ATSA-I-RFP-FA8533-24-R-0002-Industry Questions with Responses-22OCT2024.pdf

QUESTION REFERENCE QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Question 1 Reference: RFP Attachment 1-

Section L Instruction to Offerors Page 3, In addition to the page limitations set forth above, all proposal volumes shall comply with the following format: F) Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION

INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101

and 3.104 CUI

Was it the Government’s intent that every page of every volume be marked as CUI, even if there is no data in the volume that warrants a CUI marking? If the Government intends for every page of every volume to be marked as CUI, there are other markings that are necessary (i.e. , adding CUI to the top of each page and adding a distribution statement to the cover page). Another concern is that the model contract (RFP) and artifacts would need to be manipulated to add these markings (the source selection information as well as CUI). Did the Government intend for every page of every volume to be manipulated to contain this information?

Yes. The Government intent is to have every page of every volume marked IAW Section L- Instruction to Offerors, pg.3, Item F. Section L states each page should contain the Source Selection Infomation legend, at the bottom of each sheet. No other markings are required.

Question 2 Reference: RFP Section L, paragraph C. Volume II -Technical Proposal, 2. Format and Specific Content, pages 4 and 5.

Please confirm, an offeror can provide 2 work samples (2 different CDRLs) from the same contract/order?

The Government confirms an offeror can provide two work samples (2 different CDRLs) from the same contract / order.

Question 3 N/A 1.To whom should Questions be submitted?

2.By what date?

3.In what format?

All questions are to be submitted via email to the contracting team as listed in Section L. Questions specifically related to the RFP may be submitted up to the RFP close date.

Question 4 Reference: RFP Attach. 6 ATSA-I Vendor Guide and Question #58 of the Draft RFP,2.3.2 Evaluation of Proposals

The ATSA-I Vendor Guide states that orders will be issued to the Contractor whose proposal provides the "best value" to the Government. Other areas of the RFP (including Q&A #58 of the Draft RFP) state that the criteria will vary according to the requirement and will be identified at the order level. For clarity and planning purposes, will Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) criteria also be used to evaluate ATSA-I delivery order (DO) proposals?

There are no restrictions on the order evaluation critieria.

Question 5 Reference: RFP Attach. 6 ATSA-I Vendor Guide, 2.5 ESTIMATED

AWARD TIMELINES

The first table in this section has a confusing, possibly mistaken, heading which reads "COMPETITIVE > $10M."

Should the “greater than” symbol (“>”) instead be a “lesser than” symbol (“<”)?

With that change, it seems the two ranges would then make more sense, in essence saying, “For Competitive awards less than $10M, this timeline applies; for Competitive awards greater than $10M up to $50M, this timeline applies.

Acknowledged. ATSA-I Vendor Guide will be modified and issued under RFP Amendment 0001.

ATSA-I RFP- FA8533-24-R-0002 - RFP Questions/Reponses - 22 OCT 2024

Question 6 Reference: ATSA-I RFP: FA8533-24- R-0002

In response to several Draft RFP questions from offerors, the Government stated that it intends to provide “additional information” about upcoming delivery orders (e.g., examples of future task orders, etc.). Does the Government plan to provide more information about DOs/TOs before IDIQ-level proposal submittals are due?

The Government intends to provide more information on future ATSA-I orders prior to the issuance of ATSA-I IDIQ contract awards.

Question 7 Reference: RFP Section L, L.II.C.2;

Draft RFP Q&A #41

RFP Section L.II.C.2 states that “A work sample artifact represents evidence/ information/ documentation submitted as a deliverable to a Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) for its work sample.” Draft RFP Q&A #41 (dated 26 March 2024) states that “The Government considers any official documentation that supports work experience being claimed as a Work Sample artifact (i.e. CDRLs).”

While a deliverable to a CDRL is clearly acceptable evidence to substantiate a work sample, would the Government further allow evidence in the form of deliverables from the Government to the Contractor as official documentation to support work experience? For example, will the Government consider the following as evidence: DD Form 250 Material Inspection and Receiving Report, and/or a Government-issued Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR)? Will the Government consider other forms of Government-issued documentation as substantiating artifacts?

No. The Government will not accept evidence of deliverables from the Government to the Contractor as official documentation to substantiate as a work sample. IAW Section L.II.C.2. A work sample artifact represents evidence / information / documentation submitted as a deliverable to a Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) for its work sample. The Offeror needs only to include the relevant portions of artifacts from the Work Sample that clearly show the Government that the Offeror has experience in the Focus Area Categories for which points are claimed.

Question 8 Reference: Draft RFP Q&As The Government has stated numerous times throughout DRFP Q&A and Industry/Conference Days that, “The Government expects all ATSI-I awardees to make every effort to team/subcontract with other awardees on all efforts.” and “The Government will review justification for the offeror not teaming/subcontracting with other ATSA-I awardees.”

The final RFP does not specify any requirement for ATSA-I awardees to prioritize teaming/subcontracting with other ATSA-I awardees or to obtain Government consent to team/subcontract outside the ATSA-I awardee pool.

Therefore, will the Government please confirm that such a requirement is no longer applicable to the ATSA-I effort?

The RFP does not specifiy that all ATSA-I awardees are required to obtain consent from the Govermment to team with companies outside the ATSA-I awardee base. The Government may request subcontract/team information in future ATSA-I Fair Opportunity Proposal Request

(FOPR).

Question 9 Reference: Draft RFP Q&As The Government has stated numerous times throughout DRFP Q&A and Industry/Conference Days that, “The Government expects all ATSI-I awardees to make every effort to team/subcontract with other awardees on all efforts.” and “The Government will review justification for the offeror not teaming/subcontracting with other ATSA-I awardees.”

The final RFP does not specify any requirement for ATSA-I awardees to prioritize teaming/subcontracting with other ATSA-I awardees or to obtain Government consent to team/subcontract outside the ATSA-I awardee pool.

If such a requirement does still apply at the task order level, will the Government please confirm that it will be specified on a case-by-case basis within the applicable task order FOPRs?

There is not an established requirement for all awardees to team with other ATSA-I awardees. The Government may request subcontract/team information in future ATSA-I FOPRs.

Question 10 Reference: Part II – Contract Clauses, Section I, 52.212-4

Will the Government please confirm that FAR 52.212-4 Alternate I fill-ins are “To Be Determined at the task order level”?

The Government confirms FAR 52.212-4 Alternate I fill-ins are "To Be Determined at the Order Level." RFP Amendment 0001 will be issued to complete clause fill-in information with "To Be Determined at the Order Level".

Question 11 N/A Will the Government confirm that proposals may include a Title Page and Table of Contents for each Volume I through III excluded from any page limitation?

The Government does not confirm. Title Page and Table of Contents are considered as part of the total page limits for Vol II and Vol III. They are not to be submitted outside the page limitation established in Section L.II.A.c (i.e. Vol II-30 pages / Vol III-10 pages). The page limitations include any executive summaries, company introductions, cover letters, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting, illustrations, spreadsheets, etc.

Question 12 Reference: L-900, L.II.A (table);

L.II.C.6, bullet 9; Attachment 4

Each Work Sample Cover Sheet (Attachment 4) form is limited to 2 pages per Work Sample. Will the Government allow the “Substantiation” section of the form be expanded beyond the 2-page limit to provide sufficient explanation of Focus Area Category demonstrated experience and artifacts, as long as the entire Volume II does not exceed 30 pages?

No. The Government will not expand the established criteria as defined in Section L.II.A: ATSA-I Proposal Organization.

Question 13 Reference: L-900, L.II.A.a Section L states: “a) Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number, Offeror’s name and address, the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, or III.” Please confirm that Offerors may provide this information on a Title Page for each Volume and that this is not subject to any page limit.

The Government does not confirm.

Offerors shall not submit a Title Page outside the established page limitations.

Title pages would be considered part of the total page limits. Title pages are not to be submitted outside the page limitation established (Vol II-30 pages / Vol III-10 pages). IAW Section L, II.A.c. The page limitations include any executive summaries, company introductions, cover letters, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting, illustrations, spreadsheets, etc.

Question 14 Reference: L-900, L.II.A.b, c, e, f Please confirm that a smaller font size than 12 point may be used for page headers/footers considering the amount of content the RFP requires in the footer, which includes a proprietary statement and the Source Selection Information verbiage and CUI legend?

The Government does not confirm. The Government will not accept any font smaller than a 12 point.

Question 15 Reference: L-900, L.II.A.b Please confirm that Work Sample Artifacts are not required to adhere to the 12 point font since Offerors are to provide those in the same format as the original artifact (contract/order).

The Government does not confirm. Work Sample Artifacts are to be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered. IAW Section L.II.C.6. The Government does not require the font size to be changed in the original work sample artifact.

Question 16 Reference: L-900, L.II.A.b Can tables and graphics (charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, etc.) included in proposal narratives use a smaller font size than 12 point, provided the text is easily readable?

No. IAW Section L.II.A.b. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12.

Question 17 Reference: L – Instructions to Offerors, B. Volume I, Completed RFP, 1. General

The RFP requires submittal of “the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter… Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed.”

Will the government please confirm that submittal of “the completed and signed RFP” refers only to the RFP cover page (i.e., Standard Form 33), Sections I, K, and L with the required fill-ins and not all 106 pages of RFP FA8533-24-R-0002?

The Government does not require the fully-issued RFP to be submitted back to the Government. The Government requires only the completed RFP sections, cover letter, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and fill-ins as applicable to be submitted.

Question 18 N/A We have been participating on a 5-year small business IDIQ contract focused on automatic test system requirements. As such, we have many smaller task orders that have been issued under this contract.

Would any task order issued under this IDIQ be considered part of this one overarching contract, meaning all task orders are part of this one work sample, or would each task order be considered a separate contract, and represent one work sample each?

Each task/delivery order will be considered a separate contract and represent one work sample each. Reference Section L.II.C.2. "One work sample equals one contract/order."

Question 19 N/A We have been participating on a 5-year IDIQ contract focused on automatic test system requirements. As such, we have many smaller task orders that have been issued under this contract that are not individually comprehensive but collectively, satisfy many of the activities in the defined focus areas. Will the Government consider increasing the number of allowable work samples so that our organization can provide a proposal that illustrates our complete capabilities?

No, the Government will not increase the established number of allowable work samples. IAW Section L.II.C.2. The Technical Proposal shall consist of the RFP Attachment 3 - ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix completed and a maximum of three

(3) recent / relevant work samples as substantiating documentation.

Question 20 N/A Regarding only artifacts delivered per CDRLs. This constraint on artifacts depends heavily on the quality and thoroughness of the CDRLs defined by the USG in the contract package, which a contractor has no control over. There is extensive engineering that supports ATS tasks that, in most cases, are not called out as a CDRL. The US Army and USMC tend to limit the CDRLS as a cost saving measure. Given this, would the USG consider allowing artifacts that support the SOW/PWS, but may not be associated with a CDRL?

No, the Government will not accept artifacts that support a SOW/PWS which are not associated with a CDRL. IAW Section L.II.C.2. A work sample artifact represents evidence / information / documentation submitted as a deliverable to a Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) for its work sample.

Question 21 N/A Regarding FAC-c. This focus area category centers on relatively new approaches and methodologies related to ATS and TPS development. Our organization supports both the US Army and USMC automatic test system programs and there has been no project that required CDRLs/artifacts that support these focus factor elements. We believe there are extremely limited opportunities to provide qualifying deliverables amongst otherwise competent and qualified contractors. Would the USG consider allowing artifacts generated from related internal capability development investment projects and a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) proposal that has been accepted for funding by DoD?

No. The Government will only accept artifacts IAW Section L.II.C.2. A work sample artifact represents evidence / information / documentation submitted as a deliverable to a Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) for its work sample. One work sample equals one contract/order.

Question 22 Reference: RFP, Volume 3 We will be submitting a response to the ATSA-I RFP as a small business. Are we still required to complete Volume III, Small Business Participation?

The Small Business Participation proposal is required from all Offerors in a separate volume labeled “Volume III – Small Business Participation”. IAW Section

L.II.D.

Question 23 Reference:

RFP_+Attachment_1_Section_L- Instruction_to_Offerors_28AUG2024.

pdf,pg 3, p. II.A.b Rationale: The illustrations used in the Artifacts sections are images/screenshots from existing documents. To comply with the page limit, many of these are included at sizes less than 100%..

"Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12 point."

Is it acceptable for font sizes to be smaller in the artifacts that are screen shots of actual documents?

Evidence proposed must be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered.

Images / screenshots do not qualify as work sample artifacts and are not acceptable. Images / screenshots consolidated onto a single word document are considered discreetly generated documentation.

IAW Section L.II.C.3, the Government will NOT accept discretely generated documentation for the sole purpose of point validation. Discretely generated documentation is defined as documentation that is newly generated expressly for the purpose of responding to this RFP and was in no way a product of the work sample.

Question 24 Reference:

RFP_+Attachment_1_Section_L- Instruction_to_Offerors_28AUG2024.

pdf, pg.3, p. II.A.b Rationale: The slightly smaller font size will allow for more relevant data to be included within in the page limits.

"Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12 point." Is it acceptable for the font size to be 10 point for graphics and tables?

No. The Government will not accept any font smaller than a 12 point font unless the font size of the originally submitted work sample artifact is smaller than a 12 point font.

Question 25 Reference:

RFP_+Attachment_1_Section_L- Instruction_to_Offerors_28AUG2024.

pdf, pg,3, p. II.A.c Rationale: Front matter contains useful information to assist the government in navigating the document and understanding the included acronyms.

"The page limitation for Volume II, Technical Proposal is thirty (30) pages.

The page limitation for Volume III, Small Business Participation ten (10) pages.

The page limitations include any executive summaries, company introductions, cover letters, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc." Is front matter (e.g., Contents, Lists of Figures and Tables, and Acronym Lists) included in the page count?

No. Front matter (e.g., Contents, Lists of Figures and Tables, and Acronym Lists) is not excluded from the page count. IAW Section L.II.A.c. The page limitations include any executive summaries, company introductions, cover letters, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc.

Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation.

Question 26 Reference:

RFP_+Attachment_1_Section_L- Instruction_to_Offerors_28AUG2024.

pdf, pg. 3, p. II.A.f Rationale: Normally, internal security markings on pages are accompanied by some sort of statement on the title page. Does that apply here or are just the internal page markings sufficient?

"Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -

SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CUI." Is there a specific CUI marking that needs to be included on the title page? (i.e., Controlled by: Missile Defense Agency Controlled by: Name of Office CUI Category: Xxxx Distribution Statement/Dissemination Control: disto letter/XX POC: name, phone or email)

No. Other specific CUI Markings are not required. In summary, every page of every volume shall contain the Source Selection Information legend as noted in Section L.

Question 27 Reference:

RFP_+Attachment_1_Section_L- Instruction_to_Offerors_28AUG2024.

pdf, pg. 7, p. II.C.4.

Rationale: Front matter contains useful information to assist the government in navigating the document and understanding the included acronyms.

"As stated in the table of Section II.A, this combined Technical Proposal PDF shall not exceed 30 pages."

Is front matter (e.g., Contents, Lists of Figures and Tables, and Acronym Lists) included in the page count?

Yes, Front matter (e.g., Contents, Lists of Figures and Tables, and Acronym Lists) is included in the 30 page limitation. IAW Section L.II.A.c.

Question 28 Reference: In the RFP_ + Attachment_1_Section_L- Instructions to Offerors_28AUG2024 document issued in the Final RFP, the guidance provided in II.A.(f) states that each page of every Volume should be marked with the following legend: SOURCE SELECTION

INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND

3.104 – CUI

While the information being submitted is proprietary and will be marked appropriately, if the information provided is not Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), is the Offeror still required to mark it as such? This places some unnecessary protective labelling on information that may not be relevant or required per DCSA.

Yes. The Offeror is required to include on each page the Source Selection Infomation legend, at the bottom of each sheet.