FA8224-20-R-0009 Draft RFP QA Matrix 30APR2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 49 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ATSSI II Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8224-20-R-0009
About this file
This document summarizes questions and answers related to a draft request for proposal for the ATSSI II Services contract. The solicitation involves sustainment services for automated test systems and seeks proposals for a multiple award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract with a base period of performance from April 2022 to April 2028 and four six-month option periods extending to April 2030. Services will include systems engineering, software and hardware maintenance, logistics support, and program management. The Air Force Sustainment Center is the issuing agency. Questions covered key details in the performance work statement, contract documentation requirements, evaluation criteria, cost templates, and sample task order statements of objectives.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 30
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
Basic PWS
| AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT INITIATIVE II (ATSSI II) Rev.17 April 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | PWS 3.7.1.1.7 | The CDRL for the Monthly Status report is listed, but the requirement for an MSR is not referenced specifically in the text. It appears as though this CDRL would be more appropriately tied to paragraph 3.1.1.1.6. | PWS paragraph 3.7.1.1.7 Configuration Management (CM) Support requires CDRL A/B/C/D026 Monthly Status Report. This CDRL appears to fit better with PWS 3.7.1.1.1.6 Tracking Activities. Would the Government clarify if CDRL A/B/C/D026 should be listed in PWS 3.7.1.1.1.6 rather than PWS 3.7.1.1.1.7? |
The PWS was revised. MSR was removed from PWS 3.7.1.1.7 and added to PWS 3.7.1.1.1.6.
| 2 | PWS 3.1.3.10 | Engineering Drawings | PWS 3.1.3.10 states "The Contractor shall prepare and deliver updated documents according to the guidelines and specifications identified by the relevant stakeholders for the system. The Government will provide stakeholder requirements at least 90 days prior to needed delivery dates." Can the Government clarify if these stakeholder requirements will be identified at the TO level in the TO SOO so those requirements can be accounted for as part of the RFP response? | Most requirements for engineering drawings will fit with the standards specified within the PWS. There may be some requirements from stakeholders that would be involved that may not be known at the time of submitting the SOO, such as offices for Distribution Statements and some other specific requirements. For these requirements we will let the Contractor know within 90 days of delivery. If any unidentified requests are made, allowances will be made to account for the discrepancies not identified in the SOO. The Contractor will not be held to attempted changes by Government stakeholders that are not identified in a timely manner to allow for proper consideration by the Contractor. There will be no request for changes outside of the scope of the task order. |
| 3 | PWS 3.3 | ATE/TPS Sustainment Facility (ATSF) | Paragraph 3.3 of the PWS covers the ATE/TPS Sustainment Facility (ATSF). Would the Government clarify if all scope of work in the Section 3.3 subparagraphs is intended to be work performed only at the ATSF? | All the requirements identified in Section 3.3 are intended to be performed at the ATSF, however, there may be some requirements that will need to be preformed outside of the ATSF. These requirements will be identified at the task order level. |
| 4 | PWS 3.3.4.5 | "The Contractor shall provide laboratory facilities, …" | In PWS paragraph 3.3 the Government requires the contractor to set up the ATSF located at Hill AFB. PWS paragraph 3.3.4.5 Software Maintenance Facility states "The contractor shall provide laboratory facilities, test equipment ..." Can the Government clarify if the Software Maintenance Facility is part of the ATSF located at Hill AFB or if this is a separate facility provided by the contractor at the contractor's site? | The Software Maintenance Facility is part of the ATSF at Hill AFB. To improve clarity, PWS 3.3.4.5 has been changed to "Software Maintenance Capability" and verbiage revised from "laboratory facilities" to "laboratory capabilities." |
| 5 | PWS 3.5.1.1 | SISP Requirements | PWS paragraph 3.5.1.1 SISP Requirements states "The Contractor shall provide these replacements services in a timely manner…" Would the Government clarify if "timely manner" is defined as the "48 hours" identified in PWS paragraph 3.5.1? If not, can the Government define "timely manner" as it is used in paragraph 3.5.1.1? | PWS 3.5.1 and 3.5.1.1 have been revised. "...timely manner" has been removed and changed to "..within the timeframe negotiated to the time of task order award." |
| 6 | PWS 3.6.9 | Real Time Customer Information | PWS paragraph 3.6.9 states the contractor needs to ensure "real time status updates for various stakeholders." Would the Government provide a definition of real time such as the frequency of data update that needs to be provided? | In the context of PWS 3.6.9, "real time" implies as data items are delivered to the Government, these data items are also uploaded into the Program Management Software for the Government to view on the same day. |
| 7 | PWS 3.7 | The PWS 3.7 heading indicates that all the activities in 3.7.1-3.7.2.3 are "On-site Engineering/Logistics Support". However, many of the requirements in 3.7.1 are inherent functions within other ATSSI requirements spanning contractor and Government facilities (SW Maintenance, Technical and Program Management Inputs, SW Program Documentation and Hardware Upgrades, and Configuration Management). Only the requirements under 3.7.2 appear to be exclusively "On-Site Support." | Does the Government intend for all 3.7 requirements to be performed exclusively on site? If not, would the Government change the title of PWS 3.7 to Logistics Support and On-Site Engineering? | PWS 3.7 covers activities that will be exclusively "On-Site" |
| 8 | PWS 3.8.2 | IUID Application - "Contractor shall replace damaged markings, identification and decals" | PWS paragraph 3.8.2 states "The Contractor shall replace damaged markings, identification and decals." Would the Government clarify if this requirement applies only during the warranty period? | |
| IUID is required for all delivered items under the IDIQ and the Contractor shall be responsible to replace damaged markings, identification, and decals for any defects identified in the acceptance process or any workmanship issues found as defined in section 3.1.2.5.3.1. In addition, the Government may require the replacement of existing IUIDs that are damaged, etc., and those will be identified in individual task orders. PWS 3.8.2 verbiage revised to clarify. | ||||
| 9 | PWS 7.6.3 | Quality Control Plan | PWS paragraph 7.6.3 states "The Contractor shall provide this QCP to the COR as specified in the TO". Would the Government clarify if the QCP is intended to be an ATSII II program plan or if a separate QCP is required with each TO? | QCP is intended as an ATSII II program plan. Any adjustment required for the QCP will be done at the task order level. Added requirement of delivery to 7.6.3 at initial task order. Added requirement to task 1 SOO. |
| 10 | PWS 7.8.2 | Hardware Deliverables | 1st Question: PWS paragraph 7.8.2 states "Inspection and acceptance shall be at Source for all Contractor provided ATE, TPS, SE, PME, LRU, SRU and SERD deliverables under this effort...." PWS paragraph 3.1.2.5.2 states that Milestone 6 TPS Acceptance Test will be conducted at "Government facility in the respective UUT Maintenance shop..." These two requirements appear to conflict. Would the Government clarify the planned location for inspection and acceptance? |
2nd Question: PWS paragraph 7.8.2 states "Inspection and acceptance shall be at Source ...except as noted below..." Can the Government clarify that the "except as noted below" is referencing paragraph 7.8.3 Delivery Instructions? Q1: Revised PWS. Inspection is at Source (contractor facility)) Acceptance is at Destination (Hill).
Question 2: Removed "except as noted below."
| 11 | PWS 7.9.1 | Government Inspection and Acceptance | PWS paragraph 7.9.1 states "The Government requires a period of thirty (30) days after receipt of final deliverable items for inspection and acceptance or rejection." Would the Government clarify if this applies only to CDRLs? If it applies to all deliverables, including hardware and software, would the Government clarify how this requirement works with PWS 7.8.2 that states inspection and acceptance will be at Source and PWS 3.1.2.5.2 Acceptance Test which is for the purpose of accepting the TPS. | This applies to CDRLs and hardware/software. PWS revised section 7.8 - 7.11. |
| 12 | PWS 7.23 | Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) | PWS paragraph 7.23 states "Contractors are required to provide from their OSHA 300 information the Total Case Incident Rate/Days Away Restricted or Transferred (TCIR/DART)…" Would the Government clarify if this data is needed only for those personnel that are located at Government sites? | PWS Section 7.23 changed to 7.20 after updates. Section 7.20 states "Consequently, VPP impacts all “applicable Contractors” operating on Air Force Installations." Refer to OSHA website for VPP questions and guidance. |
| 13 | PWS 3.6.7 | Kick-Off Meeting | In the April 15 version of Attachment 1 ATSSI II Draft PWS, the requirement to conduct the Kick-Off Meeting within 30 days of award was deleted. Can the Government clarify when the Kick-Off meeting is to be conducted? | Revised PWS 3.6.7 verbiage to state, "within 30 days after Task Order award or as specified at the Task Order." |
| 14 | PWS 7.1.1 | Process Control Plans | PWS Section 7.1.1 requires the Contractor to incorporate Industrial Process Change Management and states this change management process can be incorporated into the Contractor's Configuration Management process "as required in Section 3.7.1.1.1.7." Section 3.7.1.1.1.7 describes sustainment support provided on-site, whereas, the requirement for Industrial Process Control plans in Section 7.1.1 applies to the Contractor's work at Contractor facilities (TPS development and Build to Print activities). Would the Government clarify if the Process Control Plan configuration control requirement in section 7.1.1 should reference section 7.6.1 instead of section 3.7.1.1.1.7? | Revised PWS to reference 7.6.1. |
| 15 | PWS 7.1.1; 7.1.2 | Process Control Plans; Specific Process Control Plans | Section 7.1 states "As ATSSI II will provide many such "industrial processes" for the Government, the requirements levied on the ALCs for Industrial Process Control (IPC) shall be adhered to by the Contractor." Section 7.1.2 requires a TPS Process Control Plan (TPCP) for the processes specified in Section 3.1. PWS Section 3.1 describes the systems engineering process for developing/rehosting a TPS, which is a development process and not an "industrial process." As well, review of AFSCI 21-402 shows that the IPC requirement is for industrial processes and not development activities. Would the Government clarify if the TPCP requirement of Section 7.1.2 is focused on the Test Program Hardware (TPH) production activities (Section 3.1.2.4) versus the software and hardware development activities? | While software/hardware development is not an industrial process, it can be tailored to fit the IPC structure as it is a process that can be baselined, monitored, and controlled both at the Contractor and subcontractor level. |
| 16 | PWS 3.1.2.1, 3.8.3.1 | These PWS paragraphs list MIL-DTL-87829. | Please clarify that this should be MIL-DTL-87929E in the PWS. | PWS updated to, "MIL-DTL-87929E." |
| 17 | PWS 3.2.1 | Acceptance on a case-by-case basis. | Will the Government clarify if the requirement for acceptance will be identified in the Task Order SOO? | Yes, formal acceptance will be identified at the task order SOO. In most cases build-to-specification hardware will be accepted by a Government representative informally upon delivery. PWS 3.2.1 revised to clarify Formal acceptance would be specified at the time of task order award. |
PWS Questions Page &P of &N
Section L
| AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT INITIATIVE II (ATSSI II) Rev.17 April 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | L.1.3.9 | Electronic Submittal | 1. 1.3.9 Electronic Offers states, “The offeror shall submit Volumes I through III in electronic format, using virus-free CD-R.” Should this read “… Volumes I through IV…” or does the Government not require an electronic format submittal of Volume IV? | Yes, the contractor shall submit Volumes 1-IV. Section updated. |
| 2 | L 2.3.3.3 and M 3.3.3 | Subfactor 3 Management Approach / Partnering Agreements | Section L 2.3.3 item 3 and Section M 3.3.3 both require offeror "provide evidence" of current Partnering Agreements with OEMs and other relevant vendors. Will the Government please confirm that submittal of the entire Partnering Agreement(s) is not needed to satisfy this requirement, but rather a signed letter or fully executed signature page from the Partnering Agreement(s) will suffice? | A signed letter, memo, or fully executed signature page will suffice. |
| 3 | L.2.3.3.3 | Partnering Agreements | Section L 2.3.3 item 3 requires submission of Partnering Agreements with the proposal. Section L 1.3.1 Table 1 shows these Partnering Agreements are part of the 120 page limit for the Technical Volume Tradeoff. Partnering agreements can vary greatly by offeror which means the page count per Partnering Agreement could be vastly different. Also, the number of agreements achieved by each offeror could be very different. Putting these Partnering agreements inside of the page count could create a significant disadvantage for some offerors in responding to all elements of Subfactors 2, 3 and 4. Therefore, if submittal of the entire Partnering Agreement(s) is required, would the Government consider taking pages for Partnering Agreements out of the page count limit and reducing the page count for Subfactors 2, 3 and 4 to 90 pages? | Since a signed letter, memo, or fully executed signature page is sufficient for evidence of Partnering Agreement(s), the page limitation of 120 pages remains. |
| 4 | L.2.3.3.3 | Partnering Agreements | Section L 2.3.3 item 3 states the offeror shall submit Partnering Agreements for "other relevant vendors." Would the Government define "relevant vendors" as it relates to the Partnering Agreements requirement? | Relevant vendors would be any vendor that would be deemed beneficial for the Government in supporting the requirements within the ATSSI II PWS. |
| 5 | L.3.1 | Past Performance | Section L 3.1 requires past performance information for "...all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform a significant portion of the effort." Would the Government provide a definition of "significant portion of the effort" that would trigger the need to provide the past performance information? | Updated the sentence to specify 20% of overall contract effort for subcontractors |
| 6 | L.3.1 | Past Performance – General, states “maximum of three contracts, if available”, and “Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Section L, Appendix A. This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform a significant portion of the effort.” | Is the Government requesting a maximum of three PP contracts total? | No, the Government is requesting a maximum of 3 past performance contract examples per contractor, subcontractor, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. (i.e. 3 for prime, 3 for Subcontractor 1, 3 for Subcontractor 2, etc.) |
| 7 | L.3.2 | Organizational Structure Change History, states “…but will be restricted to less than 3 pages.” | Will the Government please confirm the Organizational Structure Change History document may not exceed three (3) pages? | Yes. Revised language to read, "will be restricted to no more than 3 pages." |
| 8 | L.3.3 | 3.3 Proposal Submittal Information. “PPI sheets shall be submitted using the EZ Source PPI Tool (reference Section L, Appendix B, Instructions to Offerors: Past Performance information for Offerors).” | Should this state “reference Section L, Appendix A, Instructions to Offerors: …” as Section L, Appendix B is the Cross Reference Matrix? | Yes. Updated Appendix reference. |
| 9 | L.4.2, L.5.1.2, L.5.1.4, L.5.1.4.1 | Attachment 4 – TEP Matrix | Section L 4.2 - Volume III states, "Submit a copy of the completed TEP Matrix in Cost/Price Volume III in MS Excel (non PDF format)." Section L 5.1.2 -Volume IV states, "All required rates shall be provided in TEP Matrix of Section J, Attachment 4." Section L 5.1.4 - Volume IV states, "The offeror shall complete and provide the following attachments - 5.1.4.1 Attachment 4 - TEP Matrix." Will the Government please confirm submittal of the TEP Matrix, Attachment 4 is only required in Volume III? | The TEP Matrix is now Attachment 5. TEP Matrix submission in Volume III has been further clarified in L 5.1.2, and 5.1.4.1. |
| 10 | L.4.2 | Attachment 4 – TEP Matrix | Section L 4.2 states, "The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; however, all proposed fully burdened NTE rates and formula results and numbers directly entered for the Awardable Program Management Sample Task Order are contractually binding." Will the Government please confirm that all fully burdened NTE rates proposed in the TEP Matrix are contractually binding for future non-cost reimbursable type task orders? | The Government confirms all fully burdened NTE rates proposed in the TEP Matrix are contractually binding for future non-cost reimbursable type task orders. |
| 11 | L.5.2.3 | Compensation Plan | Will the Government consider moving the Professional Compensation plan to Volume III PRICE, as it will contain pricing information not normally permitted outside the Cost/Price Volume? | According to L 5.2.3 (now L 5.2.2) the offeror needs to provide detailed information for their compensation plan. This information can be demonstrated in other volumes as long as the compensation plan references said information. Any cost/price data included in the compensation plan that is not included in Vol III shall not be evaluated for TEP or any pricing evaluation. This paragraph in Section L has been updated to reflect this information. |
| 12 | L Appendix A | Downloading the PPI Tool | Offeror is unable to locate the "ppi tool.accdb" link in FedBizOpps (FBO.gov), which has been moved to beta.SAM.gov. Is use of the PPI Tool a current/accurate requirement? If yes, will the Government please clarify where to find the PPI Tool Link or confirm that the PPI Tool Link, specified in Appendix A, will be posted on beta.SAM.gov under the FA822420R0009 "Attachments/Links" once the final RFP is released? | |
| Section L Appendix A has been revised to remove FBO references and instead include SAM references. The PPI tool will be available in beta.sam.gov under "Attachments/Links" when the final RFP is released. | ||||
| 13 | L.5.2.3 | Compensation Plan | Sections L 5.2.3 and M 6.2 both state that the employee compensation plan, shall be submitted and evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. Additionally, Section L 5.2.3 requires Offerors to "..detail the base labor rate, fringe, all other burdens, and profit/fee contained in labor rates to facilitate comparisons IAW FAR 52.222-46". However, as FAR 52.222-46 states compensation is "salaries and fringe benefits". Therefore as employee compensation does not include "other burdens" or "profit/fee", will the Government please remove the requirement to provide, "all other burdens, and profit/fee" from L 5.2.3? | Revised language, "The Offeror shall provide detailed information IAW FAR 52.222-46." |
| 14 | L.2.3.1 (3) and M 3.1.3 | Small Business Subcontracting Plan, FAR 52.219-9 | Sections L and M make reference to a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) by stating, "The Small Business participation approach is not to be confused with the Offeror's Small Business Subcontracting Plan". However, the requirement to submit a Small Business Plan is not specified in Section L of the RFP, but rather CDRL A036 states, "Task Orders requiring SBSP will specify ...". Therefore, will the Government please confirm that Offerors are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan as part of their proposal response? If the Government does require Offerors to provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan with their proposal submittal, where in the proposal should it be included? | Revised CDRL language has been revised to state, "Task Orders requiring an individual SBSP will specify…" Sections L&M have been revised to include submission of SBSP (see L 5.2.3 and M 6.2). |
| 15 | L.1.3.1 | General - Page Limits | Table 1 of Section L 1.3.1 states that the total page limit for Technical Subfactor 1 is "25 (Count does not include Drawings)." Section L 2.3.1 "Documentation and Drawings" requires submission of 2 documentation examples which would be Technical Orders. Technical Orders that would be applicable to ATSSI II scope of work are typically 50+ pages each, so providing 2 examples would take all of the allowed page count and not allow the Offeror to address other Technical Subfactor 1 requirements. Would the Government consider not counting the documentation examples in the page count and lowering the page count for Subfactor 1 to 10 pages? | Revised page limitation table requirements to include SGML Source Code. Revised L 2.3.1 and M 3.1.1 to require SGML Source Code and "documentation excerpt examples" to better clarify that the Government only wants those parts of the document that demonstrate adherence to the specified standards, rather than the entire document. |
| 16 | L.2.3.1 | Subfactor 1 - Technical/Management Proficiency | Section L 2.3.1 requires 2 documentation examples that are "completed in Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). Would the Government clarify if the examples need to also provide the SGML source code? | See response to Question 15. |
| 17 | L.1.3.9 | Electronic Offers | Section 1.3.9 indicates that “The Table of Contents shall include the file names, as well as page numbers where content is cross-referenced between subfactors.” 1 - Can the Government please clarify whether references to files names within the TOC will need to be hyperlinked across files or should the information/hyperlinking be provided in the Cross-Reference Matrix? 2 - Within the TOC, how does the Government want to see the cross-referenced file names and page numbers? 3 - Can this information be a separate section within the TOC? | 1 - The Cross reference matrix does not require hyperlinks. Any references to files in other volumes or documents do not require hyperlinks. (i.e. Volume III does not need a hyperlink to Volume IV or RFP documents such as Section L.) IAW L 1.3.9, second paragraph, last sentence, "Hyperlinking references between different filenames is not necessary." 2 - Hyperlink requirements are for sections within the volume. Section L's TOC is an example of what we are looking for as far as page number and hyperlinks. If the cross-reference is for a file that is external from the volume, then it will need to be identified in the body of the document and the cross reference matrix. 3 - If "this information" refers to the "cross-referenced file names and page numbers" then the expectation is that it would be in the cross-reference matrix section in volume and the TOC would be hyperlinked to said Cross-Reference Matrix. |
| 18 | Section L | 3.1 General, Page 12 | The language in the first and third paragraphs “Each offeror shall submit…” and “Along with the information…” appear to be a duplication of the final two paragraphs on page 13. Will the Government please confirm and remove? | Government confirms, it is a duplication. Duplication has been removed. |
| 19 | L.5.1.5, L.5.2.2 | Section K - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors and Limitations on Subcontracting FAR 52.219-14 | states, "Offer shall ensure certification as a small business under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 541511." and "Submit documentation that demonstrates how the prime contractor will meet the requirements of the aforementioned FAR clause (52.219-14)." Will the Government please confirm this is an unrestricted proposal effort with no partial 8(a) or small business set-aside, and therefore per prescription 19.507(e), FAR 52.219-14 is not applicable? Will the Government please remove FAR 52.219-14 and the requirement for Offer to certify as a small business under NAICS 541511? | NAICS code has been changed to 541512. Removed paragraph 5.2.2, Limitation on Subcontracting. Paragraphs have been renumbered accordingly. |
| 20 | L.5.1.1 | Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form | states, "Complete Blocks 13, 15, and 16, then sign and date Block 17 of the Standard Form (SF) 33…". Will the Government please confirm Offeror's shall also complete Block 14 - Acknowledgment of Amendments? | Correct, the Offeror shall also complete block 14 when applicable. |
| 21 | L.1.3.4 | Page Size - Fold outs | Paragraph 1.3.4 Tables, Charts, Graphs, and Figures states, "These items shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 11 x 7 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page." Please clarify, should the size read "not exceed 11 x 17"? | Correct. The verbiage has been changed to reflect "11 x 17" |
| 22 | L Appendix B | Cross Reference Matrix | Appendix B, Cross reference Matrix provides a table and columns for Section L, Section M, PWS Paragraph, Vol, and Offeror's Proposal Paragraph Number(s). Should there also be columns for the Technical Sample Task Order SOO and the Awardable Program Management Sample Task Order? | Additional columns have been included for Technical Sample Task Order SOO (Technical Task SOO Paragraph) and Awardable Program Management Sample Task Order SOO (Awardable Task SOO Paragraph). |
| 23 | L2.3.1 | Paragraph 2 | requires demonstration of CMMI Level 3 certification at the time of proposal submission. For various reasons, a company may be certified but unable to apply it towards the ATSSI II effort. For example, a different operating group may be certified for their efforts only. Consider, instead, requiring a detailed plan at proposal submission that will achieve certification within a reasonable time after contract award. | In order for the offeror to be considered "acceptable" for this requirement, they must give evidence that the group bidding on the contract is in compliance (and certified) as CMMI Level 3. A different operating group within the company having the certification does not give ample evidence that the bidding operating group also adheres to the tenants and requirements of CMMI Level 3. The Government will not consider proposals that are not in compliance at time of proposal to be "acceptable" for this requirement with a proposal offering a presented "detailed plan at proposal submission that will achieve certification within a reasonable time after contract award". This leaves open the possibility that the offeror will fail in it's attempt to gain certification and then risk contract default or termination for cause. |
| 24 | L3.1 | Paragraph 1: “Each offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Section L, Appendix A, Past Performance Questionnaire (maximum of three contracts, if available). This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform a significant portion of the effort.” | It is unclear how many Past Performance Questionnaires significant subcontractors, teaming partners, and or joint venture partners may submit – up to three like the offeror? | Correct. See Response to Question 6. |
| 25 | L3.1 | Paragraph 2 | The instructions are confusing. |
a) The second sentence, beginning “This may include …” differentiates between problems and risks. Then the fourth and sixth sentences only mention “problems”, either singling them out or using “problems” in a collective sense. If used as a collective, this confusion could be clarified by only revising the second sentence to define “problems” to include “issues and risks”, substituting “issues” for the singular sense of the word. Consider: “This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offer to resolve problems such as issues encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk.”
| b) The sixth sentence, beginning “For example, submittal of quality …”, is an illustration of the requirement defined in the fourth sentence but ends with “… is required”, thus becoming a new but a new requirement instead of an example illustration. Consider revising the sixth sentence to delete the “is required” ending. | a) Revised sentence to read, "“This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offer to resolve problems such as issues encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk.” b) Revised sentence to read, "Submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is an example of this." | ||||
| 26 | L5.1.5 | The last sentence requires certification as a small business under NAICS 541511. Since the RFP doesn’t indicate that ATSSI II is set aside for small business, consider deleting this sentence from the instructions. | See response to Question 19. | ||
| 27 | L5.2.2 | 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting and Section L, subsection 5.2.2 | 1) Paragraph (b) Applicability of this clause is applicable only to contracts or orders that have been set aside for either 8(a) or small business concerns. Since the RFP doesn’t indicate that ATSSI II is set aside for either class of participants, consider deleting this clause and instruction from the RFP. | See response to Question 19. | |
| 28 | L5.2.3 | “The Offeror shall detail the base labor rate, fringe, all other burdens, and profit/fee …” | It is not clear what “detail” we are instructed to provide: the rates only; the rates and amounts for each labor category; the entire build-up/sources that provide the basis for the rates; or something else? | See response to Question 13. | |
| 29 | L Appendix A | Instructions appear to be out of date. The first instruction directs the offeror to FedBizOpps, now defunct. | See response to Question 12. |
Section L Questions Page &P of &N
Section M
| AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT INITIATIVE II (ATSSI II) Rev.17 April 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | M.2.3.5 | Quality of Services | Section M 2.3.5 states "The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts)." Would the Government clarify how the assessment of performance quality will impact the overall evaluation? Will it impact the Past Performance Confidence Rating and/or Relevancy Rating? Will it impact any other part of the evaluation such as Technical subfactors or the Pricing Subfactor? | Paragraph M 2.3, 2.3.2, and 2.3.5 have been updated to clarify that the quality of performance evaluation will be reflected in the overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Recency and Relevance ratings will not be affected by the quality assessment. |
| 2 | M.3.1 | Subfactor 1: Technical/Management Proficiency |
Section M 3.1 states "The offeror shall clearly and comprehensively describe, with examples and evidence showing documentation demonstrating how they fulfill the evaluation requirements defined in PWS Sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.4." The Draft PWS does not have a section 3.1.4. Could the Government clarify if this section is referring to Section L.2.3.1 items 1 through 3?
| Section M revised to state "The offeror shall clearly and comprehensively describe, with examples and evidence showing documentation demonstrating how they fulfill the evaluation requirements defined in Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 3.1 to the degree specified for each element." | ||||
| 3 | M.6.0 | Contract Documentation | Volume IV – Contract Documentation states, “The Government will review the completeness and correctness of the offeror’s contract documentation submission as part of Volume III.” Should this state “Volume IV”? | Updated to reflect Volume IV. |
| 4 | M3.1 | PWS references | The second sentence refers to PWS Sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.4. PWS Section 3.1.4 does not exist. | See response for Question 2. |
Section M Questions Page &P of &N
TEP
| AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT INITIATIVE II (ATSSI II) Rev.17 April 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | TEP Attachment 4 | The instructions state that the template cannot be changed, “DO NOT ADD LABOR CATEGORIES OR CHANGE WORKSHEET COLUMNS OR ROWS”. The template has pricing by “FY”, covering 9 periods. | What Fiscal Year (“FY”) is the government asking for? Prime Contractor Fiscal Year, Sub & Contractor Individual Fiscal Years, Government Fiscal Year (10/1), OR Contract (PoP) Fiscal Year? | Fiscal year used is the Government's Fiscal Year of 1 Oct - 30 Sep. TEP Matrix has been updated to identify this. |
| 2 | TEP Matrix Labor Categories | beta.SAM.gov 13 April 2020 Description of Changes language | On 13 April 2020 solicitation changes were posted to beta.sam.com. The Description of Changes for that post stated, "If you feel we have left out any labor categories, please notify us before official RFP release. After award, there will be no modifications to include categories that are not competed." |
This Description of Changes language conflicts with the solicitation as no such restriction is included in the solicitation.
Additionally, because this is a multi-year, multi-million dollar IDIQ it is impossible to fully anticipate every labor category that will ever be required in support of this program. The ability to foresee every necessary labor category, prior to the release of specific task order requirements, is further complicated by vague scope statements such as:
| • | Infrastructure support services necessary to sustain existing and planned IT infrastructures |
| • | Program management support for the reliability and maintainability of the Depot Test Systems and associated Support Equipment (SE) |
| • | Logistics support for software and hardware maintenance efforts for assigned depot SE to include the compliment of depot test platforms at the OO-ALC facility |
| • | Assist in design efforts |
| • | Installation to include some level of facility modification |
| • | Other General ATSSI Requirements |
| Therefore, will the Government please confirm that after award, modifications to include new labor categories shall be allowed, with Contracting Officer concurrence, as required to support task order efforts? | Yes, with CO concurrence. The Government prefers to have as many labor categories identified as possible to be able to compete them. A modification after award to add a labor category that was not competed on the basic is not ideal; however, it is possible that it could be done. If a task order requirement calls for a labor category that is not in the awarded TEP, the ACO will evaluate whether or not to include it in a modification. The Government's hesitation in modifying for labor categories is due to it not being determined fair and reasonable at time of contract award when prices were determined by competition. In conclusion, new labor categories may be added in a modification; however, there is no guarantee that the ACO will allow the addition of labor categories after contract award. |
TEP Questions Page &P of &N
SOO
| AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT INITIATIVE II (ATSSI II) Rev.17 April 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | Attach 5 SOO | 4.4 - Table 1 - Requirements Analysis TPS Development/Rehost | Attachment 5 SOO section 4.4 title appears to be the title for Table 1 in section 4.3. Would the Government clarify if the paragraph 4.4 title is correct? | Revised formatting error and updated SOO. |
2 Attach 5 SOO 4.8 Data - CDRL A024 Attachment 5 SOO Table 4 lists CDRL A024 Program Management Plan and Phase-In Transition Plan. This implies that CDRL A024 is required at the task order level rather than at the contract (ATSSI II) level. PWS section 3.6.1 language implies there will be an ATSSI II program level Program Management Plan and Phase-In Transition Plan. Would the Government clarify whether A024 will be required at the task order level? CDRL Program Management Plan and Phase-In Transition Plan has been removed from the Technical Sample Task Order SOO, and the Program Management Plan and Transition Plan will be a deliverable IAW Awardable Program Management Sample Task Order SOO.
SOO Questions Page &P of &N
DRAFT Solicitation
| AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT INITIATIVE II (ATSSI II) Rev.17 April 2020 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | Draft |
Solicitation
| Section F | Items 1001 - 1007 Partial Delivery Schedule/Period and Period of Performance | Will the Government please confirm the correct dates should be 22APR28 - 21OCT28 for this 6 month option? | CLINs 1001-1007 dates have been updated to reflect: 22APR28-21OCT2. The 6-month extension is to allow for extensions of task orders during the entire duration of the basic ordering period, rather than only at the end of the ordering period's period of performance timeframe. The 6-month extension does not extend the ordering period. |
| 2 | Draft |
Solicitation
| Section F | Items 2001 - 2007 Partial Delivery Schedule/Period and Period of Performance | Will the Government please confirm the correct dates should be 22OCT28 - 21APR29 for this 6 month option? | CLINs 2001-2007 dates in the Draft RFP are correct. The dates for this option are for a 2-year ordering period from 22APR26 - 21APR28 and a 4-year Period of Performance timeframe from 22APR26 - 21APR30. |
| 3 | Draft |
Solicitation
| Section F | Items 3001 - 3007 Partial Delivery Schedule/Period and Period of Performance | Will the Government please confirm the correct dates should be 22APR29 - 21OCT29 for this 6 month option? | CLINs 3001-3007 dates in the Draft RFP are correct. These dates are from 22APR26 - 21 APR30. The 6-month extension is to allow for extensions of task orders during the entire duration of the basic ordering period, rather than only at the end of the ordering period. The 6-month extension does not extend the ordering period. |
| 4 | Draft |
Solicitation
| Section F | Items 4001 - 4007 Partial Delivery Schedule/Period and Period of Performance (Not currently specified in RFP) | FAR 52.217-9, included in Section I, states this effort has a 9 year period of performance (PoP). Section F Base CLIN specifies a 7 year PoP and Option CLINs specify a 6 month PoP each. Therefore, an additional six month Option Period is needed to fulfill the total 9 year PoP. Will the Government please confirm the correct dates for this additional Option period (400X) should be 22OCT29 - 21APR30? | The Draft RFP is correct. There are no CLINs beyond 3007. |
| 5 | Draft |
Solicitation
| Section E | FAR 52.246-11 Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement. 2014-12 | Will the Government please clarify under what circumstances higher-level contract quality requirements will be required and what those requirements will be? | Higher-level quality, if applicable, will be identified for individual task orders rather than for the basic IDIQ |
| 6 | Draft |
Solicitation
| Section I | 52.211-14 Notice of Priority Rating for National Defense, Emergency Preparedness, and Energy Program Use. | Will the Government please clarify if the resulting contract award will be either DX or DO rated? | Clause 52.211-14 has been removed. |
| 7 | Draft |
Solicitation
| Section I | 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract | (c) states "The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 7 YEARS FOR THE ORDERING PERIOD AND 9 YEARS FOR THE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE." Therefore, will the Government please confirm the contract Period of Performance (PoP) is comprised of a seven (7) year Base Period (000X) from 4/22/21 - 4/21/28, and four (4) six-month Option Periods running consecutively from 4/22/28 - 10/21/28 (100X); 10/22/28 - 4/21/29 (200X); 4/22/29 - 10/21/29 (300X); and 10/22/29 - 4/21/30 (400X)? | The Basic Year (CLINs 0001-0007) has an ordering period of 5 years with a PoP of 7 years. The 6-Month extension (1001-1007) has technically does not have an ordering period and is used on basic year task orders to extend the PoP up to 6 months, giving it a PoP of 7 years and 6 months. The Government's Contract Writing System restraints require a delivery period/date to be included per each CLIN; however, for the 6-month extension options, these dates only allow for the extension of already established task orders. The 2-year Option (CLINs 2001-2007) has an ordering period of 2 years and a PoP of 4 years. The 6-minth extension (CLINs 3001-3007) has no ordering period and will only be used on Opt CLINs 2001-2007 to extend the PoP up to 6 months as long as it does not exceed the total contract PoP of 9 years. |
| 8 | Draft |
Solicitation
| Section I | FAR 52.245-2 Government Property Installation Operation Services | This clause makes the Contractor liable for the repair or replacement any Government property which "is lost, or becomes no longer usable" by stating that "...the Contractor shall be responsible for replacement of the property at Contractor expense." This provision conflicts with FAR 52.245-1, provided in Section I, which generally relieves the Contractor of liability for Government property except in specific circumstances. Additionally, prescription 45.107 (b) states in part that 52.245-2 is required when performance shall be on a Government installation. The majority of performance under this contract will not be performed on a Government installation. Therefore, will the Government please remove FAR 52.245-2 from the RFP? | The clause is intended to be used, when applicable, for task orders, and consequently will remain in the Basic IDIQ. No property of any kind will be attached to the basic IDIQ contract. All property will be identified at the task order level and if performance will be completed on a Government installation then this clause will apply to that specific task order. |
| 9 | Draft |
Solicitation
| Section K and Section M | 52.232-28 Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments | (a) states, "The Government will consider performance-based payment financing terms proposed by the offeror in the evaluation of the offeror's proposal." Will the Government please clarify how this will be evaluated as it is not included in the Section M Evaluation Criteria of the RFP. | This clause shall apply to task orders solicited under the basic IDIQ contract; therefore, there is no criteria for it under Section L&M. | ||
| 10 | Draft Solicitation | Section L, page 113. FAR 52.232-28 (a) | Will the Government please confirm Offerors are required to include Performance-Based Payment financing terms as part of its Sample Task Orders response only? | Performance based payment financing terms shall be evaluated only for task orders, not the basic IDIQ. | |
| 11 | Draft Solicitation | Section L, page 113. FAR 52.232-28 (c)(2)(iii) | FAR 52.232-28 (c) (2) (iii) states, terms and conditions of the performance-based payments must - “There total shall not exceed 90 percent of the contract price if on a whole contract basis, or 90 percent of the delivery item price if on a delivery item basis.” Therefore, will the Government please clarify how/when Contractor is paid the remaining 10% of the contract price? | The remaining 10% of payment is paid upon completion of the service. | |
| 12 | Draft Solicitation | Section L, page 113. FAR 52.232-28 (c)(2)(i) – Comply with FAR 32.1004 | FAR 32.1004 (4) references the use of agency procedures to prescribe the bases for establishing performance-based payment amount. Will the Government please clarify if there are any agency procedures prescribing the bases for performance-based payments applicable to this contract or will the contracting officer be establishing them? | Any use of performance based payments will be negotiated for individual task orders during task order solicitation. Any agency procedures applicable for performance based payments will be identified at that time. | |
| 13 | Draft Solicitation | Section L, page 113. FAR 52.232-28 (c)(2)(i) – Comply with FAR 32.1004 | FAR 32.1004 (e)(1)(i) states, “If a solicitation requests offerors to propose performance-based payments, the solicitation shall specify – What, if any, terms shall be included in all offers”. Will the Government please provide such terms or confirm they are not applicable? | Such terms will be identified for individual task orders rather than for the basic IDIQ. | |
| 14 | Draft Solicitation | Section L, page 113. FAR 52.232-28 (a) | As specified in FAR 52.232-28 (a), the Contracting Officer will incorporate the financing terms of the successful offeror and the FAR clause, Performance-Based Payments, at 52.232-32, in any resulting contract. Therefore, will the Government please clarify the terms “liquidation”, “liquidated”, and “liquidate” within the context of FAR 52.232-32 (d) and (e)?” | All performance based payments will be utilized for task orders only and those terms will be fully identified then. | |
| 15 | Draft Solicitation | ||||
| Section I | 252.234-7001 Notice of Earned Value Management System - Use of this provision as prescribed in 234.203(1) | The prescription at 234.201 (1) (iv) states, For firm-fixed-price contracts and subcontracts of any dollar value - (A) The application of earned value management is discouraged. Additionally, the PWS does not require EVMS. Therefore, will the Government please remove clause 252.234-7001? | Clause 252.234-7001 has been removed. | ||
| 16 | Draft Solicitation | ||||
| Section I | 252.234-7002 Earned Value Management System - Use of this provision as prescribed in 234.203(2) | The prescription at 234.203 (2) states this clause should be used for cost or incentive contracts valued at $20,000,000 or more, which this solicitation is not, or other contracts for which EVMS will be applied in accordance with 234.201 (1) (iii) and (iv). However, the criteria specified in 234.201 (iii) For cost or incentive contracts does not apply, and under (iv) (A) The application of earned value management is discouraged for firm-fixed-price contracts. Therefore, will the Government please remove clause 252.234-7002? | Clause 252.234-7002 has been removed. | ||
| 17 | Draft Solicitation | ||||
| Section L | 52.211-8 Time of Delivery | Will the Government please confirm that Offerors are required to submit a completed Time of Delivery schedule, using the format provided, for the two Sample Task Order responses? | No. The use of this clause will be identified in future Task Orders | ||
| 18 | Draft Solicitation | ||||
| Section I | 52.248-1 Value Engineering | The table provided at (f)(3) is not readable. Will the Government please provide a readable version? | |||
| 19 | Draft Solicitation | ||||
| Section I | 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting and Section L, subsection 5.2.2 | Paragraph (b) Applicability of this clause is applicable only to contracts or orders that have been set aside for either 8(a) or small business concerns. Since the RFP doesn’t indicate that ATSSI II is set aside for either class of participants, consider deleting this clause and instruction from the RFP. | Clause 52.219-14 has been removed. |
Draft Solicitation Questions Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .