utilizing Attachment E." Please confirm that "Attachment E" should read "Appendix E". | Confirmed, corrected | |
| 31 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.5.1.3 | L.3.5.1.3 states, "PPQ scoring are to be inputted the same way as CPARs, utilizing Attachment E." Please clarify what the Government means by stating that "PPQ scoring are to be inputted." If Offerors use PPQs instead of CPAR data, Offerors will not be privy to the score given on the PPQ. | This has been corrected so PPQ will be sent to vendors as well as the Government | |
| 32 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.5.1.3 | L.3.5.1.3 states, "The Government Tech Team must be able to validate the most recent CPAR rating for the contract/task order that is submitted as a work sample." |
| If the Government did not issue or finalize a CPAR for a work sample's most recent year of performance, please confirm the Government will accept the most recent finalized CPAR. | Confirmed, corrected | ||||
| 33 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.6.1.1 | Based on the anticipated places of performance, will the Government please confirm that offerors should use "Government" site overhead pools when developing their fully burdened IDIQ rates? If work is anticipated to be performed at contractor facilities on future task orders, are offerors permitted to submit two sets of fully burdened IDIQ rates; one set at "Government" site and another set at "Contractor" site? | Offerors are to use "Government" site rates. | |
| 34 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.6.3, L.3.6.6.1 | For any teammates/subcontractors that are not proposing cost-type rates, will the government confirm that all Prime Offeror's non-cost type teammates/subcontractors are exempt from providing supporting cost data for the 3.6.3 Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) and 3.6.6.1 (b) Supporting Cost Data requirements, specifically the pricing narrative and attachment 5 cost elements? | Prime contractors are responsible for ensuring their subcontractors also comply with the requirements of FAR 52.222-46, meaning they should review and evaluate the subcontractor's proposed compensation plans for their professional employees. If the subcontractors are unwilling to disclose this information to the Prime, then the subcontractors can provide it directly to the Government and the Government will perform its own review. | |
| 35 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.6.6 | Provided that this solicitation is full and open and in accordance with FAR 15.403-3(a), will the government confirm that it is using "data other than certified cost or pricing data" and not requiring certified cost or pricing data at this time? | Certified Cost or pricing data will be required upon notification by the Government that the HTRO is the apparent awardee. Per the DoD Source Selection Guidebook, dated 20 Aug 2022, "When using HTRO, the |
reasonableness of proposed prices is not established by competition, so price analysis or cost analysis (with or without certified cost and pricing data) is required. This requirement is non commercial and above the threshold therefore certified cost or pricing data is required.
| 36 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.6.6.1-B | Is it the Government's intention for the Prime offeror and each of its subcontractors to agree upon and submit a single set of blended IDIQ rates, or is it the Government's intention for the Prime offeror and each of its subcontractors to establish separate IDIQ rate cards that will be utilized in execution based on which company is filling a position? | The Government requires a single IDIQ rate for each LCAT. If multiple companies are being utilized under a single LCAT, then a blended rate should be proposed. |
| 37 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.7 | L.2.3, Table 1 shows that Volume VII - TO1 should include a pricing template and pricing narrative; however, Section 3.7 does not outline any information that would be included in a pricing narrative. Will the Government please clarify what information should be included in Volume VII TO1 pricing narrative? | This reference has been removed |
| 38 | Attachment 6, Section L | L.3.7.2 | Section L states that "Offerors will input the labor rates required to meet Attachment 9 – AFMS3 3.0 TO1 PWS into Attachment 10- AFMS3 3.0 TO1 Price Proposal Template", but does not direct offerors to input hours. Will the Government please confirm that offerors should populate Attachment 10 with the labor categories and labor rates required to accomplish the TO1 PWS tasks, but should not input hours into the Attachment 10 spreadsheet? | Offerors are to input hours. Per the "Read First' tab of attachment 10, for Task Orders a FTE is 1,880 hours |
| 39 | Appendix A - Work Sample Cover Sheet | Part I | The instructions for Part I state, "Work Sample Identifier: Works samples shall be numbered WS1-WS6." Please confirm that this should read, "Work samples shall be numbered WS1-WS10". | Confirmed, corrected |
| 40 | Appendix B - Self-Rated Scoring Matrix | Row 23 | The Element in Row 18 is: "Number of Tier 1, 2, 3, or 4 Exercises where your company provided Event Services, Integration, Entity Coordination, Model Knowledge, Master Scenario Events List (MSEL) or Threat Generation, Scenario Development within the last 5 calendar years. " |
| Please confirm that this series of deliverables should read, "Number of Tier 1, 2, 3, or 4 Exercises where your company provided Event Services, Integration, Entity Coordination, Model Knowledge, Master Scenario Events List (MSEL), Threat Generation, or Scenario Development within the last 5 calendar years". | Confirmed, corrected | ||||
| 41 | Appendix B - Self-Rated Scoring Matrix | Cell M30 | There is a formula error in cell M30 that results in an incorrect score calculation. The corrected formula should be "=IF(E30=0,$K$6,IF(E30<2,$J$6,IF(E30<3,$I$6,IF(E30<7,$H$6,IF(E30<10,$G$6,$F$6)))))" | This has been corrected | |
| 42 | Appendix D - Past Performance Information Sheet | Part I | The instructions for Part I state, "Work Sample Identifier: Works samples shall be numbered WS1-WS6." Please confirm that this should read, "Work samples shall be numbered WS1-WS10". | The Government has decided to remove Appendix D from the RFP as it is the same information required in Appendix A | |
| 43 | Attachment 7, Section M | M.3.0 | M.3.0 lists Volume I's title as "Administrative/Compliance," while Section L.2.3 (Table 1) lists the title as "Administrative." Please clarify which title Offerors should use throughout the proposal. | Corrected to "Administrative" | |
| 44 | Attachment 7, Section M | M.3.1.3, L.2.3, L.3.1.3 | M.3.1.3 lists the section's title as "Completed Representations and Certifications" while Section L.2.3 (Table 1) lists the title of that corresponding section as "Reps and Certs" and L.3.1.3 lists the title as "Annual Representations and Certification." Please clarify which title Offerors should use throughout the proposal. | Corrected to "Representations and Certifications" | |
| 45 | Attachment 7, Section M | M.3.1.5 | M.3.1.5 lists the section's title as "Organizational Conflict of Interest/Mitigation Plan" while Section L.2.3 (Table 1) lists the title of that coresponding section as "Organizational Conflict of Interest Assessment/Mitigation Plan"and L.3.1.5 lists the title as "Organizational Conflict of Interest" Please clarify which title Offerors should use throughout the proposal. | Corrected to "Organizational Conflict of Interest Assessment/Mitigation Plan" | |
| 46 | Attachment 7, Section M | M.3.6 | Several sections in M.3.6 are misnumbered. For instance, both Completeness and Fair and Reasonable Price are labaled 3.6.4. To facilitate proper cross referencing, could the Government provide a revised section with the correct numbering? | Corrected | |
| 47 | Attachment 7, Section M | M.3.6.4 | In M.3.6.4 (Completeness), there is a reference to how the Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated for adequacy. The Subcontracting Plan is not required as part of the IDIQ Cost/Price Proposal; it is required to be submitted as part of the Administrative Volume (see Table 1 of L.2.3). Please confirm that this requirement is supposed to be in Section M.3.1.8 and, if so, please provide a revised Section M.3.1.8. | Confirmed, corrected | |
| 48 | Attachment 7, Section M | M.3.6.5 TEP | Will the Government please clarify if the Locality Percentages will impact the TEP, or if the TEP will be based solely on the base rates provided in the "Rates Summary & Profit-Fee" tab | Based on the new pricing requirements for attachment 5 this question is not applicable | |
| 49 | Attachment 7, Section M | M.3.6.5 TEP | Will the Government please clarify how subcontractor IDIQ rate cards will be factored into the TEP, if at all? | The Government will utilize the IDIQ rate (with the Primes and their subcontractor rates) card provided to determine the TEP via a notional labor hour mix | |
| 50 | Attachment 9 | Tab "Rates Summary & Profit-Fee" | There is a formula error in columns C through G. The reference to profit (cell J2) is not locked, and therefore is not captured correctly when calculating fully burdened rates. | Offerors must fill in all blue cells on the rate build up tab first and then add profit in the Rate Summary & Profit Fee tab | |
| 51 | Attachment 10 - AFMS3 3.0 TO1 Price Proposal Template | N/A | The Attachment 10 template states "** FTEs and Hours are provided as historical information only that accomplishing work under each of the tasks has required"; however, no hours or FTEs are pre-populated in the spreadsheet. Will the Government please confirm that offerors should not add hours and FTEs in the Attachment 10 template? | That statement has been removed. Offerors are instructed to read the 'Read First' tab of Attachment 10 for instructions | |
| 52 | Attachment 10 - AFMS3 3.0 TO1 Price Proposal Template | Tab "Read First" | Tab "Read First" states "Offerors shall propose ALL labor categories & skill levels anticipated to be used for the entire 5 Year period in addition to the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services (6-month extension). Since these should be fully burdened rates, the offeror shall ensure all subcontractors and team member rates are included. Failure to do so makes the Offeror unawardable. ". |
| Will the Government please clarify what it means by ALL labor categories? It is unclear if offerors should propose all IDIQ labor categories for itself and each of its subcontractors, or only the labor categories and rates required to accomplish TO1 PWS tasks. | All labor categories means the labor categories the offeror determines is suitable to meet the needs of the initial task order. This includes labor categories, skill leve, FTE, hours, and rates for the prime and it's subcontractors | ||||
| 53 | High | Atch 3- AFMS 3.0 Labor Cateogries | Attachment 3 - AFMS3 Labor Categories sheet - please identify which labor categories fall under Project Manager and Engineering Labor. | Attachment 3 has been updated |
| 54 | High | Atch 6 - AFMS3 3.0 Section L | ||||
| Para 3.5.1.1.1 | ||||||
| The last sentence in 3.5.1.1.1 states "Work Samples that do not have PPQ's will not be counted." We recommend deleting this language as it conflicts with language in the rest of the paragraph and in 3.5.1.1. | Revised the wording to reflect intent | |||||
| 55 | High | Attachment 10 | On the first tab, it provides instructions related to the IDIQ, not the Task Order. Can the Government please move these instructions to Attachment 5? | The instructions are correctly referenced for the initial Task Order | ||
| 56 | High | Attachment 10 | On the first tab, it states that the fully burdened rates shall "ensure all subcontractors and team member rates are included. Failure to do so makes the Offeror unawardable." Can the Government please clarify where Offerors should insert team member rates or if the prime rates are to be a composite rate that covers both prime and subcontractors? If the latter, where should the composite rate calculations be shown? | Prime and subcontractor rates are to be inputted in the Base, and Option Year tabs | ||
| 57 | High | Attachment 10 | For the Initial Task Order, does the Government intend to have Offerors propose a labor mix in reference to "FTEs and Hours are provided as historical information only that accomplishing work under each of the tasks has required." | That statement has been removed | ||
| 58 | High | Atch 6 - AFMS3 3.0 Section L | Can the Government please revise Attachment 5 to add cells for proposed fee on ODCs and materials? | The Government has unlocked Atch 5. Offerors are advised to use the intent of the attachment when adjusting formulas/columns for their rate buildup | ||
| 59 | High | Atch 7 - AFMS3 3.0 Section M.pdf | Section M 3.6.5 states that the Government will calculate the TEP by applying notional hours to LCATs in Attachment 5 (IDIQ). However, after all five tie breakers, Tie Breaker Determination, states that the final tiebreaker will be the lowest TEP for the intial Task order. Will the Government please confirm that the TEP is calculated for the IDIQ only and that the tiebreaker will be the lowest TEP for the IDIQ? | Removed mention of "initial Task Order" in this paragraph. The last tiebreaker will be the lowest TEP for the notional hours | ||
| 60 | High | Solicitation - FA701425R0001.pdf | FAR 52.222-41 is not included in the solicitation, nor have WDs been incorporated. Can the Government confirm that Service Contract Labor Standards [SCLS] does not apply to this contract? | The SCLS does not apply to this contract | ||
| 61 | High | Atch 3- AFMS 3.0 Labor Cateogries | Project Manager and Engineering Labor Categories are identifed as levels II, III, IV within tab "AFMS3 Labor Categories" but are identified as level I,II, III within tab "Labor Category Lvls and Requi.". Please clarify. | This has been corrected. | ||
| 62 | High | Attch 5- AFMS 3.0 AFMS3 Labor Pricing Template | For the Labor Pricing Template, can the Government issue an unlocked vesrion to allow for the ability to adjust formulas to align with corporate pricing methodologies and to add columns to account for additional cost elements? | The Government has unlocked Atch 5. Offerors are advised to use the intent of the attachment when adjusting formulas/columns for their rate buildup | ||
| 63 | High | Attch 5- AFMS 3.0 AFMS3 Labor Pricing Template | Please confirm Offeror's are allowed to add additional tabs to support a cost build up (e.g. Travel, ODC unit price) | The Government has unlocked Atch 5. Offerors are advised to use the intent of the attachment when adjusting formulas/columns for their rate buildup | ||
| 64 | High | Atch 7 - AFMS3 3.0 Section M.pdf | 2.1, Step 9 | Each Step in the evaluation process has clear pass/fail criteria except Step 9. This Step defines a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) but the purpose of that TEP is not clear. Can the Government please clarify the purpose of Step 9 of the evaluation process and what the pass/fail criteria are? | There are no pass/fail criteria for the TEP. The purpose of Step 9 is to evaluate the TEP for the notional labor hour mix | |
| 65 | High | Atch 6 - AFMS3 3.0 Section L.pdf | 3.4.1 | The instructions define the following as one type of work sample artifact Offerors may use: "(2) company generated documentation/Offeror’s system of record when accompanied by a Statement of Fact signed by the cognizant Government contracting officer or COR to confirm missing/classified information, should unclassified contractual documents not carry all of the information necessary to substantiate the Offeror's scores" Can the Government please confirm that offerors are required to include a Statement of Fact from a cognizant Government contracting officer or COR when using any company generated documentation that is not considered a contract document under #1? | Confirmed | |
| 66 | High | Appendix G - Cross Reference Matrix.xlsx | Can the Government please clarify what information they want entered in the "Corresponding CPAR/PPQ" column? | Offerors are to input the CPAR/PPQ number. See Section L, para 3.5.1.1 for numbering | ||
| 67 | High | Atch 6 AFMS3 3.0 Section L | 2.3 Table 1 | It appears that the Attachment D Past Performance Information Sheet is missing from Table 1 requirements. Please modify to reflect. | Added to Volume IV | |
| 68 | High | Atch 6 AFMS3 3.0 Section L; Appendix E Past Performance Questionnaire | Atch 6 Section 3.5.1.1.1; Appendix E Paragraph 1 | This section states: "Past Performance Questionnaires are requested to be received by the issuing office by the proposal due date." The PPQ states due by 1/15/25. The proposal due date is 1/31. Which is the correct due date for PPQ submission? | The due date for PPQ submission is the proposal due date | |
| 69 | High | Appendix B AFMS 3 Self_Rated_Scoring_Matrix; Atch 6 AFMS3 3.0 Section L | Rows 39-43; 3.5.1.1.1 | Setion 3.5.1.1.1 states, "Offerors shall complete only section 1 of Past Performance Questionnaire (Appendix E). Questionnaires received directly from Offerors will not be evaluated. " Given the PPQ will be sent directly to the Government, there is no way for Offerors to enter the PPQ score in Appendix B, Self Scoring Matrix. In order to use the PPQ scores in the scoring matrix, Offerors will need to receive a copy from the evaluators. We recommend the Government alter the language of Appendix E and Section L to allow PPQs to be sent directly to Offerors in addition to the Government for scoring purposes. | Corrected | |
| 70 | High | Appendix B - Self Rated Scoring Matrix V1.6.xlsx | ||||
| Appendix G - Cross Reference Matrix.xlsx | To help maintain a logical link beween the scoring matrix, cross reference matrix, and work samples, would the Government consider adding a unique identifier to each scoring element, e.g., numbering them 1 - 20? | Added | ||||
| 71 | High | Appendix B AFMS 3 Self_Rated_Scoring_Matrix |
2.7.1.2 Number of employees with Joint Terminal Attack Controllers ...
| 2.7.1.2 Number of current FTEs that have been qualified as a 5th … | The example scoring elements listed require experience in specific task areas, which poses difficulty in validating considering that experience may not be tied solely to the specific work sample but experience from previous contracts. Resumes would be one form of validating experience, but do not appear to be allowable within the constraints of the three types of documentation defined in Section L.3.2.1. | ||
| Will the Government please clarify what they will accept as sufficient evidence to demonstrate experience for each of these scoring elements that require it? | Added resumes to the list of accepted Work Samples in Section L.3.4.1 | ||
| 72 | High | Appendix B AFMS 3 Self_Rated_Scoring_Matrix |
2.6 Number of FTEs with an active DoD Cybersecurity Certification ...
| 2.7.1.2 Number of current FTEs that have been qualified as a 5th ... | The example scoring elements listed require a number of FTEs with specific experience or qualifications. However, the wording of these scoring elements suggest that the Government is looking for the number of personnel with the specified experience or qualifications rather than FTEs. In these cases, we recommend changing "Number of FTEs" to "Number of personnel". | The government intends to keep the verbiage as "FTE" | ||||
| 73 | High | Appendix B AFMS 3 Self_Rated_Scoring_Matrix | 2.3.2 Number of FTEs that have provided operational and technical support to the development and execution of test plans for M&S and LVC operational environments | We find this scoring element to be overly specific with multiple limiting criteria and therefore difficult to substantiate within the confines of allowable work sample artifacts defined in Section L.3.2.1, Work Samples. We recommend the Government state what evidence they will accept to prove this multi-dimensional scoring element. | This specific element is worded, "Number of contracts/ task orders that have provided operational and technical support to the development and execution of test plans for M&S and LVC operational and training environments". Not, "Number of FTEs…" | |
| 74 | High | Atch 6 - Section L AFMS3 3.0 | 3.5.4 | In Section L 3.4.5, if a teaming arrangements under FAR 9.61 is contemplated, the teaming arrangement documentation including signed commitment is to be submitted with VOLUME IV – Technical Past Experience, or subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered. Does this apply to all teaming partners, including those whose past experience (work samples) are not being used in Volume IV? (i.e. should all teammates be identified in Appendix C Team Structure Format and shall offeror submit a signed teaming agreement and signed team member consent letter for every teammate, or only for those teammates submitting work samples) | This applies to teaming arrangements as defined in FAR 9.601. This applies to all prime/subcontractor teaming arrangements | |
| 75 | High | Atch 6 - Section L AFMS3 3.0 | 3.5.1.2 | Section L, 3.5.1.2, "Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their technical past experience information to the prime contractor. The subcontractor consent letter(s) is excluded from the Technical Past Experience Volume page count." Offerors are not submitting a technical solution or identifying how it proposes to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. Past experience information is only required from a subcontractor if a subcontractgor work sample is being used. Can the Government revise this requirement to read, "Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors submitting a work sample consenting to the release of their technical past experience information to the prime contractor"? | The government agrees and has changed the verbiage | |
| 76 | High | Atch 6 - Section L AFMS3 3.0 | 3.4.5 | |||
| 3.5.1.2 | Can the Government confirm that the team member consent letter to be included for each team member identified in the team structure in Volume IV IAW 3.4.5 is separate from the team member consent letter to be included for subcontractors providing technical past experience in Volume V IAW 3.5.1.2? | Confirmed, they are two separate documents | ||||
| 77 | High | Atch 6 - Section L AFMS3 3.0 | 3.5.1.3 | Section 3.5.1.3 states, "Offerors must provide all relevant fully completed CPARs to substantiate the self-score." The Q&A provided with the Final RFP clarifies that only the most recent CPARs are to be submitted. We suggest that this sentence be deleted or revised to eliminate any ambiguity. | Corrected | |
| 78 | High | Atch 6 - Section L AFMS3 3.0 | 3.5.1.1.2 | Can the Government please provide guidance on where in Volume V they would like Offerors to include Small Business Compliance information? | Para 3.5.1.1.2 has been removed | |
| 79 | High | Atch 6 - Section L AFMS3 3.0 | ||||
| Appendix B - Self Rated Scoring Matrix V1.6.xlsx | 3.4.2 | |||||
| 3.5.2 | We note that the score for Past Performance has increase from 15% of the total score in the draft RFP to 27% of the total score in the final RFP. This change increases the evaluation emphasis on past performance over technical experience. We suggest that the Government decrease the maximum possible score for Past Performance to 28,000 to better balance the past performance and technical experience scoring. | The government intends to keep the past performance scoring as is | ||||
| 80 | High | Atch 6 - Section L AFMS3 3.0 | 3.4.1 | Section L.3.4.1 says, “Task Orders against Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts (GWACS) are not considered single-award IDIQs, therefore each GWAC Task Order shall be considered a separate contract for the purposes of work sample evaluation.” We suggest that for equity with other contract types, Offerors be allowed to combine sequential task orders under a multi-award IDIQ for the same customer with the same scope of work as a single work sample. | The government intends to keep Work Sample format as is | |
| 81 | Section L | 3.5.1.1 | In Draft RFP Section L-3.3 Volume V Past Performance, 3.3.1.1 said "The past performance information forms (PIFs) (Appendix E) as provided by the contractor will be used by the evaluation team to establish the relevancy, recency, and quality of past performance." In current RFP Section L-3.5 Volume V Technical Past Experience Ratings, 3.5.1.1 does not have any similar sentence. What will be used to establish the relevancy, recency, and quality of past performance? | This is detailed in step 6 of Section M | ||
| 82 | Section L | Part of the RFP package is Appendix D - PP Info Sheet.docx. However, there is no explicit mention of it in Section L? Has the requirement for this Appendix been removed? | The Government has decided to remove Appendix D from the RFP as it is the same information required in Appendix A | |||
| 83 | Section L | 3.6.1 | The RFP states "The Government will provide Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts for the travel, materials, and other direct costs CLINs at the Task Order level." However, the sample task order does not have any NTE amounts provided for non-labor. Would the government please provide an NTE amount for the sample task order? | Added NTE amount to initial task order | ||
| 84 | Section L | 3.6.1.1 | The RFP states "To account for labor rate differences around CONUS and Hawaii/Alaska locations, Germany, and South Korea Offerors are instructed to input a locality percentage in the “Locality” tab that will be added to each labor rate at the task order level dependent on task order location." Please confirm that all OCONUS related costs such as COLA, Hardship, Danger, Education, etc. are part of the NTE plugs. | Confirmed, all OCONUS related costs will be included in the NTE ODC CLINS | ||
| 85 | Section L | 3.6.1 | The RFP states "The Offeror shall provide certified cost/pricing data for the IDIQ labor rates and the initial task order as required to evaluate the reasonableness, completeness, cost realism, and balance of proposed cost with a certificate of certified cost or pricing data within 5 days of negotiated price. Offerors shall provide proposed labor rates in the Price Proposal Attachment." Does the government anticipate there to not be adequate competition? We normally only see certified cost or pricing data and the requirement to sign a certification for sole source work. Would the government consider changing this requirement to "other than cost or pricing data" which provides for the same level of detail? | Certified Cost or pricing data will be required upon notification by the Government that the HTRO is the apparent awardee. Per the DoD Source Selection Guidebook, dated 20 Aug 2022, "When using HTRO, the |
reasonableness of proposed prices is not established by competition, so price analysis or cost analysis (with or without certified cost and pricing data) is required. This requirement is non commercial and above the threshold therefore certified cost or pricing data is required.
| 86 | Atch 10 - AFMS3 3.0 TO1 Price Proposal Template | In each year's pricing tab, there is a note that states "FTEs and Hours are provided as historical information only that accomplishing work under each of the tasks has required." No hours or FTEs have been provided in this document. Would the government please clarify this statement? Should this document have come populated with hours and FTEs? | This statement has been removed | |||
| 87 | Atch 1 - AFMS3 3.0 PWS | 6.3.4 | In support of the requirements for the Contractor to fulfill responsibilities for appropriate export licensing or exemptions related to performance under the AFMS3 IDIQ, would the Government update the PWS language for clarity in the application of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR §126.4(b)(1), §126.4(b)(2) and §126.4(c)? | |||
| Request the addition of language to the effect that in accordance with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR §126.4(b)(1), §126.4(b)(2) and §126.4(c), Contractor will be required to travel outside the United States, and will be responsible for temporary imports and exports of defense articles, including technical data and the performance of defense services in support of AFMS3 M&S requirements. The export of defense articles and technical data, including the provision of defense services, are specified in the contract Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Contractor will be prepared to perform defense services and temporarily import and export to foreign persons (including foreign governments and contractors) within the UAWC and PASC Area of Responsibility at the expression direction of the Government. | This language has been added | |||||
| 88 | High | PWS | 6.3.4 (INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR)) of the PWS. | In accordance with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR §126.4(b)(1), §126.4(b)(2) and §126.4(c), Contractor will be required to travel outside the United States, and will be responsible for temporary imports and exports of defense articles, including technical data and the performance of defense services in support of AFMS3 M&S requirements. The export of defense articles and technical data, including the provision of defense services, are specified in the contract Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Contractor will be prepared to perform defense services and temporarily import and export to foreign persons (including foreign governments and contractors) within the UAWC and PASC Area of Responsibility at the expression direction of the Government. |
We are asking for this addition so that we can leverage this ITAR Exemption to support the USAF abroad at their direction. The ITAR clause being referenced is identified below :
126.4(b) A license is not required for the export, reexport, retransfer, or temporary import of a defense article or the performance of a defense service, when made by another person for a department or agency of the U.S. Government:
(1) To a department or agency of the U.S. Government at its request; or
(2) To an entity other than the U.S. Government at the written direction of a department or agency of the U.S. Government or pursuant to an international agreement or arrangement, for an activity authorized for that department or agency in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
126.4(c) No license is required under this subchapter for the return to the United States of a defense article exported pursuant to this section and not subsequently reexported or retransferred other than pursuant to this section, to:
(1) A department or agency of the U.S. Government; or
| (2) The person who exported the item. | This language has been add | |||||
| 89 | High | DD254 | DD254 blocks 7a, 7b and 7c | Are Offerors required to populate Subcontractor information in blocks 7a, 7b and 7c on the DD254 or will the Offeror only be required to issue DD254s to the subcontractors? | Offerors do not need to populate Subcontractor information | |
| 90 | High | Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Task 6 M&S Cybersecurity: Number of M&S, DMO, LVC, or Aviation Training related Authority To Operate (ATO) your company maintained or updated | We have worked with our Government-side security counterparts to reduce the number of ATOs required for maintenance to the benefit of the Government and the Warfighter by obtaining multi-year ATOs encompassing multiple Program Identifiers (PIDs). Recommend ATOs be counted at the granularity of PID and number of days per performance location, which better meets the intent of this Self Scoring Criteria. | The Government has updated this verbiage to, "Number of M&S, DMO, LVC, or Aviation Training Related Authority To Operate (ATO) or Approval for Use (AfU) your company maintained or updated". | |
| 91 | High | Section L, Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Paragraph 3.4.2.4 | In calculating years of experience, please confirm that task order periods of performance that fall within the 5-year requirement can be aggregated within an IDIQ Work Sample (WS). For example, for a WS consisting of an IDIQ with multiple task orders, can the years of experience be aggregated (TO1 with a 3 year PoP and TO2 with a 4 year PoP = 7 years of experience)? | Confirmed | |
| 92 | High | Section L, Self Rated Scoring Matrix | L.3.5.1.1 | Where CPARs are not available and Offerors Programs are submitting PPQs, how should the offeror populate the score sheet since the feedback only goes directly to the government? | This has been corrected so PPQ will be sent to vendors as well as the Government | |
| 93 | High | Section L, Self Rated Scoring Matrix | L.3.5.1.1 | Because a Prime Offeror may not have visibility into a subcontractors CPAR information, and is submitting a self-scoring sheet that includes the subcontractors information, how does the Prime Offeror populate the scoresheet? | The reference to team members submitting their own CPARS to the Government has been removed as Prime offerors must include the CPARS ratings for each work sample in their self scoring matrix. Offerors are directed to para 3.5.1.2 for directions on subcontractor consent letters | |
| 94 | High | Appendix B Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Rows 27: Number of FTEs with an active DoD Cybersecurity Certification in accordance with DoD Instruction (DoDI) 8510.01 |
Row 31: Number of FTEs with Joint Terminal Attack Controllers / Tactical Air Control Parties (JTAC/TACP) experience within the last 5 years
| Row 33: Number of current FTEs that have been qualified as a 5th Generation Aircraft pilot in the aircraft or simulator (F-22 or F-35) | Regarding rows 27, 31 and 33, please confirm that "FTE" should be replaced with the word "employee," as such qualifications would apply to individuals rather than LCAT slots. | The government intends to keep the verbiage as "FTE" | ||||
| 95 | Routine | Attachment 6 Instructions | 2.3 Table 1 Lists Volumes V, VI, and VII with file names that correspond with the volume. For example Volume VI – IDIQ Cost/Price Proposal includes the file names as: "CompanyName_AFMS3 3.0_VI_Narrative" and "CompanyName_AFMS3 3.0_VI_Template". However Volumes I, II, III, and IV include "V" immediately prior to the corresponding roman numeral within the file name. For example Volume I lists: "File name: CompanyName_AFMS3 3.0_VI_Executive Summary", Volume II lists: "File name: CompanyName_AFMS3 3.0_VII_FCL", and Volume III lists: "File Name: CompanyName_AFMS3 3.0_VIII_SBPP" | Are the file names as they are currently listed what the Government intended, or is this a typographical error? Please clarify. | This has been corrected | |
| 96 | High | Attachment 5 - AFMS3 3.0 Labor Pricing Template | N/A | The attachment is locked for editing. There are columns that need to be added to support the rate buildup(s). Can the Government provide an unlocked template to accommodate the addition of Columns and/or Rows. Or, is it acceptable the Offeror submit an unlocked template as its submittal? | The Government has unlocked Atch 5. Offerors are advised to use the intent of the attachment when adjusting formulas/columns for their rate buildup | |
| 97 | High | Attachment 6 Instructions and Appendix B Self Rated Scoring Matrix | L.2.3 Proposal Organization, Volume IV Technical Past Experience and Appendix B, Self Rated Scoring Matrix | Is the Offeror required to submit 10 scoresheets (1 per Work Sample) or only 1 summary scoresheet that captures all combined scores? | Offerors are to submit 1 scoresheet | |
| 98 | High | Attachment 6 Instructions, Section 2.2 | Section 2.2 Fourth Sentence states: "The transmittal of large files >10Mb (proposal documents) must be submitted via DODSAFE." | May an Offeror submit their entire proposal via DODSAFE to include files less than 10MB in size? | Yes | |
| 99 | Routine | Attachment 6 Instructions, Section 3.4.1.3 Work Sample Qualifications, Paragraph 3.b.ii | Paragraph 3.b.ii refers to the "Team Structure Format required by section 3.2.4." |
b. Category 2: Subcontractor work samples. In order to be used, the Subcontractor shall:
i. Follow the requirements in section 3.4.1.3, paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
ii. Be identified as a Subcontractor on the Team Structure Format required by section 3.2.4.
iii. Have acted as the Prime or as a Major Subcontractor on the contract or order submitted.
| iv. Provide a signed Teaming Agreement as required by section 3.2.4, below. | Please confirm that the reference to Section 3.2.4 within paragraph 3.b.ii should be Section 3.4.5 Teaming Arrangement. | Confirmed, corrected | ||
| 100 | Routine | Attachment 6 Instructions, Section 3.4.1.3 Work Sample Qualifications, Paragraph 3.b.iv | Paragraph 3.b.ii refers to the "Team Structure Format required by section 3.2.4." |
b. Category 2: Subcontractor work samples. In order to be used, the Subcontractor shall:
i. Follow the…
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 .