GSSC_2.0_Answers_to_Industry_Questions.pdf
PDF 59 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ICBM Ground Subsystem Support Contract (GSSC) 2. 0 Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8204-19-R-0001
About this file
This document provides answers to industry questions regarding a draft request for proposal for the ICBM Ground Subsystem Support Contract 2.0 opportunity. The answers clarify that subfactors two through six under the technical factor will each receive individual ratings rather than being combined, and that proposed labor rates should be mapped to the government's predefined labor categories. When multiple contractor categories map to one government category, an evaluation methodology is defined. The document also updates budget tables and statements of work to reflect scope changes and normal sustainment levels for the opportunity.
Answers to Industry Questions
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
ICBM Ground Subsystem Support Contract (GSSC) 2. 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
GSSC 2.0
Answers to Industry Questions to Draft RFP #4 Posted 7 March 2019
1) H.004 – Labor Rate Adjustment Clause – If, after the contractor submitted its actual and projected cost data as required in the clause, the projected cost data is outside 5% of the Labor Rate Matrix on contract, the Government would make a determination on whether making an adjustment to the rate(s) in question would be in the best interest of the Government. If it is determined in the Government’s best interest, the Government would perform a fair and reasonable analysis of the proposed updated rates and provide a negotiation position to the contractor. These negotiated rates are what would then be incorporated into the contract in the form of an updated Labor Rate Matrix.
2) The General Sustainment budget in Table 1 of Section L is based on the past 15 plus years of actuals and was not updated for this draft.
3) The GMATS budget in Table 1 of Section L was updated to reflect a normal level of sustainment for years 1 through 3. The increase in years 4 through 6 reflects possible tech refresh efforts and the remaining years reflect a return to normal sustainment activities.
4) Some of the scope that was in the Codes PWS was moved to the IOSSP PWS. The rest of the work that was in the Codes PWS is within scope of General Sustainment. The IOSSP budget in Table 1 of Section L has been updated to include the incorporated Codes scope of work.
5) Subfactors two-six will not be rolled up into a combined rating. Subfactor one is significantly more important than subfactors two-six. Subfactors two-six will receive their own individual adjectival and risk rating. Subfactor two-six ratings are approximately equal in importance in relation to each other.
6) Section L, paragraph 3.9.5 – Direct Labor & Indirect Labor Rates, has been updated to provide instructions to offerors if an FPRA has not been negotiated with the ACO by the time of proposal submittal.
7) Per Section L, paragraph 3.10.1, it is the offeror's responsibility to map proposed labor categories in Section J, Attachment 8 to the Government defined labor categories provided in Section J, Attachment 7. The Government will use the rate of the offeror's labor category that is mapped to the Government's defined labor category when applying to notional hours. If multiple offeror labor categories are mapped to a single Government-defined labor category, the methodology as described in Section M, Paragraph 3.7.2 will be used. The “etc.” in instruction #6 of the Direct Labor Rates Tab in the TEP Matrix Section, J Attachment 14 includes any projected rates from the company’s cost estimating system.
8) Section M, Paragraph 3.7.2 has been updated to clarify that notional hours will be applied to both the offeror’s and/or subcontractor rates.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .