Final Government Answers PSP TDP.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 17 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Special Operation Forces (SOF) C-130 Precision Strike Package (PSP) Technical Documentation Project (TDP) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA850920R0004
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 1.pdf | ||
| PSP TDP Solictation CLIN Structure.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 6.pdf | ||
| Attachment 7.pdf | ||
| Attachment 5.pdf | ||
| Attachment 8.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment 2.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment 3.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 4.pdf | ||
| Attachment 9.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 1.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question Number | Question | File | Para. Reference | Government Answer |
| 1 | Are engineering services with regard to this solicitation associated with Technical Content Management for the TDP alone? If not, do they include systems or sub-systems form, fit, and design or manufacturing services? | Attachment 1/PWS | 1.1 | Yes, engineering services are associated with the Technical Document Package (TDP). No form fit function services will be performed on this effort. |
| 2 | Can all GMOP and MOP components be made avaiable to the awardee's facility for TDP development? | Attachment 1/PWS | 1.3 | The components for the GMOP and MOP will not be provided for this requirement. |
| 3 | Who is the donor aircraft and where will it be located? | Attachment 1/PWS | 1.3 | There will not be a donor aircraft. As stated in PWS para. 4.4.1., "The Government will perform Verification and will have approval rights for final deliverable technical orders." The USG personnel will provide on-Aircraft verification. |
| 4 | Are PSP vendors required by FAR and existing contract to provide PSP or IP data to the TDP integrator | Attachment 1/PWS | 3.2 | No integration will be occurring on this contract. The requirement is to use source data to develop updated manuals IAW the TMCR. |
| 5 | Will TMSS be listed in the TMCR and will access to DTD, FOSI, and Style Guides be provided to awardee? | Attachment 1/PWS | 3.2 | IAW PWS para. 1.1 The Air Force Technical Manual Contract Requirements (TMCR) provides style and format for all TOs on this effort. If further clarification is needed during the performance of the contract, the WIU Program Office will provide a WPAFB Program Office point of contact for additional questions. |
| 6 | Is the intent of the statement, "The Contractor shall levy on subcontractors and sub-vendors the same requirements for TDP as levied on them by this contract" directed to awardee subcontracotrs and sub-vendors, Government subcontractors and sub-vendors (for product integration), or both? | Attachment 1/PWS | 4.3.1 | The Government expects the Contractor to ensure the subcontractor and sub-vendors (if applicable) follow the same requirements for TDPs as are stated in the contract. The successful offeror, sub-contractor, and sub-vendor (if applicable) shall be under the same requirements. |
| 7 | Are the referenced Quality Assurance personnel Government personnel or another contractor not associated with this contract? | Attachment 1/PWS | 4.3.3 | A Government agent, within the SPO, will be responsible for the review, validation, and approval of documentation delivered under this contract. |
| 8 | Will the awardee support provisioning? Will the program management and process oversite include the scheduling and facilitating of MFT for provisioning? | Attachment 1/PWS | 4.4.1 | The Government does not have a requirement for Provisioning. |
| 9 | Is performance of certification/validation limited to TPD and related to technical orders? | Attachment 1/PWS | 4.4.1 | Yes |
| 10 | Will validation be supported by technicians that will engage the equipment/aircraft for form, fit, and function aspects required to validate? | Attachment 1/PWS | 4.4.1 | The validation only ensures data given is captured into the proper format and includes all requested changes by the SPO. |
| 11 | Will the awardee be required to schedule and direct validation or will the awardee be part of the MFT as directed by the IPT? | Attachment 1/PWS | 4.4.1 | IAW PWS para. 4.4.1., "The contractor shall attend all verification meetings until the final deliverable TO(s) are verified". The awardee will work with members of the USAF team to schedule validation and reviews dictated by the TMCR. |
| 12 | Will travel be included in this requirement as reimbursable apart from the FFP? | Attachment 1/PWS | 4.4.1 | Contractor travel is not a part of this requirement. |
| 13 | Will travel be included in this requirement as reimbursable apart from the FFP? | Attachment 1/PWS | 4.5.1 | Contractor travel is not a part of this requirement. |
| 14 | There seems to be a conflict with regard to the requirement to have a secuirty clearance. All information associated with this effort is likely CUI and likely distribution statements B-E apply. Please clarify | Attachment 1/PWS | 5.2.4-5.2.9.2 | There is no security classification for this requirement. The Contractor is responsible for compliance with DFARs 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting. There are no other Cybersecurity requirements. |
| 15 | The Technical Factor Instructions for Subfactor Two Awardable/Capability Task require the delievery of updated technical manuals. Will the TMSS source files for the technical orders that require modification and delivery be provided with the RFP? | Attachment 2/Instructions to Offerors | II.C.2 | Yes, refer to Attachment 7. |
| 16 | Are the page count requirements for technical order delievery included in the Volume II technical proposal limitations of 50 pages? | Attachment 2/Instructions to Offerors | II.A; II.C.2 | The Government will be updating the Section L and M to read that Volume II will have a 65 page requirement. |
| 17 | Subfactor One, Management plan includes a requirement for obtaining personnel with the appropriate security clearances. This is in contradiction to PWS paragraph 5.2.4. Please clarify. | Attachment 3/Evaluation | II.C.2 | There is no security classification for this requirement. The Contractor is responsible for compliance with DFARs 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting. There are no other Cybersecurity requirements. |
| 18 | With regards to Section M-900 Evaluation, Subsection I. Basis for Contract Award, Item A. Competition Methdology -- the Government states "This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3". Considering the difficulties experienced with the current Technical Data Support Services Enterprise (TDSSe) LPTA contract, including difficulty retaining qualified contract personnel, meeting delivery expectations, and given the re-compete changing methdology to Best Value, will the Government reconsider releaseing FA8509-20-R-0004 as Best Value? | Attachment 3/Evaluation | Section M-900 Evaluation, Subsection I | At this time, it is the Government’s determination to use the source selection methodology of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. This methodology is within the Best-Value Continuum per the DoD Source Selection Procedures section 1.3. This requirement meets the definition of LPTA addressed in DFARs 215.101-2-70. An LPTA Source Selection is appropriate when requirements are defined, risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, and there is no value that will be realized from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements. Please review the Appendix A incorporated into the PWS and provided with the Government responses. This effort is quantified by the number of pages that will be updated per TO and is Firm Fixed Price for that reason. When an order is dropped, the number of updated TO pages will be known. The CLIN structure detailed in the excel spreadsheet provided with the draft documents best represents the Government’s known requirement. This effort does not fall under the following DFARs para 215.101-2-70(a)(2). This requirement is not defined as: technology services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering, technical assistance, advanced electronic testing, or other knowledge-based professional services. Knowledge-based services are defined as A&AS contracts, this requirement is not for an A&AS contract. Furthermore, there are no prohibitions for this effort, as detailed in DFARs 215.101-2-70(b), it is not a contract for equipment or an aviation critical safety item, an auditing contract, or a major defense acquisition program. Although past performance will not be an evaluation factor, past performance will be assessed as part of the Contracting Officer’s Determination of Responsibility. This will address concerns of nonperformance risk. |
| 19 | With regards to Section M-900 Evaluation, Subsection II. Proposal Evaluation, Item D. Volume III. Cost/Price Factor -- with the Government planning for LPTA FFP cost, there is risk to contractors ensuring not losing money executing the tasks. Attachment 9 details Precision Strike Package (PSP) Technical Documentation Project (TDP) Pricing and Precision Strike Package (PSP) Awardable Task Pricing. The Awardable Task Pricing includes the same number of pages as the master contract pricing spreadsheet. When executing the Awardable Task, should it require a different number of pages, the contractor could be put in an unfair position. Can the Government confirm the number of pages for the Awardable Task is indeed the same as the number of pages as specified in the master pricing spreadsheet? | Attachment 9 | Section M-900 Evaluation, Subsection II | The sample task spreadsheet will be updated to reflect the appropriate number of pages. Please review Section M para. D Volume III, Cost/Price Factor and Attachment D: Examples for how to propose on this effort. |
| 20 | The capability task as anticpated in the TMCR attachment 8 includes a change to the C-130 IETM and updates through the IDET Updater Tool. Will the Government sponsor access to these items through bidder's TODO account to allow bidders to accurately prepare the quote? | Attachment 8/TMCR | The USG will not sponsor bidder's access to the Interactive Electronic Technical Manual (IETM) and Updater Tool. To complete the Capability/Awardable Task the Government is not asking the Contractor to input the updated TO(s) into the IETM system or Updater Tool. The task requires updating the technical manuals IAW the TMCR. The Government will provide the successful offeror with access to the IETM and Updater Tool. It is on the offeror to incorporate cost and schedule into the quote. | |
| 21 | TMCR Attachment 8 Table 2 lists TCTO for sustainment updates. Part B of the TMCR states, "TCTO requirements are specified in the contract vehicle approving the TCTO." Will the Government provide this as part of the Capability tasking in the final RFP? | Attachment 8/TMCR | The capability task will not include TCTO updates. | |
| 22 | Appendix 9. Pricing Spreadsheet. The QTY is listed as "201" for each of the page range subCLINs on both tabs with instructions that "Offeror shall enter data in yellow highlighted fields only" Are these quantities predefined by the Government for calculating the TEP? | Attachment 9/Pricing Spreadsheet | Please fill in the appropriate quote with the quantity page range. The quantity of 99 and 201 is the basis for the TEP calculation. Please review Section M para. D Volume III, Cost/Price Factor for how the TEP will be calculated. | |
| 23 | Will the Government require the offeror to complete both Schedule B in the Completed RFP as well as the Pricing Spreadsheet? | Yes. Please see Section L para. B Volume I, Completed RFP and para. D Volume III, Cost/Price. | ||
| 24 | What is the reasoning of choosing LPTA over other acquisition types? Due to technical nature of the work this would seem more suited to a tradeoff acquisition process. | At this time, it is the Government’s determination to use the source selection methodology of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. This methodology is within the Best-Value Continuum per the DoD Source Selection Procedures section 1.3. This requirement meets the definition of LPTA addressed in DFARs 215.101-2-70. An LPTA Source Selection is appropriate when requirements are defined, risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, and there is no value that will be realized from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements. Please review the Appendix A incorporated into the PWS and attachment provided with the Government responses. This effort is quantified by the number of pages that will be updated per TO and is Firm Fixed Price for that reason. When an order is dropped, the number of updated TO pages will be known. The CLIN structure detailed in the excel spreadsheet provided with the draft documents best represents the Government’s known requirement. This effort does not fall under the following DFARs para 215.101-2-70(a)(2). This requirement is not defined as: technology services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering, technical assistance, advanced electronic testing, or other knowledge-based professional services. Knowledge-based services are defined as A&AS contracts, this requirement is not for an A&AS contract. Furthermore, there are no prohibitions for this effort, as detailed in DFARs 215.101-2-70(b), it is not a contract for equipment or an aviation critical safety item, an auditing contract, or a major defense acquisition program. Although past performance will not be an evaluation factor, past performance will be assessed as part of the Contracting Officer’s Determination of Responsibility. This will address concerns of nonperformance risk. | ||
| 25 | For similar efforts, we typically see a DoD secuirty clearance requirement for all tech data personnel. Thus, why are contractor personnel with access to GFI/GFE including data, systems and AC-130 Gunship equipment, not required to have a DoD secuirty clearance? | Attachment 1/PWS | 5.2.4 | IAW PWS para. 5.2.4., at this time, a security clearance is not required for this effort. |
| 26 | Similar program requirements have resulted in various performance and quality issues. LPTA affords the government no value added, quality attributes, or innovations for a contractor to exceed the requirements. LPTA potentially, will not allow for hiring competitively in the market. Will the government consider Best Value in lieu of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process to ensure a compliant technical offering from offeror's proposals? | Attachment 3/Evaluation | I.A. | At this time, it is the Government’s determination to use the source selection methodology of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. This methodology is within the Best-Value Continuum per the DoD Source Selection Procedures section 1.3. This requirement meets the definition of LPTA addressed in DFARs 215.101-2-70. An LPTA Source Selection is appropriate when requirements are defined, risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, and there is no value that will be realized from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements. Please review the Appendix A incorporated into the PWS and attachment provided with the Government responses. This effort is quantified by the number of pages that will be updated per TO and is Firm Fixed Price for that reason. When an order is dropped, the number of updated TO pages will be known. The CLIN structure detailed in the excel spreadsheet provided with the draft documents best represents the Government’s known requirement. This effort does not fall under the following DFARs para 215.101-2-70(a)(2). This requirement is not defined as: technology services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering, technical assistance, advanced electronic testing, or other knowledge-based professional services. Knowledge-based services are defined as A&AS contracts, this requirement is not for an A&AS contract. Furthermore, there are no prohibitions for this effort, as detailed in DFARs 215.101-2-70(b), it is not a contract for equipment or an aviation critical safety item, an auditing contract, or a major defense acquisition program. Although past performance will not be an evaluation factor, past performance will be assessed as part of the Contracting Officer’s Determination of Responsibility. This will address concerns of nonperformance risk. |
| 27 | "It is vital to the user that they have approved technical orders in the shortest amount of time possible to control overall program costs and to hasten the use of these new weapon systems for flight testing of the new AC-130 Gunships, training, and to support combat operations. This effort will provide timely, verified technical orders to the field, improved capability to the war-fighter and reduce demand on the existing Low Density/High Demand Gunship Fleet as well as reducing Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) costs". Due to the vital needs of the Government, would it not stand to reason that past performance is required as evaluation criteria listed in section M of the solicitation? | Attachment 1/PWS | 1.2 | At this time, it is the Government’s determination to use the source selection methodology of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. This methodology is within the Best-Value Continuum per the DoD Source Selection Procedures section 1.3. This requirement meets the definition of LPTA addressed in DFARs 215.101-2-70. An LPTA Source Selection is appropriate when requirements are defined, risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, and there is no value that will be realized from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements. Please review the Appendix A incorporated into the PWS and attachment provided with the Government responses. This effort is quantified by the number of pages that will be updated per TO and is Firm Fixed Price for that reason. When an order is dropped, the number of updated TO pages will be known. The CLIN structure detailed in the excel spreadsheet provided with the draft documents best represents the Government’s known requirement. This effort does not fall under the following DFARs para 215.101-2-70(a)(2). This requirement is not defined as: technology services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering, technical assistance, advanced electronic testing, or other knowledge-based professional services. Knowledge-based services are defined as A&AS contracts, this requirement is not for an A&AS contract. Furthermore, there are no prohibitions for this effort, as detailed in DFARs 215.101-2-70(b), it is not a contract for equipment or an aviation critical safety item, an auditing contract, or a major defense acquisition program. Although past performance will not be an evaluation factor, past performance will be assessed as part of the Contracting Officer’s Determination of Responsibility. This will address concerns of nonperformance risk. |
| 28 | After reading the PWS, clearly the Government is seeking a contractor who can provide a highly skilled team of personnel who are capable of meeting all the requirements listed in PWS para. 2.0. These personnel are in high demand and labor costs are likely to go up over time. We are concerned that the LPTA evaluation will not allow for hiring competitively in the market to fulfill the Government requirement. Does the Government require highly skilled workers to perform the work associated the requirements of FA8509-20-R-0004? | Attachment 1/PWS | 2.0 | At this time, it is the Government’s determination to use the source selection methodology of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. This methodology is within the Best-Value Continuum per the DoD Source Selection Procedures section 1.3. This requirement meets the definition of LPTA addressed in DFARs 215.101-2-70. An LPTA Source Selection is appropriate when requirements are defined, risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, and there is no value that will be realized from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements. This effort is quantified by the number of pages that will be updated per TO and is Firm Fixed Price for that reason. When an order is dropped, the number of updated TO pages will be known. The CLIN structure detailed in the excel spreadsheet provided with the draft documents best represents the Government’s known requirement which is a known amount of technical pages. This effort does not fall under the following DFARs para 215.101-2-70(a)(2). This requirement is not defined as: technology services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering, technical assistance, advanced electronic testing, or other knowledge-based professional services. Knowledge-based services are defined as A&AS contracts, this requirement is not for an A&AS contract. Furthermore, there are no prohibitions for this effort, as detailed in DFARs 215.101-2-70(b), it is not a contract for equipment or an aviation critical safety item, an auditing contract, or a major defense acquisition program. Although past performance will not be an evaluation factor, past performance will be assessed as part of the Contracting Officer’s Determination of Responsibility. This will address concerns of nonperformance risk. |
| 29 | Will the Government change the evaluation of this requirement from LPTA to another more appropriate evaluation within the Best Value Continuum to ensure past performance may be evaluated? Since a change was issued by the DoD on September 25, 2019, the following rule was added to DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1), DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(2), and DFARS 215.101-2-70(b) | The Government cannot levy staffing requirements on prospective contractors for how they complete the requirement. |
At this time, it is the Government’s determination to use the source selection methodology of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. This methodology is within the Best-Value Continuum per the DoD Source Selection Procedures section 1.3. This requirement meets the definition of LPTA addressed in DFARs 215.101-2-70. An LPTA Source Selection is appropriate when requirements are defined, risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, and there is no value that will be realized from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements. This effort is quantified by the number of pages that will be updated per TO and is Firm Fixed Price for that reason. When an order is dropped, the number of updated TO pages will be known. The CLIN structure detailed in the excel spreadsheet provided with the draft documents best represents the Government’s known requirement which is a known amount of technical pages. This effort does not fall under the following DFARs para 215.101-2-70(a)(2). This requirement is not defined as: technology services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering, technical assistance, advanced electronic testing, or other knowledge-based professional services. Knowledge-based services are defined as A&AS contracts, this requirement is not for an A&AS contract. Furthermore, there are no prohibitions for this effort, as detailed in DFARs 215.101-2-70(b), it is not a contract for equipment or an aviation critical safety item, an auditing contract, or a major defense acquisition program. Although past performance will not be an evaluation factor, past performance will be assessed as part of the Contracting Officer’s Determination of Responsibility. This will address concerns of nonperformance risk.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .