RFP CRM Questions and Answers 1 (17-Dec-20).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 58 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Integration Support Contract (ISC) 2. 0
- Solicitation number
- FA8207-21-R-0001
About this file
This document outlines requirements for the Integration Support Contract (ISC) 2.0 solicitation. The solicitation seeks proposals to provide Systems Engineering and Integration support for the Minuteman III Weapon System Program Office and the Ground Based Strategic Deterrence Weapon System Program Office. Key requirements include engineering analysis, digital engineering, modeling and simulation support. Proposals are due by the specified date in 2021, and the contract is expected to be awarded on December 21, 2021 to run through June 2040. The work will be performed at government, contractor on-base, and contractor off-base locations as specified in the Labor Quantity Workbook. The incumbent contractor is eligible to compete for follow-on work.
View the file
Other files
Show all 49
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Cat | subject | File | Pg. No. | Para No. | Text Referenced in PWS (If applicable) | Issue/Comment | Question/Request | Government Response | Action Taken |
| Award Fee | Award Fee Plan | At 2 - Award Fee Plan | 15 | Annex 4 | PEA 2 Cost Evaluation Criteria` | Cost evaluation is dependent on the Responsiveness and Quality scores from PEA 1.1 & 1.2. The responsiveness and quality scores affect multiple evaluation areas and don't have any correlation to cost. As presented, if the contractor receives an average score for responsiveness and quality of Very Good, the highest score they can achieve for cost is a Good. | Recommend removing the responsiveness and quality criteria from the cost evaluation. | We understand the concern but the government stands with the decision to keep the award fee plan as is. With the understanding that it is reviewed and can be adjusted every 6 months post award. | Closed |
| CLINs | 1.0 exp date | At 8 - LRM | N/A | N/A | N/A | The period of performance in the Draft CLIN Structure in Attachments 13-17 for Task Orders 1-5 list a start date of 21 Dec 2021. Currently the ISC 1.0 POP expiration date is 31 Jan 2022 with government option to extend the performance period. | Please clarify the assumed ISC 1.0 POP expiration date for the purposes of our ISC 2.0 proposal. | For questions concerning the ISC 1.0 PoP please contact the ISC 1.0 PCO. | Closed |
| Contracts | labor surplus desig. | At 23 - Section L | 24 | 7.5.5.1 | Provide company/division's street address, county, and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; TIN; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. | The labor surplus area designation is not defined in the RFP. Information is available on the DOL website but it is not clear | Is the Government looking for a yes or no answer to the labor surplus area designation requirement? In other words, a specific location either is or is not designated as a labor surplus area? | The government will remove "Labor surplus area designation" from section L. Updates will be reflected in modification to the solicitation. | Updated section L will be provided with amendment to solicitation. |
| Contracts | OCIs | Section H001 | Can the Government confirm that a wholly owned subsidiary of prime or JV partner with an existing and unmitigable OCI can deem the prime or JV offer unawardable? | Refer to the OCI H-Clause. The government intends to enforce the H-clause strictly. An unmitigated OCI at the point of award would render the proposal unawardable. | Closed | ||||
| Contracts | OCIs | Section L | 26 | L 7.5.11 | It is unclear how the Government intends to address sufficiency of an offeror’s OCI avoidance and mitigation plans. | Will the Government confirm its intention to address the sufficiency of an offeror’s OCI avoidance and mitigation plans in discussions and to provide an opportunity to address any weaknesses in the offeror’s OCI avoidance and mitigation plan in a revised proposal submission? | IAW 2.2.1 of Section M, the Government intends to award without discussions IAW FAR Clause 52.215-1; however if discussions are entered into, the Government would use these discussions to address any issues with offeror’s OCI avoidance and mitigation plan. | Closed | |
| Contracts | OCIs | Section L | 26 of 26 | L 7.5.11 | The Offeror shall identify any potential or perceived OCIs existing at the time of proposal submission and shall submit a plan for how those OCI(s) will be resolved/mitigated prior to contract award. Outstanding/unmitigated OCIs at time of contract award will render the proposal ineligible for award. The Government intends to strictly enforce the OCI H-clause. | The broad scope of the OCI restrictions in clause H001 and the requirement to fully avoid or mitigate OCIs prior to award (section L.7.5.11) will likely restrict competition. |
Some potential offerors may not be willing to commit to the OCI restrictions for the period specified in clause H001. Some offerors may not be willing or able to fully implement their OCI avoidance and mitigation plans before the contract is awarded.
| There is ambiguity in some peripheral elements of other support provided to the ICBM Organization in terms of "supplying ICBM Weapon Systems." | Will the Government consider limiting the scope of the restriction specified in clause H001 to exclude services that are not directly related to supplying ICBM Weapons Systems (e.g. facility design and construction services provided under contracts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)? | The government intends to adhere Section L 7.5.11. | Closed | |||||||
| Contracts | OCIs | Section L | 26 | 7.5.11.1 | Is an OCI Plan still required if no perceived or potential OCI exists? | If no perceived or potential OCI exists then no OCI plan is required. | Closed | |||
| Contracts | proposal adequacy checklist | PART IV - REPS & INSTR | ||||||||
| SEC L FAR 252.25-7009 | 59 | Last section/ clause in the doc | (Applicable to solicitations that the submission of certified cost or pricing data) | At the end of the Proposal Adequacy Checklist, there is the following statement “(Applicable to solicitations that the submission of certified cost or pricing data)”. | Please confirm that the statement following the Proposal Adequacy Checklist should read: “(Applicable to solicitations that require the submission of certified cost or pricing data)”, and that offerors do not need to complete the Proposal Adequacy Checklist as the Government anticipates adequate price competition. | The government plans on removing FAR provision 252.215-7009 in amendment 1 of the solicitation. | FAR Provision removed. | |||
| Contracts | proposal adequacy checklist | Solicitation, FA8207-21-R-0001 | 59-62 | N/A | Proposal Adequacy Checklist | Per DFARS 215.408(4) the Proposal Adequacy Checklist should be requested in cases when the submission of certified cost or pricing data is required. | As this is a competitive procurement and certified cost or pricing data is not required, please confirm that offerors are not required to submit a Proposal Adequacy Checklist as a part of their IDIQ proposal submission. If it is required, please update Section L to indicate where it should be placed in the proposal. | The government plans on removing FAR provision 252.215-7009 in amendment 1 of the solicitation. | FAR Provision removed. | |
| Contracts | SB goals | FA820721R0001 (main RFP doc) | 19 | H003 SB Participation | "The Government has set a minimum overall small business subcontracting goal (first-tier) of 15% of Total Contract Value (TCV) (basic and all options combined). Within the SB goal, the socioeconomic goals are as presented below: |
Socioeconomic Goals Categories % Goal Small Business: 15 Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns 5 Women-Owned Small Business Concerns 5 Historically Under-Utilized Business Zone Small Business Concerns 3
| Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns 3 | The baseline for the goals is unclear. Objective is to align the socioeconomic category goals with the DOD statutory goals, which are given in terms of Total Subcontract Value (TSV), not Total Contract Value (TCV). | Will the Customer confirm the socioeconomic category goals (SDB 5%, WOSB 5%, HUBZone 3%, and SDVOSB 3%) are based on Total Subcontract Value (TSV), consistent with the 2020 DoD statutory small business subcontracting goals established by Congress? Recommend correcting the sentence to read: "Within the SB goal, the socioeconomic goals as a percentage of Total Subcontract Value (TSV) are presented as follows:" | The government intends for the Small business subcontracting goal to be 15% of the total contract value. | Closed | ||||||
| Contracts | SB goals | RFP | 19-20 | H003 SB Participation | Table Note: **NOTE: Socioeconomic goals equal to 16% of all Small Business Subcontracts. The remaining 84% of the Small Business goal can be met with any type of Small Business. All Small Business Subcontracts should total 15% of TCV including the basic and all options combined. | Socioeconomic goals equate to 16% of all Small Business Subcontracts. | If a small disadvantaged business qualifies for more than one socioeconomic category (i.e. WOSB & SDVOSB) will the percentage of total contract value count towards both socioeconomic categories or only one? | If a small business qualifies for more than one socioeconomic category then it will count towards all applicable socioeconomic small businesses categories. | Closed | |
| Contracts | SF 1447 | Att 23 - Sec L |
Att 23 - Sec L
FA820721R0001, SF 33 3
1 L.2.1 L.7.2-2.1
| SF 33 | SF 1447 | Sections L.2.1 and L.7 make reference to the SF 1447; however, no such form was provided with the final RFP. Should this reference the SF 33 provided in the solicitation file FA820721R0001 instead? Please clarify. | The government will correct the SF 1447 reference to SF 33 in section L para 2.1 and para 7.0. | Corrected section L and will provide updated document with the solicitation amendment. | ||||||
| cost | dates | Att 8 | NA | Att 8 | Attachment 8 has CY2021-CY2026 | Could the Government clarify the assumed start and end dates for each CY POP in the LRM for pricing purposes? | Yes, the government will clarify the start and end dates for the CY POPs. | Attachment 8 updated and will be submitted with the amendment to the solicitation. | ||
| cost | LCM | Att 9 LCM | Row 309 - Software Engineer - CME | No reference number to what ATO | Please verify this is ATO 4 | The LCM will be updated to reflect that Row 309 - Software Engineer is in ATO 4. | Attachment 9 (LCM) has been updated to reflect the change and will be submitted with the amendment to the solicitation. | |||
| Cost | LCM | Att 9 LCM | Labor Category Mapping, identifies 0.25 CME for a Cyber Security Specialist at the KFS-OffBase location from 2022 through 2027 aligned to ATO1. We believe it should be ATO3 (PADS-CEIU). | Can the government please update Attachment 9 to incorporate 0.25 CME for a Cyber Security Specialist at the KFS-OffBase location from 2022 through 2027 aligned to ATO3? | The LCM will be updated to reflect that Row 219 is in ATO 3. | Attachment 9 (LCM) has been updated to reflect the change and will be submitted with the amendment to the solicitation. | ||||
| Cost | LCM | Att 9 LCM | The specific format of Attachment 9 Labor Category Mapping implies that the response includes Prime and Subcontractor mapping. | Is the mapping to include just Prime mapping or Prime and Subcontractor mapping? | ||||||
| If Subcontractor mapping is required, would the Government permit offerors to add rows to Attachment 9, Labor Category Mapping Workbook, to demonstrate the FTE being allocated to more than one company (e.g. 18 Principal Equipment Specialist will be hired by the Prime and 2 will be allocated to Subcontractor #1)? | Instructions at the top of the spreadsheet allow for the inclusion of the requested prime and subcontractor mapping information. | Closed | ||||||||
| Cost | LCM | Att 9 LCM | Attachment 9, Labor Category Mapping Workbook, appears to require offerors to allocate labor across all teams. Attachment 8, Labor Rate Matrix, does not allow for input or pricing of Teammate Fully-Burdened labor. In fact, the Cost Element Worksheets require Prime Offerors to build from raw salary through COM and then price all hours with the Prime rate. There is no way to blend or incorporate teammate rates without erroneously applying the Prime Offerors’ Fringe Benefits to teammate fully-burdened labor in that case. | Are the rates required in Attachment 9 to include Prime only or a blended rate based on prime/subcontractor allocation? | ||||||
| If the rates are to include blended rates, would the Government allow offerors to incorporate a worksheet that shows the blended rate make-up which would then be used to price all hours? | The instruction in the LRM and the CEWs identify "direct labor" as direct labor cost or direct subcontract cost per hour. In section L para 6.4.1 it states: " The Offeror shall provide priced BOEs for each labor category by year to support the cost and COM amounts in the CEWs." Any blended rate make up should be included in the BOE. | Closed | ||||||||
| cost | LCM/LRM | Att 9 - LCM, tabs Cost Elements-GFS, Cost Elements-KFS-OnB,Cost Elements-KFS-OffB | N/A | N/A | Row 117 (Labor Category #102), column B on each tab shows a labor category of Senior Software Engineer. | Believe the labor category on row 117 should be Senior Software Test Engineer. | Please clarify | The LRM row 117 (LACT 102) should be a Senior Software Test Engineer, not a Senior Software Engineer. The government will correct Attachment 8 to reflect the correct Labor Category (Senior Software Test Engineer) for Row 117. | Attachment 8 has been corrected and will be posted with the amendment to the solicitation. | |
| cost | LRM | Att 8 | Cost Element Worksheet | Within the pricing template, the CEW worksheets are protected, and this prevents an Offeror from completing these worksheets in accordance with their approved financial practices. Specifically, offerors may have more than the four indirect burdens included, requiring insertion of new columns. Additionally, an offerors' rate structure may apply indirect burdens differently to subcontracted costs, requiring separation of direct prime costs from direct subcontractor costs. | Recommend that CEW worksheets be updated to separate subcontractor direct costs, and permit offerors to insert columns to reflect their disclosed practices. | The government will not allow worksheets to be altered. The instruction in the LRM and the CEWs identify "direct labor" as direct labor cost or direct subcontract cost per hour. In section L para 6.4.1 it states: " The Offeror shall provide priced BOEs for each labor category by year to support the cost and COM amounts in the CEWs." Offerors rate structure and indirect burdens should be included in the BOEs. | Closed | |||
| cost | LRM | Att 8 | In regards to the worksheets titled “Award Fee and Indirect Rates” and “Cost Element-GFS, Cost Element-KFS-OnB, Cost Element-KFS-OffB”. The “Award Fee and Indirect Rates” worksheet has space for “O/H” and SUB/MAT. O/H”. The CEW worksheets have a space for “Overhead”. | Can the government update the CEW worksheets to include "SUB/MAT. O/H" ? | The Offeror shall provide priced BOEs for each labor category by year to support the cost and COM amounts in the CEWs." Accordingly, Offerors "SUB/MAT O/H" should be detailed in the BOEs. | Closed | ||||
| cost | LRM | Att 8 | In regards to the worksheets titled “Award Fee and Indirect Rates” and “Cost Element-GFS, Cost Element-KFS-OnB, Cost Element-KFS-OffB”. The “Award Fee and Indirect Rates” worksheet has space for “FCCM”. The CEW worksheets have a space for “COM”. | Can the government confirm that the Award Fee and Indirect Rates” worksheet “FCCM” input is the same as the CEW worksheet “COM” ? | FCCM is Facilities Capital Cost of Money and COM is the Cost of Money which are the same just shorter abbreviations. | Closed | ||||
| cost | LRM | Att 8 | In Attachment 8, the “Award Fee and Indirect Rate” worksheet instructions requires the Offeror to "fill in indirect rates for the first five years." However, the worksheet provides space/columns for six years of data. (CY21 through CY26) | Can the government please confirm that we should populate all years (CY21-CY26)? | ||||||
| The instructions for Attachment 8 Award Fee and Indirect Rate worksheet will be updated to reflect calendar year 2021 - 2026 for rates. | Instructions for these worksheets have been updated. The updated worksheets will be posted with the amendment to the solicitation. | |||||||||
| cost | LRM | Att 8 | In Attachment 8, Cost Element Worksheet “Cost Elements-KFS-OnB” Column K that is titled COM % is not highlighted yellow for CY 2021. All other Option Year columns for COM % are highlighted yellow. | Please confirm that Column K, COM % for CY 2021 should be highlighted yellow and the Offerors is to provide a percentage for this indirect variable. | The government will highlight column K yellow. The offerors are to provide the percentage for this indirect variable. | Attachment 8 has been updated to reflect the changes and will be posted with the amendment to the solicitation. | ||||
| cost | LRM | Att 8 | It appears LCAT 102 should be read “Senior Software Test Engineer” as opposed to "Senior Software Engineer" | |||||||
| It appears LCATS 205 – 208 each should read “Electronics Technician” as opposed to "Electronics Engineer" | Can the government provide an updated Attachment 8 to avoid duplication of Labor Categories? | The LRM row 117 (LACT 102) should be a Senior Software Test Engineer, not a Senior Software Engineer. LCATS 205-208 should be Electronics Technician, not Electronics Engineer. The government will correct attachment 8 to reflect the changes and post it with the amendment to the solicitation. | Changes to Attachment 8 have been completed and the updated attachment will be posted with the amendment to the solicitation. | |||||||
| cost | LRM | Sec L | 19 | 6.4.2 | The Offeror shall show base labor rate with labor mix, a breakout of all indirect rates applied and fee. | We are unclear what is intended by the term “labor mix” in this context. | Please confirm this requirement is to allocate the Attachment 8 hours to Prime and Subcontractor. | Updates to section L paragraph 6.4.2 will be made to clarify that this area is concerned with the offerors labor mix for "each labor category". | Updated section L and it will be included in the amendment to the solicitation. | |
| cost | paper delivery | Atch. 23 Sec L | 4,5 | 3.2.4 | 2 paper copies of Factor 3: Cost/Price | May offerors provide excel spreadsheet information such as Attachment 8 Labor Rate Matrix and Priced BOEs as electronic only? |
The Cost/Price volume will include large amounts of excel spreadsheet data that is most conducive to be viewed electronically only to verify application of excel formulas.
| Electronic submission will also ease the burden of excessive printing that will likely not be reviewed on paper. | The government has updated section L Table 1 to reflect Volume III Factor 3 (Cost/Price) to be submitted in electronic (CD-R / DVD-R) format only. | Updated section L and it will be included in the amendment to the solicitation. | ||||||||
| cost | paper delivery | Att 23 Sec L | 5 (table) | L.3.2.4 | Section L.3.2.4 (table) requires two (2) paper copies of Volume III Factor 3: Cost/Price Volume. the MS Excel workbooks will be in the hundreds if not thousands of pages per copy and the spreadsheets are cumbersome to evaluate in printed format. | Recommend that the Government exclude the MS Excel workbooks from the hardcopy requirement. | The government has updated section L Table 1 to reflect Volume III Factor 3 (Cost/Price) submitted in electronic (CD-R / DVD-R) format only (to include MS Excel workbooks). Updated version will be posted with amendment to the solicitation. | Updated section L table 1 reflect the submission of factor 3 on CD-R /DVD-R. The updated version will be included in amendment to the solicitation. | ||
| cost | sheet protection | Att 8 LRM | NA | CEW | Will the Government unprotect the cost element worksheets so the offerors are able to add additional columns to provide accurate pricing? | |||||
| Additional columns are needed on the 3 cost element worksheets in order for the offeror's indirect rates or transition costs to incorporate the proposed rate structure. | The government will not allow worksheets to be altered. In section L para 6.4.1 it states: " The Offeror shall provide priced BOEs for each labor category by year to support the cost and COM amounts in the CEWs." Accordingly, Offerors indirect rates and transition costs should be included in the BOEs. | Closed | ||||||||
| cost | subktr cost data | Sec L | 20 | 6.7.3 | In the event a major Subcontractor’s contract type is Cost or Time and Material (T&M), the Subcontractor shall submit cost data at the same level of detail as required of the Offeror. | The Government needs visibility into subcontractor costs in order to effectively assess risk, and analyze most probable cost. By specifically delineating applicable subcontract types, it motivates offerors to use alternate subcontract types to avoid this transparency. At a minimum, Labor Hour and Fixed Price Level Of Effort (FPLOE) subcontracts should be included in addition to T&M. |
Also, because the prime contract is cost type, and there is nothing to preclude future changes in subcontract type and scope, it would seem inappropriate to use a firm fixed price subcontract.
| This results in a requirement applicable to all viable subcontract types. | Recommend this requirement be changed to apply to all subcontract types. | The government updated section L paragraph 6.7.3 to reflect "In the event a major Subcontractor's price is not adequately supported by competition or is a cost type contract, the Subcontractor shall submit cost data at the same level of detail as required of the Offeror." | Updated section L and it will be included in the amendment to the solicitation. | |||
| cost | TEP | Att 24 Sec M | 6,9 | 3.5.2, 6.0 | 3.5.2 ...data from the Labor Rate Matrix (LRM) spreadsheet in Section J, Attachment 8 and the ATO CLIN prices used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding… |
6.0 ...data from the Labor Rate Matrix (LRM) spreadsheet in Section J, Attachment 8 and the ATO CLIN prices used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding...
| Confirm that the individual cost element information provided on the Cost Elements tab is not contractually binding and that Task Order performance will be in accordance with standard cost plus contracting (billing at actual costs). | ||||||||||
| Request the Government revise the contractually binding reference to only a limited portion of Attachment 8 and not its entirety (ex LRM-FFP rates, LRM-Base Rates, and proposed award fee %) | The government will update section M paragraph 3.5.2 and 6.0 to "However, rates and award fee percentage from the Labor Rate Matrix (LRM) spreadsheets LRM-FFPRates, LRF-BaseRates, and LRM-AFPoolRates in Section J, Attachment 8 and the ATO CLIN prices used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding...)". These changes are meant to reflect a better understanding of the contractual binding rates. | Updated section M and it will be included in amendment to solicitation. | ||||||||
| Cost | TEP | Att 8 LRM | L-17, TEP Tab | 6.2.3. | TEP Formula shows TEP calculation as sum of ATO costs for periods 1 & 2. | The TEP Tab in Attachment 8 shows the TEP calculation as the sum of the ATO costs for the first ordering period as well as options 1-5. | Is the TEP calculated on the ATO costs over the first 5 years of the contractor only of for all 18 years of the contract? | The TEP tab in attachment 8 will be updated to reflect a clearer picture of the TEP formula. | Updates to attachment 8 completed and will be released through solicitation amendment . | |
| Cost | TEP | Sec L TEP | L-17 | 6.2.3 | in the TEP Formula box, CY is defined as Calendar Year | Based on the periods described, It appears CY is Contract Year | Is CY Calendar Year or Contract Year? | Verified that "CY" is Calendar Year. | Closed | |
| cost | trans costs | Att 23 Sec L | 19 | 6.5 | Offerors shall account for transition costs in the calendar years 2021 and 2022 rate structures. | If the offeror's transition plan was that 100% of direct staff supporting ATOS 1-5 (and each respective TO's PWS requirements) would start on day 1 of transition, then the offerors rate structures for 2021 and 2022 would need to account for those 90 days of cost for the ATO support should the offeror seek to be compensated. | ||||
| Is this statement accurate, or is "transition costs" limited to additional personnel required to execute transition activities such as a transition manager? | This is cost associated with transition above the support for the ATOs and should be factored into rates accordingly. | Closed | ||||||||
| cost | trans costs | Sec L | Page 19 | 6.5.1 | All costs associated with transition shall not be a separately priced CLIN, shall not be priced outside the calendar years 2021 and 2022 pricing, and are not included in the LQW. Offerors shall account for transition costs in the calendar years 2021 and 2022 rate structures. | Will the Government account for incumbent not having Transition Costs as part of rates for the first two years of the contract | The government requested the transition cost be included in the first year to not compound the calculation out through the TEP. It is also anticipated that all offerors will have transition costs at varying levels. | Closed | ||
| cost | wording | Section L | 12 | 5.1.2.3.2 | It is expected that salaries and fringe benefit rates will be disclosed in the labor rates provided in Volume III, Cost/Price. | This paragraph describes only the Governments expectation. | Recommend that this text be changed to: It is required that salaries and fringe benefit rates be disclosed in the labor rates provided in Volume III, Cost/Price. | Updated the portion of section L paragraph 5.1.2.3.2 to read: "It is required that salaries and fringe benefits be included in the labor rates provided in Volume III, Cost/Price." | Update to section L completed and will be released through solicitation amendment. | |
| cost | wording ("skill mix") | Att 23 Sec L | 21 | 6.8.3.4 | Labor Hour Skill Mix |
6.8.3.4.1. The Offeror shall explain how the proposed labor hour skill mix has been derived and how the skill mix on this proposal compares with the overall plant skill mix.
6.8.3.4.2. The Offeror shall also explain why the cost element requires an average, higher, or lower than average skill mix, as applicable.
6.8.3.4.3. The Offeror shall state if the Offeror’s normal estimating system uses a plant-wide average for proposal purposes. The explanation of Estimating methods for labor hour skill mix requested by section L appear non-applicable to this effort considering that the proposed Labor Categories and associated qualifications, hours, and FTEs/CMEs are a Government requirement and are not estimated nor changeable by the offerors. Although offerors can map positions to their own contractor labor categories, they are still beholden to the Government LCAT qualifications and thus are not reflective of any potential change to the Government mandated skill-mix.
| Will the Government remove this requirement? If not, will the Government provide additional details relative to the definition of skill-mix and plant skill mix if it is not the mandated mix of Government LCAT quals and hours/FTEs/CMEs? | Updated section L paragraph 6.8.3.4.1 to clarify that this area is concerned with the offerors labor mix for each contract labor category. | Update to section L completed and will be released through solicitation amendment. | |
| Cost | wording ("skill mix") | Basic PWS |
Sec L p16 p18, 20 4.4
6.2.7, 6.8 "The LQW in Section J Attachment 3 states the Government requirement for quantities (in man-years) of each labor category for the first five (5) Task Orders, along with location and security clearance requirements for each."
6.2 LRM Attachment 8
6.2.7 ATO Worksheets states: "No Offer Input. The “ATO *” worksheets will auto-populate from the “LRM-BaseRates”, LRM-AFPoolRates”, and Government-input ATO hours."
6.8.3.4 Labor Hour Skill Mix.
6.8.3.4.1. The Offeror shall explain how the proposed labor hour skill mix has been derived and how the skill mix on this proposal compares with the overall plant skill mix.
6.8.3.4.2. The Offeror shall also explain why the cost element requires an average, higher, or lower than average skill mix, as applicable. 6.8.3.4.3. The Offeror shall state if the Offeror’s normal estimating system uses a plant-wide average for proposal purposes.” A bidder might gain unfair cost/price advantage for TEP by deviating from the government provided LQW skill mix/levels since it is bir clearly stated in Sec L as a firm requirement.
Basic PWS 4.4 states the LQW are Government Requirement and Sec L 6.2.7 instructs "No Offeror Inputs" (i.e.. changes) to the ATO hours but this is contradicted by Sec L 6.8 Estimating Methodology which asks offerors to explain rationale for their derived labor skill mix and levels.
In earlier CRM we suggested that the section on Estimating Methodology be removed or clarified since the labor mix/levels were changed to ‘government-required’ vs. ‘government-recommended’. This ambiguity invites offerors to deviate from government-defined LQW skill mix/levels. 1. Sec L 6.1 General should add a clear, unambiguous re-statement of Basic PWS 4.4: "Attachment 8 incorporates the Government requirement for quantities (in hours) of each labor category for the first five (5) Task Orders from Sec J Attachment 3 (in man-years). No changes shall be proposed."
| 2. The Government should clarify what they are looking for in Sec L 6.8 Estimating Methodology since staffing levels are IAW government required levels in the LQW and not to be generated by the Offeror. If Sec L 6.8.3.4 is not applicable please delete the requirement. | Updated section L paragraph 6.8.3.4.1 to clarify that this area is concerned with the offerors labor mix for each contract labor category. | Update to section L completed and will be released through solicitation amendment. | ||||||||
| Cost | wording ("skill mix") | Sec L | 21 | 6.8.3.4 | The Labor Hour Skill Mix paragraph, requests the Offeror to explain how the proposed labor hour skill mix has been derived and how it compares with the overall plant mix. Attachment 3, Labor Quantity Workbook defines the Labor Categories, and Level of Effort by ATO and subsection to accomplish the work statements. | Can the government define “plant mix” in the context of this paragraph (6.8.3.4) so that the Offeror can provide the comparison as required? Does the government define “plant mix” as labor categories, levels, and skills required to accomplish the PWS, or does the government define “plant mix” as the Contractor team’s skills and capabilities available to meet the PWS requirements? | Government has removed the plant mix reference from section L paragraph 6.8.3.4. | Closed | ||
| Cost/ CLIN | consistency - LCM/CLIN (years) | Atts 8, 13 – 17 - Draft CLIN Struc for TOs 1-5 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Attachments 8, 13-17 specifies the period of performance as 12/21/2021 – 12/20/2022; 12/21-22 – 12/20/23; …… 12/21/2025 – 12/21/26 | ||||
| Attachment 9, tab “Form Data Mapping Entry” lists the periods as GFY 2022 – GFY 2027 | Please provide clarification on the period of performance for the Base Year, Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 and Option 4 and consistent between the documents. | These are correctly identified in the attachments. Attachment 3 and attachment 9 are based on Government Fiscal Years (FY). Attachment 8 and the CLINs allocate the hours for those quantities into calendar year (CY) hours. | Closed | |||||||
| Cost/ CLIN | consistency - LRM/CLINs (years) | Att 8 LRM | N/A | N/A | N/A | Attachment 8: Lists periods by CY. The period of performance in the Draft CLIN Structure for Task Orders 1-5 list the periods from Dec 20 to Dec 21 of the following year. | Please clarify the period of performance for CY periods listed in Attachment 8. | Period of performance in attachment 8 is 12/21/2021 - 12/20/2026. | Closed | |
| Cost/ CLIN | consistency - LRM/CLINs (years) | Att 8 LRM | The CLIN period of performance for the first year runs from 21 Dec 2021 through 20 Dec 2022; however, the Labor Rate Matrix shows hours by calendar year. | Would the Government please clarify if these should match? | Each CLIN period of performance runs through a part of one calendar year and finishes in the next calendar year. The Labor Rate Matrix captures rates based on calendar year within the basic period. | Closed | ||||
| Cost/ CLIN | consistency - LRM/CLINs (years) | Att 8 LRM, Atts 13-17 Draft CLIN Structure, Section L Vol IV & III | Attachment worksheets | Section L Volume III instructs offerors to complete Attachment 8. It appears that Attachment 8 calculates Rates and ATO cost for periods defined as Calendar Year (CY). Periods are provided for CY2021, CY2022, CY2023, CY2024, CY2025, and CY2026. |
Section L Volume IV instructs offerors to submit proposed CLIN values for the Attachments 13-17 Draft CLIN structures which provides a separate CLIN for each Contract Period and IPT split by FTE and CME labor.
| Because the first contract period dates are 12/21/2021-12/20-2022, there is a twelve (12) calendar day difference between the CY2021+CY2022 and first contract period. | Should offerors provide the Government with a reconciliation between the Attachment 8 Calendar Year periods and the Attachments 13-17 Contract Year periods? Or should offerors use the CY2021+CY2022 as the first Contract Year period for Attachments 13-17? | Government does not find reference in section L Volume IV that requires Offerors to submit proposed CLIN values for the attachments 13 -17 Draft CLIN Structures. | Closed | |||||||
| Cost/ LQW | consistency - LCM/LQW (also, FTE fraction) | Att 3 LQW & Att 9 LCM Workbook | N/A | N/A | N/A | Attachment 3, tab SACCS-R contains 0.5 of FTE labor for a Senior Cyber Security Engineer in 2025, 2026, and 2027. This labor does not appear in Attachment 9, Form Data Mapping Entry tab. | Please clarify | Attachment 3 and attachment 9 will be revised to remove the .5 FTE. | Updates to att 3 and 9 have been made and will posted through an amendment to the solicitation. | |
| Cost/ LQW | consistency - LCM/LQW (also, FTE fraction) | Att 9 | Labor Category Mapping, the total FTEs are different than Att 3 – LQW for GFY 2025, GFY 2026, and GFY 2027. Our analysis identifies that 0.5 of an FTE for the Senior Cyber Security Engineer, KFS-OnBase for ATO3 (SACCS-R) is not captured in Att 9 . | Can the government please update Attachment 9 to reconcile FTE count with Attachment 3? | Attachment 3 and attachment 9 will be revised to remove the .5 FTE. | Updates to att 3 and 9 have been made and will posted through an amendment to the solicitation. | ||||
| cost/ LQW | consistency - LCM/LQW (mapping) | Att 3 LQW & Att 9 LCMW | NA | NA | Atch 9 LCM workbook has a few inconsistencies when compared to the LQW. In att 9: |
-Row 219 should be mapped to ATO3 but is listed as ATO1 -Row 309 is not assigned to an ATO but should be ATO4
| -ATO3 is missing a Senior Cyber Security Engineer; FTE; KFS-OnB; at 0.50 FTE for the periods of GFY 2025, 2026, and 2027. | May offerors revise this file to align to the LQW or will the Government provide an updated version? | The government will update LCM and the LQW accordingly and provide it in the solicitation amendment. | The attachments have been updated and will be provided with amendment to the solicitation. | |||||||
| Cost/ LQW | consistency - LCM/LQW (mapping) | Att 9 LCM, tab Form Data Mapping Entry | N/A | N/A | N/A | Row 219: The ATO value is "1" which does not align with the labor quantity for this position in the Labor Quantity Workbook. | ||||
| Row 309: The ATO value is blank. | Please clarify | Attachment 9 is being revised. Row 219 will be "3". Row 309 will be "4". This will align to the LQW. | Attachment has been updated and will be submitted with amendment to the solicitation. | |||||||
| Cost/ LQW | consistency - LRM/LQW | Att 4 | Labor Categories | In Attachment 4 there are 215 LCATs listed, plus a TBD listed. LCAT number "TBD" is listed as a Security Specialist. | Can the government update the Cost Element Worksheet in Attachment 8 to include pricing for the Security Specialist labor category and provide an LCAT description? | Labor Categories 214 - 217 are contingency Labor Categories. Qualifications will be detailed and rates will be negotiated if/when the categories are required during the contract PoP. | Closed | |||
| cost/ LQW | consistency - LRM/LQW (years) | Att 3 | NA | Att 3 | All worksheets have an additional year, 2027 | The LQW contains 6 full periods/years of performance (2022-2027). While the LRM covers CY2021-2026, it only has partial hours in CY 2021 and 2027 effectively pricing each ATO at 5 years. | ||||
| Will the Government clarify if it is seeking an additional year of pricing by providing 6 periods of FTE/CME data in the LQW or if the intent is to still price the ATOs at an effective period of 5 years? | The government is not seeking an additional year of pricing. The attachments reflect the pricing as: Attachment 8 LRM is Calendar year CY2021 - CY2026 and attachment 3 LQW fiscal year FY2022 - FY2027. The calendar years will be partial years of performance therefore requiring rates for those years. | Closed | ||||||||
| cost/ LQW | consistency - LRM/LQW (years) | Att 3 and Att 8 | Att 3, LQW and Att 8, LRM | The number of FTE/CME are not equal in all years. They are off by approximately 5 or less FTE/CME. | Can the government confirm that hours outlined in Attachment 8 take precedence in cases where there is a disconnect with Attachment 3? | Hours match it is just a the difference in the fiscal year vs. calendar year in the LRM and the LQW. | Closed | |||
| cost/ LQW | consistency - LRM/LQW (hours) | Att 3 LQW & Att 8 LRM | NA | NA | The mandatory hours provided in the LRM do not match up 100% to the FTE/CME figures provided in the LQW for each ATO. |
As an example: for ATO1 CY 2022 the LRM has a total of 41,486 KFS-OnB hours which is 22.07 FTE/CME on a basis of 1880 hours. The LQW totals to 16.75 FTE/CME for that period and site.
These type of inconsistencies occur across all ATOs and in multiple CYs.
| Will the Government revise the LRM to align to the LQW or provide rationale for the discrepancies? | Hours match it is just a the difference in the fiscal year vs. calendar year in the LRM and the LQW. | Closed | ||||||||
| Cost/ LQW | consistency - LRM/LQW (hours) | Att 8 LRM | Government populated hours within the LRM do not match the LQW quantities from Attachment 3. | Should offerors assume using the LQW as the basis for their indirect rates and labor rate development for various locations and clearance premiums since that data is the LQW and not contained in the LRM? | The issue/comment stated was concerned with the hours in the LRM and the LQW. These hours do match overall, but the difference of the fiscal year vs. calendar year in the LRM and the LQW make them appear differently. Therefore the offerors should follow section L when completing these worksheets. | Closed | ||||
| Cost/ LQW | consistency - LRM/LQW (hours) | Att 3 LQW & Att 8 LRM | N/A | 2 | N/A | Staffing levels for certain labor categories do not appear to align between the Labor Quantity Workbook (LQW) and Labor Rate Matrix (LRM) files. |
For example, the Senior Equipment Specialist estimate is 67 FTE for all ATOs in years 2022 – 2026 in the LQW. The same labor category in the LRM file has 128,028 hours in 2021 – 2026 which equates to 68.1 FTE.
Another example is the Senior Program Manager which has 73.4 FTE for all ATOs in years 2022 – 2026 in the LQW while the LRM has 140,308 hours which equates to 74.6 FTE.
| We understand that one file uses calendar year and the other uses contract year, but the offset is 9 calendar days so it would seem the staffing numbers would be nearly the same between the two. | Hours match it is just the difference in the fiscal year vs. calendar year between the LRM and the LQW. | Closed | ||||||||
| Cost/ LQW | consistency - LRM/LQW (SME) | Att 8 LRM | The LRM does not contain Labor Categories 213-215 that are defined in Attachment 4 - Labor Categories and Qualifications | Would the Government clarify if offerors are required to price Labor Categories 213-215 (SME III, SME II, SME I)? | No, the offerors are not required to price categories 213 - 215. | Closed | ||||
| Cost/ LQW | consistency - LRM/LQW (SME) | Att 4 | Labor Categories | In Attachment 4 there are 215 LCATs listed, plus a TBD listed. LCATs 213, 214, and 215 are SME Level I, II, and III. These are new LCATs and are not listed in Attachment 8 for the Offeror to provide a rate. | Can the government update the Cost Element Worksheet in Attachment 8 to include pricing for the Subject Matter Expert (SME) labor categories or provide guidance to where pricing for these 3 LCATS should go. | No, the offerors are not required to price categories 213 - 215. | Closed | |||
| Cost/ LQW | consistency - LRM/LQW (years) | Att 3 LQW | N/A | N/A | N/A | Attachment 3: Lists periods by year 2022-2027. The period of performance in the Draft CLIN Structure for Task Orders 1-5 list the periods from Dec 20 to Dec 21 of the following year. | Please clarify the period of performance for yearly periods listed in Attachment 3. | Attachment 3 is based on government fiscal year (GFY). | Updates will be made and attachment 3 will be posted with amendment to solicitation. | |
| Cost/ LQW | consistency - LRM/LQW (years) | Att 8 LRM | The periods of performance on Attachment 8, Labor Rate Matrix and Attachment 3, LQW, do not match. One shows CY2021 – CY2026 and the other shows CY2022 – CY2027. | Would the Government please clarify which period of performance is correct? | Attachment 8 LRM is Calendar year CY2021 - CY2026 and attachment 3 LQW fiscal year FY2022 - FY2027. | Updates to the LQW will be made and posted with amendment to solicitation. | ||||
| F1 | additional information | ATO1 PWS | 31 of 42 | ATO1 9.5.14; | ||||||
| 9.5.14.1 | 9.5.14 The Contractor shall support the Launch Analysis Group (LAG) (Reference AFGSCI 99-102, Intercontinental Ballistic Missile [ICBM] Operational Test and Evaluation [OT&E]) in determining the root cause of a mission anomaly. | |||||||||
| 9.5.14.1. The Contractor shall interpret and provide telemetry data and any other data to both the safety and accident investigation board President (Reference AFI 91-204_AFGSC Supplement (AFGSCSUP), Safety Investigations and Reports, and AFMAN 91-221_AFGSCSUP, Weapons Safety Investigations and Reports). | The PWS does not reference publication date, and Bidder's Library does not contain the latest version of cited documents. | Will the Government please include the documents referenced in ATO1 9.5.14 and 9.5.14.1 in the bidder's library to ensure all offerors are referencing the correct publication date and version? |
Additionally, will the Government please clarify whether AFI 91-204_AFGSCSUP is entitled "Safety Investigations and Reports" or whether the title is "Safety Investigations and Hazard Reporting" (AFI 91-204_AFGSCSUP, 5 Aug 2019, Change 1, 30 Sept 2020)? The most recent versions of these three documents are available to the public via the AF Pubs & Forms website, therefore they are not included in the Bidder's Library. The ISC 2.0 Basic PWS requires the Contractor to always use the most recent version of all publications unless specifically directed otherwise.
AFI 91-204_AFGSCSUP is titled "Safety Investigations and Reports" on the menu of the AF Pub & Forms site. When the document is opened, the title is "Safety Investigations and Hazard Reporting"
| Closed | ||||||||||
| F1 | additional information | ATO5 (GBSD) | 20 | 4.3.1 | The Contractor shall support both MBSE and the development of the digital environment currently in work. | Please provide I diagram that describes the specifics of the ongoing digital environment development to enable the Offeror to accurately and adequately address the Government Requirements. | The government does not have a diagram to describe the specific ongoing digital environment development available. The government will provide further data upon award of the contract for performance in this area. | Closed | ||
| F1 | additional information | Section L | 9 of 26 | L 4.1.1 | 4.1.1. Engineering analysis processes outlining the approach used for root cause determination (e.g. root cause analysis, data mining, information integration, describing Work Breakdown Structure interrelationships, etc.) | If the Government has an authoritative policy or procedure that governs Engineering Analysis or Root Cause Analysis, specifically for the ICBM community, will the Government please place that document in the Bidder's Library? | The government does not have an ICBM specific policy governing Engineering Analysis or Root Cause Analysis. These are general engineering practices with a huge range of widely available associated literature, methods and techniques. | Closed | ||
| F1 | application | Sec L Dig Eng | 10 | 4.3 | The Offeror shall describe a Digital Engineering approach that addresses use of digital engineering tools and processes to support a Government acquisition program. (ATO5 PWS 4.3. and 4.6.) | Seems to imply that Sub-Factor 3 (Digital Engineering) is exclusive to GBSD (ATO5 PWS 4.3, 4.6) | Please clarify if the Digital Engineering approach is exclusively relevant to GBSD (ATO PWS 4.3. and 4.6.) | The proposed approach should be applicable to both weapon systems. The stated references are directed to the approach for digital engineering and could be for an acquisition for either weapon system. | Closed | |
| F1 | tech factor | Section L | 9 of 26 | L 4.0 | The offerors shall describe their proposed technical capability and approach, including their solutions and processes, to the situations and requirements given in the subfactors. The proposal shall provide enough detail to demonstrate the Offeror’s technical capability, experience or expertise, and understanding of ISC 2.0 requirements. | The Final RFP made a change from the previous draft language that stated: "The proposal shall focus on processes and not on specific solutions to any situations given in the Subfactors. The proposal shall provide enough detail to demonstrate the Offeror’s technical capability, experience or expertise, and understanding of ISC 2.0 requirements." | The Government's language change from "focus on process and not on a specific solutions" in the DRFP (2 Oct 2020) to "capability and approach, including their solutions and processes, to the situations and requirements…" appears to shift towards specific solutions applied to the current weapon systems as they exist today. | |||
| Will the Government please clarify/describe how the change from "approach and process" to "capability and solutions" changes your expectations of an offeror's Factor 1 response? | The government changes from draft to the final RFP clarify the governments intent/expectation. As stated in paragraph 4.0 the government is looking for the offerors to provide their technical capability and approaches, including solutions and processes, to the situations or requirements given in the subfactors in the technical Factor 1 (i.e. Subfactor 1, 2, 3). | Closed | ||||||||
| F1 | additional information | Section L | 10 | 4.1.2 | Digital engineering data processing and analysis tools used in the approach, and anticipated data deliverables | The referenced section requests identification of data processing and analysis tools used in the approach to the defined anomaly investigation. | Please identify any digital engineering tools currently in-use by the incumbent ISC 1.0 contractor to enable Offerors to accurately and adequately address the Government Requirements. | The ICBM digital environment continues to evolve. Offerors should suggest tools and processes necessary to illustrate their approach in this scenario. A non-exhaustive summary of commercial engineering software currently used by the MMIII and GBSD is provided and will be added to the Bidder's Library. The Document is identified as: "Commercial Software Tools.docs.docs. File" and it is located in the Bidder's Library. | Closed | |
| F1 | additional information | Section L | 10 of 26 | L 4.1.2 | 4.1.2. Digital engineering data processing and analysis tools used in the approach, and anticipated data deliverables | Various and often incompatible tools and processes can be employed to achieve the goals of Digital Engineering. Additionally, according to multiple public statements, the Air Force describes GBSD digital engineering success which implies that some decisions about DE tools and processes have already been made. | Would the Government please provide more specificity on the Digital Engineering tools and processes it currently uses in support of GBSD and MMIII so that offerors can ensure they propose compatible solutions without duplicating or reinventing solutions the Government already has in place? | The ICBM digital environment continues to evolve. Offerors should suggest tools and processes necessary to illustrate their approach in this scenario. A non-exhaustive summary of commercial engineering software currently used by the MMIII and GBSD is provided and will be added to the Bidder's Library. The Document is identified as: "Commercial Software Tools.docs.docs. File" and it is located in the Bidder's Library. | Closed | |
| F1 | additional information | ATO5 PWS | 20 | ATO5 4.3 | 4.3 Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), supported by robust Digital Engineering capabilities, facilitates the Government’s ability to Own the Technical Baseline (OTTB) and is a key pillar of the GBSD acquisition strategy. MBSE tools and architectural models reside and are used in a Government-owned digital environment, deployed to both cloud and on-premises secure networks. | Non-incumbent offerors lack proper context to understand the extent of Digital Engineering capabilities available. This may lead to false assumptions that lead to increased risk or weaknesses in an offeror's evaluation. | Will the Government please consider adding additional information that describes the current GBSD Digital Engineering systems and processes to the Bidder's Library? Specifically, will the Government update the file "Systems used by ISCBMSD 3.0.xlsx" in the Bidder's Library to comprehensively and explicitly identify any application/tool that is a component of the existing GBSD Digital Engineering System? | The file referenced in the offeror’s question is meant to give a general idea of what systems we use today. It is not meant to be an exhaustive list. Software tools change often; it would be impossible to keep such a list up to date. The Government realizes that the offerors do not have a complete list of software and tools currently in use. For this reason, Section L requires offerors to propose their approach to digital engineering. The government is looking for offerors to explain what processes and tools the offerors use for digital engineering in their company. | Closed |
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 .