DS_TAT_RFP_Qs As-PostedtoFBO24Jul13.xls
XLS spreadsheet 106 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ESG DS TATs
- Solicitation number
- FA8075-13-R-0001
About this file
DS TATs RFP Q A
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| ppi_tool.accdb | — | |
| Amendment_02.doc | DOC document | |
| DS_TAT_RFP_5Qs As-PostedtoFBO27Jun13.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| DS_TATs_RFP_Amendment1_PostedtoFBO.doc | DOC document | |
| FA8075-13-R-0001_Section_J_Attachments_25Jun13.doc | DOC document | |
| DS_TATs_RFP_25Jun2013.doc | DOC document | |
| DS_TATs_Draft_RFP_QA_Final_19Jun13.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| DS_TATs_Draft_RFP_QA_Final_2May13.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Notice_FedbizOpps_S_B_Director.doc | DOC document | |
| Draft_RFP_Section_J_Attachments.zip | ZIP file | |
| DS-TATs_PreSolicitation-Final.doc | DOC document | |
| DS_TATs_Draft_RFP_Q A.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| DS_TATs_Draft_RFP_19Feb13.doc | DOC document | |
| PreSolicitation_Notice.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 14
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
DS TAT RFP Q&A
| DS TATs RFP Questions & Answers | Posted first 5 Questions To FBO: 27 June 2013 | |||
| # | Solicitation Section | Question/Comment | Response | |
| 1 | Section L, L4.2.6 | Question 1 of the draft RFP Q&A posted to FedBizOpps asked: If an Offeror has an IDIQ contract that is not formally assessed at either the TO or IDIQ level, but is able to provide a single point of contact who can verify its performance record for the entire IDIQ, can the contract be cited at the IDIQ level? At the time the Government answered with: We will evaluate it as long as it meets recency and relevancy criteria. | The RFP takes precedence over the Questions and Answers; therefore use the RFP. Specifically Section L4.2.6 of the RFP states: "In instances in which performance is not assessed at either level Offerors shall submit past performance information at the delivery/task order level." Amendment 1 of the RFP has added 7 days to Past Performance Volume II due date. | |
| 2 | Section L, L1.2 | RFP states Volume II Past Performance is due 4:00 PM CST 30 calendar days after RFP release. Should we include the release date in the 30 calendar days (due July 24) or exclude it (due July 25)? Please clarify. | Past Performance is Due 25 July 2013. Amendment 1 of the RFP has added 7 days to the Past Performance Volume II due date and they are now due no later than 4:00pm Central Time on 1 August 2013. | |
| 3 | Section L, L2.2.2 | Hard copies of the report pages generated by the PPI Tool are required to be placed in our Past Performance Volume for submittal. Because these reports are generated by the PPI Tool (in PDF format), Offerors will not be able to format text, margins, spacing, or add headers/footers with page numbering (the PPI Tool automatically page numbers the reports). Because the PPI Tool report dictates the format, Offerors will be unable to comply with the formatting/page numbering/marking requirements in Section L2.2.2. | ||
| Will the report pages generated by the PPI Tool be excluded from the page count since Offerors are unable to change the output from the PPI Tool? | Yes. The EZ Source Past Performance Information (PPI) tool outputs are excluded from the formatting specifications of Section L. See Amendment 1 to the RFP for this change. | |||
| 4 | Section L, L1.2 | We wanted to make you aware that Offeror’s responses to the “Brief Description of Effort” field will have some words that are not visible in the hard copy print out. The PPI Tool will print the heading for the “Contract Dollar Value:” field in the middle of the discussion for the “Brief Description of Effort” field (see sample below, this is a screenshot of the actual PDF report based on a dummy record): Our understanding is the PPI Tool is created by a contractor and that, like Offerors, the Contracting Office can’t modify the PPI Tool or how the reports are generated. The Government’s evaluation team will be able to see the full text in the actual Access database file. | That is correct. The Past Performance Information (PPI) tool can not be modified or changed by the Contracting Office. The Government's evaluation team will be able to see the full text in the actual Access database file when evaluated in the electronic source selection tool. | |
| 5 | Section L, L1.2 | There are two reports generated by the PPI Tool: 1) Past Performance Information (PPI) Business Relationships Report (PPI tool report) and 2) Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheets (PPI tool report). The RFP instructions for L4.2.2 only take into account the PPI Sheet Report, allowing 50 pages (10 references with 5 page max each). The Business Relationships Report is not listed. Recommend revising L4.2.2 organization as follows to accommodate the additional required report: | Added the following in amendment 1 of the RFP: Past Performance Information Business Relationships (PPI |
tool report) No page limit
| DS TATs RFP Questions & Answers | Posted Questions 6 - 78 To FBO: 24 Jul 2013 | |||
| 6 | Section L, L4.2.6 | The final DS TAT RFP indicates that “.. Past Performance on ID/IQ type contracts shall be submitted at the delivery/task order level, unless performance is only assessed for the ID/IQ contract as a whole.” Allowing for the submission of ID/IQ past performance contracts enables an offeror to demonstrate larger scope coverage (i.e., cover multiple technical scope and performance areas) with a single contract candidate. It also allows the government to get more complete and accurate performance on an IDIQ comparable in terms of complexity and broad scope to DS TAT. Additionally, it enables the offerer to demonstrate relevancy (i.e., size) and ability to manage an ID/IQ contract including subcontractors. In most instances when responding to an RFP for an ID/IQ contract, Offerors are required, allowed, or encouraged to submit Past Performance contracts that demonstrate their ability to manage an ID/IQ contract. Typically Offerors provide a mix of Past Performance examples that demonstrate both technical capability as well as an ability to manage a large, complex, ID/IQ contract. Recent examples of such RFPs include: • GSA One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS), DTRA Combating WMD R&D IDIQ, Navy SeaPort-E, Army CECOM Rapid Response Third Generation (R2-3G), Army RDECOM Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives (CBRNE) Program Mission Support Contract, Army RDECOM Technical Information Engineering Services (TIES), and DHS Technical, Acquisition and Business Support Services (TABSS) | ||
| Recommend the following change be amended to the final RFP: Page 94, L4.2.6, Past performance on ID/IQ type contracts shall be submitted at the delivery/task order level or the ID/IQ level when it is not formally evaluated at either level. | The Government is rescinding our answer to Question 1 of the Questions and Answers posted to FedBizOpps on 27 June 2013. Amendment 2 will change the language in Section L4.2.6 in the middle of the paragraph to read "Past performance may be submitted at the IDIQ contract level or delivery/task order level, each submission will be counted as one contract." Amendment 2 of the RFP has added an additional 15 days to Past Performance Volume II due date. The Past Performance Volume is now due on the same date as the other Volumes, 16 August 2013 by 4:00 pm central time. | |||
| 7 | Section M, M3.2.3.1 | This section states "The Government will evaluate all relevancy factors in aggregate." Question: Can you please explain how the Government will aggregate the Past Performance relevancy factors? For example, will scope and complexity hold more weight than dollar value? | Section M3.2.3.1 provides an example. One area does not hold more weight than the other. The Government will evaluate all relevancy factors in aggregate. | |
| 8 | Section L, L4.2.9 | L4.2.9 states “…a consent letter, similar to that included as an Attachment in Section L, should be completed by each subcontractor/teaming partner/joint venture partners identified in your proposal.” Does the Government want a letter from each teammate on the team or only those providing Past Performance references? | At a minimum, Consent Letters shall be submitted for subcontractors where past performance references have been identified. However, offerors are welcome to submit additional Consent Letters for Subcontractors/Teaming Partners/Joint Venture Partners. | |
| 9 | RFP Amendment 1 | The revised RFP changed content of the Past Performance Volume for the UNRESTRICTED FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION POOL to include the Past Performance Information Business Relationships (PPI tool report). This amendment did not change the content for the PARTIAL SMALL BUSINESS (SB) SET-ASIDES COMPETITION POOLS. Does the Government want the SB proposals to contain Past Performance Information Business Relationship (PPI tool report)? | Yes. See Amendment 02, Section L4.2.2. | |
| 10 | Section L, L3.1 General | Can the Government clarify. Is the "Approach to meeting small business subcontracting goals" requirement a subset of Subfactor 3 or is this information required of Small Businesses as well as Large Businesses? | Subfactor 3 - Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Businesses (LBs) only). Only Large Businesses will be evaluated for this Subfactor. See Section M3.1.3 Subfactor 3 - Small Business Subcontracting Plan For other than Small Businesses. | |
| 11 | Attachment J-9, Sample TAT 2 | Directed Energy, Paragraph 5.0, Government Furnished Equipment, Property, and/or Data: The Sample TAT PWS states that Government machine shop/fabrication equipment will be provided. Will Government machinists also be available, or will the contractor need to provide these resources? | No, the Government will not furnish labor, all personnel must be provided by the contractor. | |
| 12 | Attachment J-9, Sample TAT 2 | Directed Energy, Paragraph 11.0, Personnel Qualifications, sub paragraph 2. This paragraph references “the security clearance requirements stated under paragraph 2.0.” Should the security clearance reference be to paragraph 6.0? | Yes, this will be corrected in an amendment. | |
| 13 | Attachment J-11 Sample TAT 4 | RMQSI: It is not clear to this offeror if the scope of support requirements for TAT #4 is intended to pertain to the entire fleet of Utility Helicopters (both UH-72A and UH-60) managed by the UHPMO or just the UH-60 fleet. Our view is that the TAT wording supports the interpretation that the entire UH fleet is intended to be supported because: a. The last sentence of the "Background" paragraph includes the wording "...modernizing and extending the extending the life of the UH fleet" seems to indicate that the UH-72A, as one of the two aircraft designs that comprise the UHPMO's fleet, is part of the effort. b. The first sentence in the "Objective" paragraph states "...implement mitigation strategies required to sustain the reliability, maintainability and safety of the Army's fleet of UHs". Would the Government clarify if the scope of Sample TAT 4 is for the entire fleet of utility helicopters managed by the UHPMO or just the UH-60 fleet? | Yes, the scope covers the entire fleet of utility helicopters managed by the UHPMO. | |
| 14 | Attachment J-11, Sample TAT 4 | RMQSI: In a separate but related issue, the first sentence in the "Objective" paragraph goes on to state "... and common engines used in all H-60 variants in sister services, other government agencies (OGA), foreign military sales H-60 series aircraft, and the U.S. Army Apache attack helicopter." This would seem to indicate that the scope of effort is intended to involve every version of the GE T700 engine used in U.S. Army Apaches (T701) as well as any variant of the Blackhawk (UH-60A, UH-60L, UH-60M, etc.) assigned to any branch of the U.S. Military, all OGAs, or sold through the FMS system. Would the Government clarify if the scope of Sample TAT 4 includes every version of the T700 engine used in the Apache as well as Blackhawk variants? | Yes. | |
| 15 | Sample TAT #4, Section 3.3 (Task 3) | Will the analysis tasking address performing specialty engineering and logistic analysis on the existing (legacy) equipment, the proposed redesign, or both? | As stated, tasks cover legacy equipment as well as proposed redesigned equipment. | |
| 16 | Sample TAT #4, Section 3.3 (Task 3), subparagraph 3.3.2 | The analysis methods listed under Systems Engineering/Analysis lists FMECA, but under Deliverables (Section 4.5) it refers to the analysis report as FMEA. Which is desired? | The intent was to require FMECA analyses. The Sample TAT PWS will be corrected by amendment to remove references to FMEA and replace them with FMECA. | |
| 17 | J-11_SampleTAT4_RMQSI (Page 4-5) | Para 3.5.1 describes the requirement for design changes which may result in new hardware being recommended for approval at CDR. Para 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 describe the requirement for various testing. Are para 3.5.1 and 3.5.2/3.5.3 tied together as in testing outlined in 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 are only performed as in conjunction with the contractor given approval to implement changes in 3.5.1? or Are the requirements in 3.5.2/3.5.3 independent of 3.5.1 and pertain to other systems on the Utility Helicopters? | They are tied together -- subparagraphs 3.5.1 through 3.5.3 are all subtasks under task 3.5 and, as stated, activities performed under 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 relate to the proposed design changes made under subtask 3.5.1. | |
| 18 | J-11_SampleTAT4_RMQSI (Page 12) | Deliverable 4.13 ISID - Due date indicates 30 days after analysis completion. Does the analysis completion refer to the analyses created in Task 3 and Task 4? If so, this does not allow adequate time to design a solution as recommended for Deliverable 4.12, conduct ODR, PDR, TBR and CDR. Please clarify which analysis completion this due date is referring to. | When the ACOR directs the contractor to prepare the ISID deliverable, the ACOR will communicate the required timeframe for the contractor to complete the analysis necessary to generate the ISID deliverable. The ISID report will be due 30 days after the contractor's completion of the ISID-related analysis. The Sample TAT PWS will be amended to clarify this. | |
| 19 | J-11_SampleTAT4_RMQSI (Page 4) | Para 3.3.8 System/Safety/Risk Assessment indicates a safety analysis is to be conducted on the proposed design. No deliverable is defend with this task. Does the client want a safety report deliverable? | No, documentation of the System/Safety/Risk Assessment shall be captured under Deliverable 4.12. The Sample TAT is amended to clarify this. | |
| 20 | L2.2.2, L4.2.2 | Amendment 1 specified that PPI tool outputs are excluded from the formatting specifications of L2.2.2, since the offerors cannot change the output. However, the page count was not addressed in L4.2.2. Since the tool reports are in a larger font than Times New Roman 10 font and the final RFP added requirements, has the page count increased to 6? For example, our electronic tool inputs are 5 pgs in Times New Roman 10 font but the tool print out report is 6 pgs in Tahoma font. | No, Offerors are limited to the Maximum Page Limits identified in L4.2.1 and L4.2.2. | |
| 21 | Attachment J-6 | The Assumption # 8- Fixed Fee in Attachment J-6 is in conflict with information on Page 97 about fee being applied to ODCs and materials. Please clarify. | Amendment 2 changed the J-6 DS_TATs_Cost_ Price_Model Tab "Directions" #8 Assumption now states "Fixed Fee is not applied to ODCs Materials." | |
| 22 | Sample TATS 1-4 (J-8, J-9, J-10, and J-11), Section 12.1 | The RFP states all work shall be completed within 36 months of task order award. The TAT period consists of a one year base period and two, one-year options. For pricing purposes, what date should be assumed for the start date of the period of performance? | As stated in the RFP Cost Model, Attachment J-6, under the worksheets for individual Sample TATs, offerors should assume a start date of 1 April 2014 for all Sample TATs. | |
| 23 | C1.4.2.6 Non-Lethal Weapons | Reference Department of Defense DIRECTIVE number 3000.03E dated April 25, 2013, Subject: DOD executive Agent for Non-lethal Weapons (NLW) and NLW Policy, Paragraph 2. APPLICABILITY. This directive: |
b. Does not apply to;
(1) Information operations, cyber operations, or other military capability not explicitly designed and primarily employed to incapacitate personnel or materiel immediately, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury, and undesirable damage to property, facilities, materiel, and the environment, even though they have those effects to some extent. Information operations are covered in DoDD 3600.01 (Reference (c)).
4. In that DOD Directive 3000.003 dated May 2, 2013 specifically states that Military Information Support Operations, as defined in DODD 3600.01 Paragraph 3. POLICY, subparagraph b. are information-related activities that intersect the traditional means of electronic warfare, cyberspace operations, military information support operations (MISO), military deception (MILDEC) influence activities, operations security, (OPSEC), and intelligence, MISO is not defined as a Non-lethal weapon.
| Based on the DOD Directives defining Non-lethal Weapons and Information Operations, we respectfully requests that Military Information Operations be excluded from the 7 subject areas of Scientific and Technical Information for Non-lethal Weapons to be addressed in this proposal. | MISO is within the scope of the DS TATs contract. See amendment 2 which re-titles the Non-Lethal Weapons technical focus area to "Non-Lethal Weapons and Information Operations" throughout the RFP and clarifies the focus area description. | ||||
| 24 | L4.2.6 Past Performance Information | Would the Government consider a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) contract as non-IDIQ given that its specific purpose is “for the acquisition of basic and applied research…for scientific study and experimentation directed toward advancing the state-of-the-art or increasing knowledge or understanding” (FAR 35.016(a)), and its size is comparably smaller than a typical IDIQ contract? | No. | BL | |
| 25 | L4.2.6 Past Performance Information | This section still references “Past Performance Information Sheets” versus “Past Performance Information Tool”. Please clarify if the use of the term “Sheets” is meant to be “Tool”. | Past Performance Information Sheets are the output as a result of inputting data into the Past Performance Information Tool. | ||
| 26 | L4.2.6.1 Past Performance Information | For electronic submission, does the Government want 11 matrices (10 for contracts and 1 aggregate) in one Excel file with separate worksheets/tabs? For hard copy submission, does the Government want these 11 matrices (10 contracts and 1 aggregate) to be submitted as one section? If so, where should this section be? Or Does the Government want each matrix to be part of the Past Performance Information Sheet (printed from the PPI Tool)? If so, would the matrix count towards the 5-page limit? Where should the 11th matrix - aggregate matrix be? | Yes one section as an excel file with separate worksheets/tabs. If an Offeror adds the matrices to the Past Performance Information Sheet, it will NOT count towards your 5 page limit. However an Offeror decides to include the data it will not count towards the page limits. | ||
| 27 | L4.2.8 Alternate Past Performance Assessment Forms | Per this requirement, the alternate evaluation methods should be noted on the Past Performance Information Sheet, but the Past Performance Information Tool has no place for submitting/including this information. In addition, Section L4.2.2 indicates that there is no page limit for this section. Does the Government mean that the Alternate Past Performance Assessment Forms requirement is a separate section, to be placed after the Past Performance Information Sheets, with no page limits? | Section L4.2.8 requires only that you note your alternate past performance with the contract number, phone number and email address of the individual that can be contacted to obtain this past performance information. There is no specific spot for this information. Offerors can add that information on their sheets where it is appropriate to them. If an Offeror provides an Alternate Past Performance Assessment this can be included with no page limits. | ||
| 28 | J-8_SAMPLETAT1_ADVANCED MATERIALS | Section “3.0 TASKS”, is the same title as section “4.0 TASKS”. What should the correct name for each section be? | This is an error and will be corrected by amendment 2. | ||
| 29 | J-11_SAMPLETAT4_RMQSI.DOCX SECTION 6.0 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS | Section 6.0 states, “The work on this TAT is anticipated to have classification level up to SECRET. All contractor personnel performing on this TAT who will utilize the Government furnished workstation shall possess at least a SECRET clearance before being provided a network account and CAC card.” Is the access to this Government furnished work station specifically for access to PowerLOG-J? If not, would the Government please provide a list and description of all the intended uses of this workstation by the contractor? | No, it is not just for the purpose of accessing PowerLOG-J. Contractor personnel utilizing Government workstations may need access to other government automated information systems (AIS), databases and materials. The Requiring Activity has determined that contractor personnel may be required to perform work at the Government site in order to facilitate communication and coordination of tasks with the Government. | ||
| 30 | J-11_SAMPLETAT4_RMQSI.DOCX SECTION 10.0 TRAVEL | The following material requirements are specified, “The contractor is authorized to incur and bill expenses related to briefing material preparation and parts required to perform the tasks herein, including (for example), motor assemblies, valves, tanks, tubes, hoses, clamps, fasteners and brackets. The contractor will be granted authorization to procure parts through the DoD supply system when required per applicable MIL-SPECS or standards cited herein.” Please specify what tasking requires the contractor to procure parts as the PWS neither specifies prototype builds or similar builds beyond identifying Design Solution recommendations within Section 3.5.1, nor does it specify development or procurement of test assets within Section 3.5.3. | This is for the contractor to decide. The referenced language enables the contractor to utilize government supply sources for acquiring any briefing materials or parts/supplies it determines it requires in order to perform the PWS tasks, subject to approval by the Government ACOR. | ||
| 31 | J-11_SAMPLETAT4_RMQSI.DOCX SECTION 11.0 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS | It is unclear why all personnel performing this TAT need to possess 8 years of experience with RCM for DoD aircraft, when Reliability Centered Maintenance itself is not a requirement identified within the PWS tasking? It is our contention, based upon nearly 4 decades of experience, that the tasks within the TAT, exclusive of the design and test tasks, can be accomplished by individuals who have Reliability and Maintainability expertise. We also assert that a mix of staff members who have varying years of experience less than 8 years in duration but who are led by a PM with at least 8 years of Reliability and Maintainability expertise provides the proper blend of talent to cost-effectively execute this TAT. We therefore request that the Government re-state its personnel qualifications as follows: Proposal Manager- Bachelor of Science in any relevant field of engineering (aeronautical, logistics, mechanical, or systems), 8 years of experience in Reliability and Maintainability for DoDD aircraft, and eight years of experience working in DoDD aircraft life cycle management | The Government anticipates that successful performance of the TAT, in particular tasks 3.3 and 3.7, may require one or more contractor personnel to possess knowledge of reliability centered maintenance (RCM). Although RCM is not specifically named as a "requirement" of the PWS, it could be relevant to the contractor's analysis of maintenance problems and practices. The personnel qualification years of experience were reduced and changed the personnel requirements for Sample TAT4 RMQSI. See amendment 2 for the changes. | ||
| 32 | J-11_SAMPLETAT4_RMQSI.DOCX SECTION 11.0 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS | Per the personnel qualifications statement “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in any relevant field of engineering (aeronautical, logistics, mechanical, or systems)” can other related Bachelor of Science degrees in the field of Math or Science be acceptable? | No. | ||
| 33 | Section B, Supplies and Services CLIN 0004, Extension of Services. Is it possible to add clarity to: 1.) THE NUMBERING FOR CLIN 0004 – 0004AF AND | ||||
| 2.) THE TITLE FOR CLIN 0004 | 1.) Since CLIN 0004 is an optional CLIN for Option 4/Year 5 of the contract is it possible to rename CLIN 0004 to 4004 and 0004AA – 0004AF to CLINS 4004AA – 4004AF and move them accordingly to the correct location in the B Tables? 2.) The title for CLIN 0004 reads "Extension of Services". In order to further clarify "Services" and for consistency would it be possible to rename the CLIN, "Extension of Services-IDIQ-Level Program Management Support" as referenced in Section M3.3.1? | This is an error. There is no Table B-1. This statement at "**" in Section J will be removed by amendment. The Attachment J-6 DS TATs Cost/Price Model will be removed at time of award. | |||
| 34 | ATTACHMENT J-6 - WORKSHEET "RMQSI CLIN 0003" and "GRAND TOTAL" | The worksheet refers to RMQSI as being part of CLIN 0003 but the “Grand Total” worksheet refers to it as CLIN 0002 on Row 103. Which is correct? | Amendment 2 will change the "Grand Total" worksheet row 103 to: RMQSI CLIN 0003 (CPFF for Full & Open). | ||
| 35 | Attachment J-6 – Worksheet “BENEFIT SUMMARY” | If a contractor is proposing more than one fringe pool should this worksheet be copied over and completed for each fringe pool? | The J-6 DS_TATs_Cost_Price_Model allows up to 6 fringe pools. 4 for Client (Government) Site and 2 for Contractor Site. You would use the column "Your Cost Center #" in the tab "Loading Factors". The Cost Center numbers are then used in the corresponding tabs "Adv Materials CLIN 0002", Directed Entergy CLIN 0002", Survivability_Vulnera CLIN 0002", and RMQSI CLIN 0003". This was done in this way to allow for multiple indirect cost pools. | ||
| 36 | Attachment J-6 – Worksheet “BENEFIT SUMMARY” | In cells C7 and C8 it states “See Attached Salary Data sheet”. Is this a sheet you want prepared that corresponds to the pricing for the TATs or do you want the data that appears in the compensation plan? If neither of the above what is the Government looking for here? Where would you like the data to be “attached”? | If an Offeror does not need to attach further supplemental data to explain their Salaries and Salary Supporting Data for their employee compensation plan then use cells C7 and C8 to explain and if you need to attach a salary data sheet or other supplemental data then please do so. | ||
| 37 | Attachment J-6 – Worksheet “GRAND TOTAL” | The following amounts are provided in Section L5.4.3 for Sample TAT 4: Material: Include an amount of $100,000 per year for a total of $300,000 for material costs. Travel: Include an amount of $25,000 per year for a total of $75,000 for travel costs. Can you verify that in Attachment J-6 worksheet “Grand Total”, rows 23 and 28 are reversed? The title for Row 23 is Travel ODC and shows a number of $100,000 and Row 28 Material/Equipment ODC shows $25,000. | Rows 23 and 28 dollar amounts are reversed as indicated in the question. Amendment 2 will correct this. | ||
| 38 | ATTACHMENT J-6 - WORKSHEET "LOADING FACTORS" | If a contractor does not have one or more of the other loading factors shown on rows 28 and 29 may they change the name to a loading factor that they do have and if applicable the burdening of the other loading factor? | Yes. Per the directions ensure you explain changes to the pricing model in the highlighted green area of the "Loading Factors" tab. | ||
| 39 | ATTACHMENT J-6 - WORKSHEET "DIRECTED ENERGY" | Please refer to cell E45 which references cell E10. Please verify that the cell reference should be E14 In cell E45. | Should reference cell E15. Amendment 2 will correct this. | ||
| 40 | ATTACHMENT J-6 - WORKSHEET "GRAND TOTAL" | Can the Government please verify the formulas in Columns C, E and G for rows 39, 97 and 135. There appears to be a double-counting of ODC’s. For example: C39 refers to the sum of rows 22, 27 and 34. By pointing to cell C34 it causes the travel to be double counted. Verify the formulas for E51 and G53. For example in E51 the reference is to I631, and the reference should be to I63. | Yes. Amendment 2 will correct this. | ||
| 41 | SECTION M3.3.1 | Total evaluated cost/price will be the Offeror's Most Probable Cost, based on the sum of the pricing for CLIN X001 for IDIQ-Level Program Management Support, CLINs 0002 and 0003 for sample TAT pricing and CLIN 0004XX for Extension of Services-IDIQ-Level PM Spt and taking into account any adjustments made for cost realism purposes. Since the B-Table descriptions and Max Quantity for CLINs 0002 and 0003 referenced above do not match what is being priced in Attachment J-6, would the Government consider changing the definition to be ….based on the sum of the of the pricing for CLIN X001 for IDIQ-Level Program Management Support, plus the total value of the priced sample TAT’s and CLIN 0004XX for Extension of Services-IDIQ-Level PM Spt? Furthermore, at the end of the list of documents, exhibits and other attachments in Section J it states "** Only the worksheet called “Table B-1” will remain as part of the contract award and will be included in Section B as Table B-1. The rest of the workbook for The DS TATs Cost/Price Table will be removed when the contract is awarded." Is this included in error? When the Government refers to DS TATs Cost/Price Table is this the same as Attachment J-6, the Excel file which is named DS TATs Cost/Price Model? If not, what does DS TATs Cost/Price Table refer to? | They CLINs and J-6 DS TATs Cost Price Table match now and the Table B-1 referred to in Section J has been removed. Amendment 2 corrected the Section J-6 DS TATs Cost Price Table. | ||
| 42 | ATTACHMENT J-6 - WORKSHEET "GRAND TOTAL" | The spreadsheet is designed to calculate the grand total summary for both Full and Open and SB Set Aside bidders. Should a bidder “zero” out the grand total summary that is not applicable to them (i.e. a LB would “zero out” the areas indicated for the SB set-aside Offerors) or just submit the template as prepared which will provide the Government with one set of numbers not relevant to the bidder's submittal? | Large Businesses (LBs) are required to bid on all 4 Sample TATs. Therefore a LBs would not "zero out" any areas. The "Grand Total" page allows us to evaluate cost equally for any Offeror no matter what competition pool they are bidding on. | ||
| 43 | ATTACHMENT J-6 - WORKSHEET "GRAND TOTAL" | In the three sections that calculate the SB Set Aside grand total summary, it appears as if the IDIQ level Program Management Costs may be double counted. Both the grand total summaries for advanced material and directed energy each include values from row 3 in their Total Proposed Price therefore resulting in the management costs be included twice in the Grand Total Cells B,C and D 176. Can the Government confirm if this is correct and, if so, will the Government be providing an updated model or provide direction to fix the formulas? | Yes. Amendment 2 corrected Section J-6 DS TATs Cost Price Table. | ||
| 44 | ATTACHMENT J-6 - WORKSHEET "GRAND TOTAL" | In cells A 145, 154, 163 and 172 it references “CLIN X001 IDIQ-Level Program Management Support (FFP)”. This does not appear to be a proper description for the Grand Total Summaries. For clarity, would the Government consider naming cell A145 to read “GRAND TOTAL PRICE FOR CLIN X001, CLIN 0004, AND PRICED SAMPLE TASKS”, cell A154 to read “ADVANCED MATERIAL CLIN 0002 R&D”, cell A163 to read, “DIRECTED ENERGY CLIN 0002 R&D”, cell A172 to read GRAND TOTAL PRICE – SMALL BUSINESS SET ASIDE” FOR CLIN X001, CLIN 0004 AND PRICED SAMPLE TASKS | Yes for clarity. Amendment 2 corrected Section J-6 DS TATs Cost Price Table. | ||
| 45 | Section L, L4.2.6 | Will the Government accept Cooperative Agreements (CAs) between educational institutions and Federal Government customers as Past Performance references if the CAs were awarded to provide RDT&E services under which the Government retained all rights of ownership to the services' products? Several of our team members are from academia, and they bring significant capabilities across the DS TATs focus areas; however, much of their work was performed under CAs instead of traditional contracts. | Yes. | ||
| 46 | Section M, M3.1.3 | “Page 123, Section M3.1.3 Subfactor 3 states “It is anticipated that Offerors will be able to achieve small business subcontracting plan of at least 9% for year 1, 11% for years 2 and 3, and 13% for years 4 and 5 (as measured annually at the IDIQ contract level as a percentage of total dollars obligated on TATs awarded.). It is also anticipated that Offerors will be able to achieve subcontracting goals of at least : 3% for Veteran-Owned Small business (VOSB), 3% for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small business (SDVOSB), 5% for Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), 5% for Women Owned Small business (WOSB), and 3% for Historically Underutilized Business (HUB Zone). The Government has provided graduated SB utilization percentage targets of 9%, 11%, and 13% over the 5 year period of performance. However, there wasn’t a graduated percentage for individual socio-economic sub-categories over the 5 year period. Please provide additional guidance on the Government’s anticipated SB sub-category percentages for each year of the 5 year period. Also, will the offeror's performance against the S-E category percentages be evaluated annually as well, or only for the entire period of performance of the contract?” | The socio-economic sub-categories percentages are set. Per Section H.7 "The contractor’s progress in achieving their subcontracting plan shall be assessed annually on the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)." | ||
| 47 | L2.0 PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS | In reading the proposal instruction, there is no reference to include resumes of key personnel within the Sample TAT. Does the Government require the proposer to include resumes of key personnel and if so would they count against the total page count? | No. The Government does not require resumes for the 4 Sample TATs. Reference Section L3.3.1 for personnel requirements. | ||
| 48 | RFP Section 1.7.2. Personnel & Facility Security Qualifications; Paragraph c and Attachment J-8 Section 6.0 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS (page 8) | The Government states in RFP Section 1.7.2 that “The contractor shall be required to provide employees who already possess the appropriate security clearance level for all task orders. The planned utilization of non-U.S. Citizens in task order performance must be identified by name and country of citizenship in the task order proposal.” However the Government states within Attachment J-8 that “Contractor personnel performing this task shall possess, at the start of the TAT, a minimum DoD Secret clearance. See the contract DD254 Contract Security Classification Specification.” These requirements appear to be in conflict. Are we permitted to use personnel on the task orders that do not have a security clearance if the work is unclassified? | The statements do not conflict. As stated at RFP 1.7.2. individual TATs will specify personnel clearance requirements (if any) applicable to the TAT. Clearance requirements may apply on orders where the work is unclassified and may be applicable to all personnel who will perform the order, or only some positions. Regardless of whether a TAT specifies personnel security clearance requirements or not, for all TATS "the planned utilization of non-U.S. citizens in task order performance must be identified... in the task order proposal". For Sample TAT #1, personnel clearance requirements apply to all personnel who will perform on the order, as stated in the TAT PWS. For that Sample TAT, non-U.S. citizens cannot be utilized. | ||
| 49 | RFP Section L1.7 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS | The Government states that “Each Task Order (TO) awarded containing security classification requirements will have a DoD Contract Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254 completed and incorporated into the resulting TO.” Can the Government please supply the Sample TAT DD254 to ensure that our proposal complies with any specific Sample TAT security requirements? | Sample DD254s for the sample TATs have not been created and therefore there are no specific DD254 requirements for which an offeror's Sample TAT proposal will be evaluated. Offerors must demonstrate their ability to perform in accordance with the security requirements of the Sample TAT PWS. | ||
| 50 | Section J, CDRL Listing | Please clarify the CDRL numbering. Section J, exhibit A, has A001 as the Final Technical Report, however the text of sample task 3 has it as CDRL A007. Also in the sample task 3 texts there is a reference to the SNIM Contract as CDRL A006. Exhibit A calls the CDRL TAT Specific Deliverables | These CDRL reference numbering errors and reference to SNIM in all affected TATs are corrected in the amendment. | ||
| 51 | Attachment L-3 | The RFP (Cover Letter) requires Past Performance Questionnaires to be returned to dsiactat@offutt.af.mil. Section L4.2.7 (page 95) requires that Past Performance Questionnaires be submitted to the Contracting Officer at dsiactat@offutt.af.mil, but also with a copy to both Mr. Stanley Stearns and John Lower Please clarify if Mr. Stearns and Mr. Lower require copies. | Yes per RFP Section L4.2.7. | ||
| 52 | General Question | Is it acceptable to the government for Small Business Offerors submitting in both set-aside topic areas of Advanced Materials and Directed Energy Weapons to submit two entirely separate proposals (e.g. a separate proposal for Advanced Materials and a second separate proposal for Directed Energy weapons, or would the government prefer both submissions together, as implied? | Together as listed in Section L2.1. | ||
| 53 | PWS 1.3.2 RDT&E Services, 1.3.3 A&AS Services | When providing services and cost information under the sample TAT examples, do we need to supply CLIN information for RDT&E and A&AS under each sample TAT? | No, the determination of whether the Sample TAT is to be priced under the RDT&E CLIN or A&AS CLIN has been determined by the Government. Offerors should price the Sample TATs in accordance with the instructions in the Attachment J-6 Cost Model. | ||
| 54 | PWS Section 2 Services Summary | Service Summary Table 2-1: The service summary table defines the Performance Measure for PWS paragraphs 1.5.1-1.5.2, and 1.7. However, PWS paragraph 1.6 - General Information/Administration - is not listed in the Service Summary Table. Was this an omission, or does the Government not apply a Performance Measure for PWS paragraph 1.6? | PWS Section 1.6 does not have an established performance measure. | ||
| 55 | L.4.2.5 PAST PERFORMANCE SUMMARY: | This summary shall describe the role and efforts to be performed by the Prime Offeror and each subcontractor/teaming partner/joint venture partner for which past performance information is provided. There is some confusion about “describe the role and efforts to be performed” within the context of a “Past Performance” input – one implies future, one implies past. Does the Government mean “…role and efforts that have been performed” instead of “to be performed” and we may not know the information until tasks are competed? Would the Government please clarify what information you are hoping to receive within the 5 pages of Past Performance Summary? | Per Section L4.2.5 "This summary shall describe the role and efforts to be performed by the Prime Offeror and each subcontractor/teaming partner/joint venture partner for which past performance information is provided." The Offeror should have knowledge of their subcontractors potential role and efforts that they intend using them on even if it is not for the 4 sample TATs. | ||
| 56 | Section L. | The past performance information tool in Attachment L-1 directs that the Offerors must use the PPI tool. The PPI tool does not accept graphics into the data base tables. Is it the intent of the government for the Offerors to only provide text in the past performance information sheets? | Yes. | ||
| 57 | Section L5.1- | This section refers to attachment J-6 called “DS TATs Cost/Price Table” whereas the Section J Attachment 6 provided is a spreadsheet with a filename of J-6_DS_TATs_Cost_Price_Model.xls. Is the DS TATs Cost/Price Table the same thing as the spreadsheet file J-6_DS_TATs_Cost_Price_Model.xls, or are these separate and distinct items? If they are separate and distinct, please clarify the distinction between the two. | They are one in the same. Amendment 2 will ensure that Section J attachment 6 is named the exact same way. | amend | |
| 58 | Section J, J-6 cost price table- | The Grand Totals tab states a period of performance (POP) for the DS TATs contract to start 1 April 2014 - 31 March 2015. Is this POP for CLIN x002 accurate for the Base Year? | Yes. | ||
| 59 | L.5.2 MANAGEMENT REPORTING | What type of activities should be included in CLIN 001? There was a reference on page 2 indicating this CLIN is for non-personal services. Further clarification would be helpful. | Yes CLIN 0001 IDIQ-Level Program Management Support is described in Section B and in the last two sentences of Section L5.2. Additionally please refer to the PWS and CDRLs. | ||
| 60 | L.5.2 MANAGEMENT REPORTING and L.5.3 CLINS 0002, 0003, and 0004XX | What is meant by the sentence “The OFFEROR shall not include a Section B?” Please indicate where Section B should be included in the proposal, or should it be excluded entirely from the proposal? | Section L5.2 states "The Offeror shall not include a Section B. The J-6 DS TATs Cost/Price Table will serve as the pricing for competition." Section L5.3 states "Prior to the actual award the Government will specify an amount for CLINS 0002 and 0003 that will be the same for each awardee within each competition pool. The amount proposed for CLINs X001 and 0004XX and amounts established by the Government at the time of award for CLINs 0002 and 0003 will establish the maximum ceiling value for each awarded contract." | ||
| 61 | L.5.4.3 MATERIALS AND HANDLING: Sample TAT 1 | Do the contractors need to supply detail to the materials of $100,000 per year? Do the contractors need to supply detail to the travel of $25,000 per year? | For purposes of the cost proposals, the Government does not require material or travel detail. | ||
| 62 | Section L, L5.6 | Section L.5.6 states that Offeror shall include a letter from a bank or financial institution providing the Offeror an “available line of credit for a minimum of $2 million”. Does this mean that the Offeror simply has to have a $2 million line of credit in place, or does the Offeror have to have a full $2 million of “available credit” on the line of credit? | Section L5.6 states The Offeror shall include a line of credit as acceptable evidence to the Contracting Officer that the Offeror has sufficient financial resources to obtain and maintain..." Acceptable evidence would include a line of credit in place. | ||
| 63 | Section L, L5.3 | The L5.3 statement regarding the value awarded for CLIN 0004 (“ prior to the actual award, the Government will specify an amount for CLINS 0002, 0003 and 0004 that will be the same for each awardee”) differs from Section B (“the amount proposed for CLINs X001and 0004 and amounts established by the Government at the time of award for CLINs 0002 and 0003 will establish the maximum ceiling value for each awarded contract”). Can the Government clarify how the award amount of CLIN 0004 will be determined? | Section L5.3 states "Prior to the actual award the Government will specify an amount for CLINS 0002 and 0003 that will be the same for each awardee within each competition pool. The amount proposed for CLINs X001 and 0004XX and amounts established by the Government at the time of award for CLINs 0002 and 0003 will establish the maximum ceiling value for each awarded contract." This does not differ from section B. CLIN 0004 will be determined by the Offeror. Keep in mind per section L5.2 CLINS X001 and 0004XX shall not exceed a total of $33,000 for all five years plus the 6 month extension of services. | ||
| 64 | CDRL A008 | Offeror requests clarification on all TATs for Section 4.0- Deliverables/Reporting Requirements. There is no paragraph 1.5.2.9 as referenced in the TAT’s Section 4.0 – Deliverables/Reporting Requirements. Offeror believes that reference should read: “Redacted TAT; refer to DS TATs Contract, Section C, Paragraph 1.5.2.7, Contract CDRL A008”. Please confirm. | This was a conflict in the Draft RFP and was corrected in the RFP. Reference for CDRL A008 is PWS paragraph 1.5.2.7. | ||
| 65 | Section C, PWS. 1.4.2 Technical Focus Areas and Section M3.1.1.4 subfactor 1d | PWS sections [1.4.2.3, 1.4.2.5, 1.4.2.6, 1.4.2.8, 1.4.2.9] conflicts with Section M3.1.1.4 subfactor 1d with reference to the experience and capability in the number of STI subject areas/technologies. For example: PWS 1.4.2.3 Military Sensing states “the contractor shall have technical familiarity to work with these nine STI subject areas”; M3.1.1.4 Subfactor 1d – Experience/Capability - Military Sensing: The requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates experience and capability in at least three of the nine technologies enumerated in PWS 1.4.2.3. Offeror requests clarification as to which reference is applicable. | There is no conflict. Language in the PWS establishes the scope of the DS TATs contract. For each technical focus area, the PWS lists examples of the technologies that fall under that focus area (for example, there are nine listed for Military Sensing). Task Orders may be issued for services that fall within the scope of each focus area (or combination thereof). Section M serves the purpose of setting forth the criteria by which the Government will evaluate the proposal technical volume for acceptability. To be rated acceptable under the Technical Subfactor 1.d, Experience/Capability for a given focus area, offerors must demonstrate experience and capability in at least the stated number of topics for that focus area (for example, three of the nine in the case of Military Sensing). | ||
| 66 | Attachment J-9, Sample TAT 2, Para 6.0 and 12.2 | Offeror requests clarification for the TEMPEST qualified SCIF as referenced by TEMPEST qualified data processing equipment being employed as required. Section 12.2 of the TAT states "All work shall be accomplished at AFRL, Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, NM." Does this mean that the SCIF will be provided by AFRL? Or, does this mean that the performer shall maintain a SCIF for supporting research and equipment that may be done by personnel at home station? | The SCIF will be provided by AFRL. Paragraph 6.0 is amended to clarify that the contractor personnel shall utilize (not employ) TEMPEST shielded devices at AFRL, as required. | ||
| 67 | General Question | If an Offeror is a wholly-owned subsidiary, will the Government authorize Offeror to utilize past performance of other divisions (legal entities) for submission of relevant past performance in Volume II – Past Performance? | Yes, if wholly owned. | BL | |
| 68 | Section L, L5.4.4 | L.5.4.4 Subcontracts states: Any subcontractors that are accomplishing more than 10% of the total cost for each proposed Sample TAT will submit either through the Prime in a sealed envelope or individually by each subcontractor directly to the Government, their cost and pricing information in the format provided for in Section J, J-6 DS TATs Cost/Price Table. Question: Do subcontractors need to submit this information in hard copy and CD ROM? | Yes if they are more than 10% of the total cost for each proposed Sample TAT. In regards to subcontracting If an Offeror is not performing at least 30% of the work please refer to Section I clauses 52.215-22 and 52.215-23. | ||
| 69 | Section L, L5.4.6 | Are Subcontractors who are accomplishing more than 10% of the total cost for each Sample TAT required to submit a Compensation Plan, in addition to attachment J-6 DS TATs Cost/Price Table? | No. | ||
| 70 | Section L, L4.2.2 | In answers to questions dated 27 June 2013, #3, the government acknowledged that the Past Performance Information Tool does not allow any formatting by the Offeror. They said that “the EZ Source Past Performance Information (PPI) tool outputs are excluded from the formatting specifications of Section L. See Amendment 1 to the RFP for this change.” However, the conformed RFP as a result of Amendment 1 still restricts the page count for the Past Performance Information Sheets (PPI tool report) to 50 pages (10 references with 5 pages max each). Will the government exclude the PPIS produced from the Tool from the 50 page (10 references with 5 pages max each) restriction? | The information identified in Amendment 01 is correct. The contract writing system has been updated to reflect this in Amendment 02. | ||
| 71 | Section L, L2.2.2 | With respect to the Past Performance Information Tool, in the Print Reports mode (Step #3), the "Contract Dollar Value" heading overwrites some of the "Brief Description of Effort as:" so that some of the description is lost. Also the contract value data is printed after the description, disconnected from the "Contract Dollar Value" heading. In an example, the "Contract Dollar Value" heading overwrote "XYZ Joint Program Office (JP" , so that the sentence reads: "In this latest task order (TO) supporting the XYZ Program, we provide A&AS support of R&D to the O) in its efforts to ensure that the weapon system manufacturers meet Government requirements to successfully produce the XYZ." rather than "In this latest task order (TO) supporting the XYZ Program, we provide A&AS support of R&D to the XYZ Joint Program Office (JPO) in its efforts to ensure that the weapon system manufacturers meet Government requirements to successfully produce the XYZ," thereby making the sentence meaningless. Can the Government provide a workaround or update the tool to correct this issue? | A software update during the week of 8 July has resolved this issue. | ||
| 72 | Section L, L2.2.2 | In the Past Performance Information Tool, there is no District of Columbia (DC) selection in the State pull-down menu in the automated PP tool for Government POCs (page 3). The state must be selected or the tool will not allow entry of any of the data (selecting OK will not function). Can the Government add "DC" to the State menu or should offerors select MD or VA while indicating Washington, DC in the City window? | Offeror should select MD in the drop down menu. |
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 .