Draft Proposal Guide Responses.pdf

# Suggestions, Questions, & Comments from Industry Government Response

I believe the guide will be helpful for industry to prepare and format their proposal.

The only comment I offer is that for the staffing proposal instead of having a cost for proposal preparation, have the cost be for the meeting minutes data deliverable (see draft RFP L‐7.0). Proposal preparation costs would not typically be included in our FFP proposal, so having the cost be for the minutes is a “cleaner” approach.

The Government intends to provide minutes to each vendor for concurrence and acceptance after the post‐award conference. The preparation cost on the Cost/Price template is for offerors to include a nominal post‐award conference preparation fee.

XXX plans on providing a response to EWACC RFP for the entire Corporation similar to what we did for current Agile contract. With that said, we heard that each business unit that has a separate cage code must provide a proposal. Is this correct?? We have at least a half dozen Business Units (separate cage codes) that will be involved in this proposal. Let alone XXX have separate cage codes.

A revised Proposal Response Guide will have space for a primary CAGE code and all other relevant

CAGE codes per primary offeror. The offeror will decide which entity is the primary, and only one to receive a $1000 award. The other CAGE entities will receive a zero‐cost contract to enable future competition but each entity will only receive one (1) monetary award at the IDIQ level.

Are offerors compelled to use the PDF document provided with document

“Instructions for using the Proposal Response Guide” and only add headers and footers?

Yes, only proposals received with the attached Proposal Response Guide attached and completed will be evaluated.

4 Or is this PFD document just a guide to provide proposal response?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP.

The draft proposal response guide for EWAAC does not appear match the requirements included in the Draft RFP Section L. Volume 1 (Company Overview and narrative summary); Volume 2: Technical; and Volume 3: Cost are included; however the requirement for Contract Documentation, Admin Submissions, DD254, OCI Plan, Reps & Certs, Identification & Assertions and Small Business Subcontracting Plan are not addressed. Please comfirm that these sections are no longer required for proposal submission? In the Final RFP, will the Section L align with the Proposal Response

Guide?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. Any submissions necessary to meet the requirements in section L, table L1.3, which are not on the Proposal Response Guide should be submitted separately and contractor format is acceptable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP. Sections L and M are also being revised.

The EWAAC Proposal Response Guide states “The purpose of the proposal response guide is to aid offerors in responding to the EWAAC IDIQ Technical and Cost/Price solicitation using the below template. Offerors shall not deviate from the format provided.” Is the intent that we should populate this PDF file with what is specifically requested within it and return this file and that will constitute our total response, or perhaps just the response for Volume II (which is Factor I:Management/Technical) and

Volume III (which is Factor II:Cost/Price)?

Yes, proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III.

Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. The Government is revising the

Proposal Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP.

If we are to populate and return this guide as our total response or even just as our response to Volume II and Volume III only, are we not to submit as those as separate volumes per the four volume layout as described in Section L?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP.

If populating this PDF file is intended just to cover Volumes II and III, should we submit a separate Volume I as specified in section L‐2.0?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP.

If populating this PDF file is intended just to cover Volumes II and III, should we submit a separate Volume IV Small Business Subcontracting Plan as specified in section L‐5?

And is there a required format or page limit for the Small Business Subcontracting

Plan?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP.

The EWAAC Proposal Response Guide states “Offerors shall not exceed 7 pages total for DIGITAL TRINITY elements and shall not exceed 4 pages for the DIGITAL TRINITY roadmap.” This is 11 pages and is over the 10 page limit specified in Section L, Table L‐

1.3. Which should we use?

Page limits in section L, table L‐1.3 have been amended to match the format of the Proposal

Response Guide. Offerors should refer to the Sections L and M provided in the final RFP release for clarity.

The EWAAC Proposal Response Guide states “Offerors shall not exceed 7 pages total for the TECHNICAL description and supporting examples.” This is one page shy of the 8 page allocation specified in Table L‐1.3. Which should we use?

Page limits in section L, table L‐1.3 have been amended to match the format of the Proposal

Response Guide. Offerors should refer to the Sections L and M provided in the final RFP release for clarity.

Sections L‐4.1 and L‐4.2 (specifically 4.2.1 through 4.2.7) request additional Cost/Price statements and descriptions that are not listed in the EWAAC Proposal Response

Guide. Are these no longer required? Or is Volume III still required as laid out in these section L paragraphs?

Cost and price submittal requirements have been refined in Section L. Offerors should refer to the

Sections L and M provided in the final RFP release for clarity.

Can the Government confirm that only Vol 1, Section 1 ‐ Narrative Summary, Volume II

FACTOR IL SUBFACTOR A: DIGITAL TRINITY elements (SECTION M, paragraph 3.1) and

SUBFACTOR B: TECHNICAL (Section M, Paragraph 3.2) and VOLUME III FACTOR II: Cost and Price are to be provided in the pdf template and all other Volumes/Sections should be in accordance with the Draft Section L instructions?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP. Cost/ Price instructions have been refined in the Excel template which will be included in an offeror's proposal.

It is our understanding if we have a DoD SB Subcontracting Plan or Comprehensive

Subcontracting Plan in accordance with DFAR or FAR, we do not need to submit the table (Table L ‐ 5.1) or any other content other than the plan?

Offerors with a comprehensive subcontracting plan should submit that as an attachment to the proposal.

On page 1 of the .pdf document, the second paragraph under “FACTOR 1

INSTRUCTIONS” asks for a description of “…direct (organic or house) capabilities…” This same language is found again in both SUBFACTOR A: DIGITAL TRINITY ELEMENTS and in

SUBFACTOR B: TECHNICAL. Does the use of this language preclude the use of subcontractor teammates to demonstrate compliance with the required capabilities, i.e., the offeror must only write about their own capabilities?

Offerors shall describe their direct (organic, in‐house, or subcontracted) capability to perform technical functions associated with technical areas. Teaming at the IDIQ level is encouraged.

The DRFP allows for response to either or both Armament/Weapons Development and

Enterprise Activities in SECTION B: TECHNICAL. If an offeror elects to respond to only one of the two categories, does the Proposal Response Guide allow the offeror to use all 7 pages allocated for the Section B technical response to respond to the one technical area (either Armament/Weapons Development or Enterprise Analytics)?

The Government seeks to gather the most information on the technical proficiencies of offerors within the space provided. Offerors will need to determine the most effective method for explaining examples of proficiency.

The bulletized list of technical requirements in Section M of the DRFP is quite extensive. Section M 3.2 a. states that responses shall be evaluated relative to the offeror’s knowledge and ability to address all facets of the technical requirements listed in Section M 3.2 as related to Weapons. Section M 3.2 b. states that offerors shall describe their direct (organic or in‐house) capability to perform technical functions associated with technical areas listed in section M 3.2 and that the remainder of the technical areas shall be satisfied through strategies the offeror deems suitable, for example, subcontracts or partnering. The offeror is further required to show information on how the remaining requirements shall be satisfied. In consideration of the limited page space availability prescribed in the Proposal Guide, is the offeror expected to respond to each and every technical bullet in Section M 3.2, specifically by providing direct capability to “some or all” of the technical requirements and providing information on how the remaining requirements will be satisfied for the remainder of the bullets? Please quantify “some” and provide instructions as to whether technical bullets not identified as within the offeror’s direct capability must be addressed in a bullet‐by‐bullet format

Section L and M bulleted lists in paragraphs 3 are intended to provide examples of capabilities.

Offerors need not provide evidence of experience for every bulleted item, but only the most relevant experience to that offeror's proficiency in that area. Sections L and M language is being refined and offerors should refer to the final versions released with the RFP for clarity. The page limit of the proposal is intended to streamline the proposal process.

In the Proposal Guide, the Government says “Offerors shall use the space provided under each section to explain technical approaches, recent/relevant expertise, direct

(organic or in‐house) capabilities…” Does organic or in‐house refer to the team as an entity (including partners) or is it referring to the Prime Contractor only?

Offerors shall describe their direct (organic, in‐house, or subcontracted) capability to perform technical functions associated with technical areas. Teaming at the IDIQ level is encouraged.

Within Section M, there are three pages of capability bullet requirements. Since we only get 7 pages for a response, can we create a numbering system to refer to bullets versus repeating the bulleted text, which would take up three of our seven pages?

Contractor format within the Proposal Response Guide spaces provided is acceptable. The

Government will not dictate how you use the space provided, but will not allow changes to font size, etc.

Does the Government intent for the offeror to charge “Proposal Preparation” cost or should this be updated in the template to “Pre‐Award Conference Preparation Price?”

The Government intends to provide minutes to each vendor for concurrence and acceptance after the post‐award conference. The preparation cost on the Cost/Price template is for offerors to include a nominal post‐award conference preparation fee.

EWAAC Section L14 says we submit Volume I, II, and III (Executive, Management/Tech and Cost) as three separate attachments but the template is all one document, would the Government please clarify if offerors are supposed to submit as three separate volumes?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP.

The Proposal Response Guide does not include a section for the Small Business Plan, should the offerors assume that the plan is to be submitted separately?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP.

The Proposal Response Guide is not in compliance with the requirements in section L‐

1.4 WRITTEN PROPOSAL SIZE/FORMAT, can the Government confirm using the template would not violate the instructions given?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide and Sections L and M, and updated versions will be released with the RFP.

The Proposal Response Guide does not include space for the additional items required in Volume I (Contract Documentation, Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements, Administrative Submissions, Security Requirement/DD254, OCI Plan, Reps & Certs, Identification and Assertions. Should the offerors assume this information is to be submitted separately?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. Any submissions necessary to meet the requirements in section L, table L1.3, which are not on the Proposal Response Guide should be submitted separately and contractor format is acceptable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP. Sections L and M are also being revised.

The Proposal Response Guide does not include space for the additional items required in Volume III (Accounting/Disclose Documents, Capability Statement, Staffing Proposal:

Post Award Conference, Certified Cost Pricing Data, if and when applicable). Should the offerors assume this information is to be submitted separately?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. Any submissions necessary to meet the requirements in section L, table L1.3, which are not on the Proposal Response Guide should be submitted separately and contractor format is acceptable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP. Sections L and M are also being revised.

Can the Government clarify whether the Proposal Response Guide will allow graphics including tables, process flowcharts/diagrams, and photographs of relevant prototypes and facilities to be included in the Technical Proposal.

The Proposal Response Guide will not be editable except in providing narrative evidence in meeting the requirements in the spaces provided. The Government prefers not to receive tables, flowcharts, diagrams, or photographs as part of the proposal.

There is a discrepancy between the EWAAC Proposal Response Guide and the EWAAC

Draft Section L (Table L‐1.3) with regard to page limitations for the overall response.

Will the Government please clarify the page limitations Offerors should adhere to when completing the Proposal Response Guide in its entirety.

Page limits in section L, table L‐1.3 have been amended to match the format of the Proposal

Response Guide. Offerors should refer to the Sections L and M provided in the final RFP release for clarity.

The DRAFT Proposal Response Guide does not include a section for offerors to provide the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required in DRFP Section L‐5. Could AFLCMC clarify whether a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is still required and if so, where offerors should include within proposal responses?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP.

The DRFP proposal organization matrix (Table L‐1.3) list a 10 page limit for Volume II

Sub Factor A, while the DRAFT Proposal Response Guide indicates an 11 page limit (7 pages for elements and 4 pages for roadmap). Could AFLCMC deconflict how many total pages are allocated to respond to Sub Factor A Digital Trinity Capabilities?

Page limits in section L, table L‐1.3 have been amended to match the format of the Proposal

Response Guide. Offerors should refer to the Sections L and M provided in the final RFP release for clarity.

The DRFP proposal organization matrix (Table L‐1.3) list an 8 page limit for Volume II

Sub Factor B, while the DRAFT Proposal Response Guide states a 7 page limit. Could

AFLCMC deconflict how many total pages are allocated to respond to Sub Factor B

Technical?

Page limits in section L, table L‐1.3 have been amended to match the format of the Proposal

Response Guide. Offerors should refer to the Sections L and M provided in the final RFP release for clarity.

Would AFLCMC consider adding a line within the "Company Information" section of the Proposal Response Guide (starting on page 2) for offerors to include their profit, not‐for‐profit, and academic organizational status?

Offerors can use the space provided for narrative statements as deem necessary in Volume I, however the information provided will not be evaluated.

In order to achieve EWAAC's complex, dynamic, and varied strategic goals, would

AFLCMC consider including competitively procured, but set‐a‐side deliver orders for academic institutions and nonprofit organizations, via per FAR 6.302‐3 in accordance with 10 USC §2304, (c)(3)(B)?

The Government intends to use the EWAAC IDIQ for full and open competition and to emphasize the move towards Digital Trinity elements in future weapon acquisitions.

Please clarify if Offerors can create an MS Word document version that follows the

Proposal Response Guide outline and convert back to pdf for submittal. This will allow insertion of graphics and tables.

The Proposal Response Guide will not be editable except in providing narrative evidence in meeting the requirements in the spaces provided. The Government prefers not to receive tables, flowcharts, diagrams, or photographs as part of the proposal.

Will Offerors be required to add header/footer information required in Section L‐1.4.a.

of the RFP to the Proposal Response Guide PDF form?

No, the Proposal Response Guide will not be editable except in filling in spaces provided. Section L

1.4.b information can be included anywhere in the form, once for completeness.

Please clarify that Offeror’s can remove instructional information in the Response

Guide outline.

The Proposal Response Guide will not be editable except in filling in spaces provided.

Will the Government allow standard graphics and table text formatting to be 8‐point, Arial?

The Proposal Response Guide will not be editable except in providing narrative evidence in meeting the requirements in the spaces provided. The Government prefers not to receive tables, flowcharts, diagrams, or photographs as part of the proposal.

Please clarify text will still be 12‐ point, Times New Roman for the Proposal Response template.

The Proposal Response Guide will not be editable except in providing narrative evidence in meeting the requirements in the spaces provided. The font size within the space provided cannot be changed.

Will offeror solely be limited to Other Information block area to complete the information not addressed in the boilerplate portion OFFEROR’S COMPANY

INFORMATION AND NARRATIVE SUMMARY?

Offerors can use the space provided for narrative statements as deem necessary in Volume I, however the information provided will not be evaluated.

39 Is the Proposal Response Guide replacing the submittal of Volumes I, II, and III?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide and Sections L and M, and updated versions will be released with the RFP.

If an Offeror does not respond to Enterprise Analytics (2 pages), can the pages be re‐ allocated to the response for Armament/Weapons Development (7 pages)? Increasing the page allotment from 7 to 9, but still within total page count.

The Government seeks to gather the most information on the technical proficiencies of offerors within the space provided. Offerors will need to determine the most effective method for explaining examples of proficiency.

As we begin to complete our proposal, we have not been able to insert graphics into the response field of the PDF. Is this something that can be resolved ahead of the RFP template release? We believe being able to share a few diagrams better describes how

AMT/QTec meet the Digital Trinity requests.

The Proposal Response Guide will not be editable except in providing narrative evidence in meeting the requirements in the spaces provided. The Government prefers not to receive tables, flowcharts, diagrams, or photographs as part of the proposal. A revised Proposal Response Guide and Sections L

& M will be provided with the final RFP.

The template is offered in PDF “fillable” format. Is the government’s intent to simply fill in text using this exact form, or create a form similar to this for inclusion as part of a package as described in Sec L‐1.3? Recommend you offer the template in Word or other editable format to allow inclusion of graphics, tables and charts as necessary to succinctly convey our message, within page count.

The Proposal Response Guide will not be editable except in providing narrative evidence in meeting the requirements in the spaces provided. The Government prefers not to receive tables, flowcharts, diagrams, or photographs as part of the proposal. A revised Proposal Response Guide and Sections L

& M will be provided with the final RFP.

Does the proposal organization outlined in Sec L‐1.3 still stand, or will it be modified to account for the new template format? For example, the template incorporates portions of the Volumes I, II, and III described in L‐1.3, but does not account for several other sections in the L‐1.3 outline. Can you please clarify/elaborate?

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. Any submissions necessary to meet the requirements in section L, +C44:C50table L1.3, which are not on the Proposal Response Guide should be submitted separately and contractor format is acceptable. The Government is revising the

Proposal Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP. Sections L and M are also being revised.

Regarding Page 16: “…by demonstrating competence in 2 of the 3 categories…” Please confirm that for Subfactor B Technical, the offeror may elect to discuss EITHER

Armament / Weapons Development OR Enterprise Analytics. Page 18 of the template indicates extra space for either topic or the other, but Pages 12‐17 (especially pg 16) seem to indicate the need to complete both sections.

Offerors will be evaluated based on demonstrated proficiency in either Armament/Weapons or

Enterprise Analytics. Offerors should complete all sections of the Proposal Response Guide they decide are applicable. Selectability in one element will not preclude awardees from competing for future DO/TOs in the other focus areas of the EWAAC IDIQ.

The pricing template on Page 19 is concise and very expedient. Thank you. Is it your intent for the offeror to also include all additional info indexed in Sec L‐4.1.4 onto the single block on Page 20 (e.g. paragraphs for 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, etc.)? Or is such additional data expected to be submitted as part of a Volume III package? If intended on Page 20, recommend you place explicit headers on a block for each desired data item.

Proposals must include the Proposal Response Guide completed for Volumes I, II, and III. Volume IV is to be submitted in contractor format if applicable. Any submissions necessary to meet the requirements in section L, table L1.3, which are not on the Proposal Response Guide should be submitted seperatly and contractor format is acceptable. The Government is revising the Proposal

Response Guide for ease of use and streamlining the proposal process, and an updated version will be released with the RFP. Sections L and M are also being revised.

In general no comments on the proposal template. I think it all is fairly self‐ explanatory. I do have a question on the post award conference. If I needed or wanted to get invitations for more people to attend that would put us over the $1000 limit would it be possible to invite them if we absorbed the cost over the $1000 limit?

Yes, offerors are able to independently decide on attendance to the post‐award conference. The

Government is providing options to attend in‐person as necessary or virtually to keep costs low.

Awards will only be made for $1000. Offerors will not be compendated for additional attendance.

The Government may need to restrict in‐person attendance per offeror based on space limitations of the meeting venue.

Please clarify how far up the "cage code chain" an entity must submit a proposal. Do entities need to submit at the "Highest Level Owner" cage code or is sumbitting at the

"Intermedate Level Owner" desired? (terms come from https://cage.dla.mil)

A revised Proposal Response Guide will have space for a primary CAGE code and all other relevant

CAGE codes per primary offeror. The offeror will decide which entity is the primary, and only one to receive a $1000 award. The other CAGE entities will receive a zero‐cost contract to enable future competition but each entity will only receive one (1) monetary award at the IDIQ level.

Please clarify if the statement "Subsidiary awards, with no value, will allow each ancillary location to be considered for DO/TO awards independently" ensures each subsidiary receives a copy of competitive requests (FOPRs/Calls/Task Orders) under the IDIQ? Does this mean each subsidiary can submit a proposal to prime on future competitive requests independent of the main entity on the IDIQ?

Each subsidiary awardee will be able to compete for future DO/Tos (FOPRs) independently.

If a main entity is awarded the IDIQ and participates in the 1 hour post‐award meeting, can any number of attendees from subsidiaries join at no cost to the customer?

Yes, offerors are able to independently decide on attendance to the post‐award conference. The

Government is providing options to attend in‐person as necessary or virtually to keep costs low.

Awards will only be made for $1000. Offerors will not be compendated for additional attendance.

The Government may need to restrict in‐person attendance per offeror based on space limitations of the meeting venue.