Questions and Answers 22 April 2022.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA868422R2006
About this file
This is a request for proposal for an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity multiple award contract issued by the Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Lifecycle Management Center's Architecture and Integration Directorate. The RFP seeks modeling, simulation, analysis, capability development, software development, and advanced synthetic environment capabilities across AFLCMC/XA's portfolio. Offerors must propose $1,000 for an initial post-award deliverable to establish a contract. The source selection will evaluate technical capability in development planning, systems development, and synthetic environment development. The period of performance is a five-year base period with three one-year option periods. Questions and answers are provided to clarify requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Reference | Question | Govt Response |
| SF33 | The RFP is password protected. I am attempting to extract the SF33 and Section K- Reps and Certs from the RFP document. Will you supply the password so these pages can be extracted? | A version that is not password protected has been posted to sam.gov |
| My firm intends to submit a response to the subject RFP FA8684-22-R-2006 released on 03/31/2022. Our submission will likely include CUI. Please provide the specific instructions for submitting CUI. | CUI responses will be provided via DoD Safe. DoD SAFE upload links are valid for 14 calendar days, so within 14 calendar days, but no less than 5 business days prior to the intended submission date, vendors should email the PCO and CS to request a "drop off" link. Once the proposal has been submitted via the drop-off link , click "print details" and save as a PDF. Email the DoD Safe Details PDF, and the encryption password to the PCO and CS team prior to the RFP close deadline. | |
| We understand that there are no set-asides at the IDIQ level. Will there be any set-asides (small, WOSB, SDVOSB, HubZone etc.) at the task order level? | At this time, we cannot anticipate whether any future orders will be set aside for small businesses. | |
| XXXX intends on submitting a response for the Architecture and Integration Directorate (AFLCMC/XA) Multiple Award Indefinite Quantity Contract (MAC IDIQ) and Volume III requires submission of completed solicitation documentation. We would like to fill out the documentation provided to us in FA8684-22-R-2006+31+March+2022.pdf but the file is password protected and cannot be edited. In order to complete all four sections of Volume III, can the government please provide an un-protected version of the RFP document, suitable for offerors to fill-in? | A version that is not password protected has been posted to sam.gov | |
| With the expectation that we will be submitting our response a few weeks early, do we have to opportunity to update our submittal based on internal discussions (after our initial submittal) even if we do not receive feedback by the XA team? | Yes, as long as the proposal is submitted by the due date/time specified in Section L. | |
| Proposal Response Guide (Atch 4). | Any text that is entered on page 13 is automatically linked & replicated on page 15, making it impossible to enter a Glossary of Terms and Acronyms. Can you please take a look at the form and re-issue it if appropriate? | This has been fixed and an updated version has been posted to sam.gov |
| 1. Para 5.6 SOW, Exclusivity Agreements, states: The Contractor shall not require other Contractors or entities to sign an exclusivity agreement that could prevent further activity within the AFLCMC/XA portfolio. Round 2 Q&A states: Yes, teaming agreements are allowed. A single vendor must serve as the prime contractor, unless a joint venture is considered. See FAR 9.601. |
Question: Please clarify if exclusive teaming agreements are allowed or not.
| The USG does not consider Exclusivity Agreements and Teaming Agreements to be the same thing. AFLCMC/XA highly discourages contractors to enter into Teaming Agreements which may restrict further activity within the AFLCMC/XA portfolio. Teaming Agreements are allowed for the AFLCMC/XA IDIQ. | ||
| 2. RFP, Delivery Orders will have their own POPs. Can the USG extend the POPs, inclusive of any options, outside the 5 year ordering period? The same question would apply to the other Categories and Options. | Orders may extend up to 24 months beyond the 5 year ordering period, as indicated in FAR 52.216-22 within the solicitation document. | |
| 3. Sect L – para 1 – “This vehicle shall not to be used for any Advisory & Assistance Requirements” in relation to two SOW references specifically the underlined portions: |
1.0 – “ The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Architecture & Integration Directorate’s (AFLCMC/XA) mission is to work with the requirements community and S&T/Industry to analyze gaps, requirements, missions, threats, and technologies and to develop systems or solutions to address warfighter needs while launching high confidence programs.
2.2. Category 2 - Systems Development
Systems Development consists of innovative approaches to develop a wide range of systems addressing warfighter needs and supporting future program launch across the AFLCMC/XA portfolio. Activities include, but are not limited to, component level engineering, additive manufacturing, rapid prototyping, and requirements analysis supporting Department of Defense (DoD) acquisitions processes and any other activities up to LRIP
These statements appear to be in conflict, please clarify.
| These statements are not in conflict. The AFLCMC/XA IDIQ vehicle will not be utilized for A&AS services. | ||
| 4. L-5.0 VOLUME II- SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN. Is the Customer expecting a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that only cites DoD Statutory percentages (no Dollar values) in response to the RFP? | Yes, percentages only are acceptable. | |
| 5. Sections M-3.1, M-3.2, and M-3.3 each state “A proposal to meet this category is Acceptable if it meets all of the following requirements:” and following states: “b. The experience narrative(s) demonstrates proficiency in at least two (2) of the following attributes for this category:” Meeting all requirements and having proficiency in two requirements seem to be in conflict. Please clarify. | These statements are not in conflict. Proficiency must be demonstrated in at least two (2) of the attributes for the particular category to be deemed Acceptable. | |
| Since we are a publicly-traded non-traditional defense contractor, is documentation from a third party CPA auditing firm acceptable, in lieu of DCMA/Government approval, for L-7.2? | The information in L-7.2 will only apply if a contractor wishes to be eligible for a Cost type CLIN on future orders. In the case of a nontraditional defense contractor, you would indicate that you do not have evidence of DCMA/Government approval. | |
| What is required to be submitted for L-7.1 if an OCI doesn't exist? | If there is no OCI present, no documentation is required. Section L paragraph 7.1 has been updated to clarify this. | |
| In category 3 the government is using the term "platform-agnostic". Is the government referring to computer platforms (Windows, Linux, iOS, Android), or weapons platform (F-15, F-16, F-22, B-52, etc)? | In M-3.3, b.,3., the USG is describing weapons platforms or other military platforms in a synthetic environment. However, the USG also seeks vendors with platform agnostic software development (i.e. web based or portable software tools) within a synthetic environment | |
| Do requirements for subcontracting plans differ for non-traditional defense contractors? | No, the same requirements apply. | |
| The Draft RFP included submission provisions utilizing DoD SAFE. Will the Government consider allowing offerors to submit via DoD SAFE to better protect proprietary narratives? | DoD SAFE submissions are allowable. DoD SAFE upload links are valid for 14 calendar days, so within 14 calendar days, but no less than 5 business days prior to the intended submission date, vendors should email the PCO and CS to request a "drop off" link. Once the proposal has been submitted via the drop-off link , click "print details" and save as a PDF. Email the DoD Safe Details PDF, and the encryption password to the PCO and CS team prior to the RFP close deadline. | |
| Can/Will FOPRs developed under this IDIQ bridge the categories and be released under multiple category pools of vendors? If so, how will the Government utilize the stratified vendor list to determine workshare in the DO? | Future orders may call upon multiple categories. | |
| L-2.0 Volume I - Main Proposal | For Volume I Main Proposal, are offerors permitted to add headers/footers to the Proposal Response Guide with information such as the name of the solicitation, company name and logo, and submission date? | No, formatting of this document is not to be edited. |
| L-2.0 Volume I - Main Proposal | Shall offerors include the cover letter in Volume I? | A cover letter is not to be utilized. |
| Are offerors permitted to submit a cover sheet / cover page on the four volumes? | A cover letter is not to be utilized. | |
| L-1.4 Written Proposal Size/Format | What is the file size limit of the proposal files? What is the file size limit of the submission e-mail(s), if any, as well? | There is no set file size limit. If the size limit prevents submission via email, contact the PCO and CS. Offerors are encouraged to state in the body of the email a list of attachments. |
| Where will the primary work be located for common training environment? | This information is unknown at this time. This would be addressed in the FOPR for future orders. | |
| Attch. 2, Section L, L-1.1 (b), page 1 | L-1.1 (b) states “Offerors shall apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information…” |
Question: The Proposal Response Guide template does not allow offeror to provide marking of data disclosure, unless the marking becomes part of the text contents, which limits the space needed for experience narratives. Will the government revise the template to allow for the marking to be included in the footer, or will the government provide further guidance on where the offer can insert such marking?
| A fillable space has been added to each page of the PRG specifically for markings. | |
| Attch. 2, L-1.3 Proposal Organization, Table L-1.3, page 2 | Table L-1.3 provides method of submission for each volume. For Volume II, III and IV, the method of submission is specified for each section and to be “Written and submitted separately.” |
Clarification: Can the government clarify if sections for Volume III and IV are to be submitted as separate files per Volume or as one file per Volume?
| Volumes III and IV are to be submitted separately, in accordance with L-1.3. | |
| Attch 2, L-4.1, Pricing Instructions, page 4 | L-4.1 provides instruction for the submittal of the $1,000 pricing/proposal to be completed on a worksheet, also referenced as the Post Award CDRL Pricing Worksheet. |
Clarification: Typically, a reference to a Worksheet indicates the use of a MS Excel Workbook/Worksheet file. (1) Would the Government clarify that the Post Award CDRL Pricing Worksheet requirement does not require a MS Excel submission and only requires the Section IV- Factor II: Price page from the Proposal Response Guide reflecting the $1,000 price. (2) Would the Government clarify that there is no additional verbiage or written justification required on this page of the Proposal Response Guide to justify the basis for the $1,000 price to develop and deliver the Post Award CDRL.
| A separate MS Excel Worksheet is not required. Only the Section IV - Factor II Price page from the PRG is required. No additional verbiage or justification is required. | ||
| Can the Government please clarify what is meant by Section M-1.0. Basis for Contract Award: “This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection”? If all offerors are instructed to propose $1,000 for the initial delivery order, LPTA would appear not applicable. Please clarify. | The Government will award contract(s) to those Offeror(s) whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements and are judged, based on the evaluation factors, to be technically acceptable with a proposed price for the initial delivery order of $1,000. | |
| Will all FOPRs be sent to all IDIQ winners or will FOPRs be distributed only to those who have been rated “ACCEPTABLE” for the FOPR’s Category? | FOPR dissemination will be limited to all offerors found acceptable within the category specified in the FOPR. | |
| Will any (single) FOPR cover tasking from more than one Category? | Future orders may call upon multiple categories. | |
| When responding to FOPRs, can IDIQ Primes include subcontractors that come from outside the 50-100 XA IDIQ winners pool? | Yes | |
| If multiple IDIQ Primes want to team on a FOPR, can they use a conventional Prime/Sub arrangement or do they both need to submit Prime bids? | A conventional Prime/Sub arrangement would be acceptable, unless otherwise specified in the FOPR. | |
| p. 3, M 3.2, B 9&10, M3.3, p. 4B 9&10 | Will the Government allow offerors to address classified facilities and networks through Corporate resources as opposed to direct, cited contract support? | Yes, corporate assets can be used as part of the narrative to codify the offeror's technical capability. |
| p.5, L-5.1, Table L-5.1 | In regards to the Small Business Contracting Plan, can the government confirm subcontracting goals in terms of percentages of total subcontracted dollars and not total contract value? | Yes, percentages only are acceptable. |
| Attach. 4 - Proposal Response Guide | The guide asks for the Offeror’s DUNS number. According to SAM.gov as of 04 April 2022, the Unique Entity ID replaced the DUNS number. |
Should the DUNS number change to Unique Entity ID?
| An updated PRG including the Unique Entity ID has been posted to sam.gov | |
| Section L-1.1a | If Offerors submit a proposal early, will the Government provide feedback to improve the submittal for suggestions that are not considered discrepancies? |
Will amended proposals be accepted prior or on the proposal due date?
| The USG does not anticipate providing feedback to improve submittals. Amended proposals will be accepted as long as the proposal is submitted by the due date/time specified in Section L. |
| L-3.0 Section III – Factor I: Technical Capability |
and M-3.0 Factor I: Technical Capability, M-3.1, M-3.2, M-3.3 Each of the three (3) Technical Capability categories has 7-10 attributes listed under each category.
Are any attributes considered more important than the others?
Are there any trade-off decisions among attributes within each category?
| No attributes are considered more important than the others. This is being conducted as an LPTA source selection; no trade-offs are being utilized. |
| L-3.0 Section III – Factor I: Technical Capability |
and M-3.0 Factor I: Technical Capability, M-3.1, M-3.2, M-3.3 If an Offeror is acceptable in more than half of the attributes listed in each category, will the Government consider this a strength?
If so, will that strength count more toward evaluation of the Offeror?
| This is being conducted as an LPTA source selection; no trade-offs are being utilized. | |
| Section L-1.1, letter b, and Section L-1.4, letter a | This paragraph states “Offerors shall apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215- 1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information. Classified information will not be permitted.” |
Does this apply to Attach 4 - Proposal Response Guide?
If so, how and where do we apply these markings since the Proposal Response Guide cannot be altered?
| A fillable space has been added to each page of the PRG specifically for markings. | |
| Section L-1.3, letter a, Table L-1.3, and Section L-1.4, letter a | Table L-1.3 requires that the title of volume I to be “Volume I Main Proposal,” but the Proposal Response Guide does not include that title. The guide begins with “Section I.” |
Will the Government permit Offerors to attach a cover page to the guide to meet this requirement?
If not, please clarify how Offerors should meet this requirement since the Proposal Response Guide cannot be altered.
| Cover pages are not to be utilized. Contractors are not expected to retitle Volume I Main Proposal. The Proposal Response Guide captures the Main Proposal. | |
| Section L-1.3, letter a, Table L-1.3, and Section L-1.4, letter a | Table L-1.3 requires that the subtitle of Section III, Factor I: Technical Capability, be “Experience Narrative.” However, this title is not included in the Proposal Response Guide template. |
Please advise how Offerors meet this title requirement since the Proposal Response Guide cannot be altered.
| Pages 5-13 of the Proposal Resonse Guide constitute the response field for Experience Narrative. | |
| Section L-1.3, letter a and Table L-1.3 | Table L-1.3 requires the subtitle of Section IV, Factor II: Price, to be “Post Award CDRL Pricing Worksheet.” However, the Proposal Response Guide uses the following subtitle: “Subfactor A: Post Award CDRL Deliverable Pricing Worksheet.” |
Will the Government please update either Table L-1.3 or the Proposal Response Guide to make the subtitles the same?
| This is the appropriate field for that response; no change will be made to either document. | |
| Attach 4 – Proposal Response Guide and Table L-1.3 | A Glossary of Terms and Acronyms is included in the Proposal Response Guide but is not listed in Table L-1.3. |
Should this be included in Table L-1.3? Or is the glossary not to be evaluated?
| This is to assist evaluators; it is not to be evaluated. | |
| Section L-1.3, letter d and Section L-1.4, letter a | This paragraph states “A glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used will be included in the Proposal Response Guide.” |
Does the Government mean this glossary should include all abbreviations and acronyms used in all of the proposal volumes, or just those used in the Proposal Response Guide?
If so, will the Government allow Offerors to add additional pages to the glossary to accommodate all acronyms from all of the volumes (e.g., Volume III Solicitation Documentation includes numerous acronyms)?
| The glossary should address the abbreviations and acronyms used in the Proposal Response Guide. | |
| Table L-1.3, Section L-4.1, letter a and Proposal Response Guide, pg. 14 | Table L-1.3 lists the subtitle of Section IV, Factor II: Price, as “Post Award CDRL Pricing Worksheet.” L-4.1.a states: “Pricing for development and delivery of the Post-Award CDRL utilizing the Post-Award CDRL Pricing Worksheet section of the Proposal Response Guide.” However, the Proposal Response Guide (pg. 14) lists: “Subfactor A: Post Award CDRL Deliverable Pricing Worksheet.” |
Will the Government please update Table L-1.3, the Proposal Response Guide, and Section L-4.1.a to make the title of this worksheet the same in each document?
| This is the appropriate field for that response; no change will be made to either document. | |
| Table L-1.3 and Section L-SECTION I-7.1 | Table L-1.3 lists “Section I Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan.” However, L-SECTION I-7.1 requires an “Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan.” |
Which plan type is correct: OCI Plan or OCI Mitigation Plan (because these are two different types of plans with different requirements)?
Will the Government please update Table L-1.3 and Section L-SECTION I-7.1 so the correct plan name is the same in both?
| In both instances, the USG is referring to the OCI Mitigation Plan. Section L has been updated for consistency. | |
| Section M-1.0, letter a | This paragraph states “This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.” |
Since this is a MAC IDIQ acquisition for which all Offerors are required to propose $1,000.00 for the post-award CDRL only, will the Government please clarify the use of “LPTA” in this paragraph.
| The Government will award contract(s) to those Offeror(s) whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements and are judged, based on the evaluation factors, to be technically acceptable with a proposed price for the initial delivery order of $1,000. | ||
| Section M-3.2, para. B.2 | Please clarify the definition of “disruptive capabilities.” | Disruptive capabilities means an innovation that significantly alters how the military conducts operations across the full spectrum of military activities. This includes addressing critical and priority capability gaps for the Department of Defense (DoD) and other government agencies. |
| L-7.2.1 | Is the Offeror required to have a Government approved Estimating System? Or, if their processes and practices follow the FAR/DFAR is this acceptable? | The information in L-7.2 will apply if a contractor wishes to be eligible for a Cost type CLIN on future orders. |
| L-7.2.2 | Is the Offeror required to have a Government approved Purchasing System? Or, if their processes and practices follow the FAR/DFAR is this acceptable? | The information in L-7.2 will apply if a contractor wishes to be eligible for a Cost type CLIN on future orders. |
| M 3.0 | Is the Offeror required to provide contract numbers and relevant PWS sections to prove that the experience meets the criteria? | The USG is not requiring this information. |
| L 4.1 | If all the offerors are required to submit a price of $1,000.00 how is this a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.? | The Government will award contract(s) to those Offeror(s) whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements and are judged, based on the evaluation factors, to be technically acceptable with a proposed price for the initial delivery order of $1,000. |
| L.4.1 | Section L Pricing instructions and Section M Evaluation Factors for Award stipulate the pricing worksheet for the Post Award deliverable must be complete and submitted as SECTION IV-FACTOR II: Price in The Proposal Response Guide. This section is titled SUBFACTOR A: POST AWARD CDRL DELIVERABLE PRICING WORKSHEET with a Total Proposed Price of $1,000.00. |
Is this titled worksheet, as included in the Proposal Response Guide, to be submitted as is or is the offeror to develop a separate worksheet with a price of $1,000.00?
| The titled worksheet as included in the Proposal Response Guide is to be submitted as is. Offerors are not to develop a separate worksheet. | ||
| M-4.0 | If the sheet is to be submitted as is in the Proposal Response Guide as part of the offerors proposal submission is additional pricing information to be added/included for the $1,000.00 price? | No additional information is required. |
| For Section L-2.1 Section I- Company/Other Information |
Paragraph b. Government Offices: If applicable, provide the name, mailing address, telephone, and facility codes for the cognizant Contract Administration Office, DCAA, DCMA Administrating Contracting Officer, and Government Paying Office. Also, provide the name and telephone and fax number for the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).
| Is this section asking of the government offices for respective government experience write-ups in Section III – Factor I: Technical Capability? | No | |
| Proposal Response Guide/Section IV | Can the government clarify how the CDRL Delieverable Worksheet shall be delievered to the govenrment? Where do offeror find the CDRL worksheet? it is as a separate attachment or included within the Proposal Response Guide on page 14? If the government is requesting for the worksheet to be included on page 14, will the government furnish an update to accommodate this requirement, presently the form will not allow for this. | Page 14 of the Proposal Response Guide is the CDRL Deliverable Pricing Worksheet. The titled worksheet as included in the Proposal Response Guide is to be submitted as is. Offerors are not to develop a separate worksheet. |
| Volumes II, III and IV | Can the government specify what size margins shall be used for these volumes, clairficaiton for required font and font size? Shall Offerors submit a cover page, table of contents and glossary for each Volume? | The Proposal Response Guide is to be utilized as is. Formatting is not to be altered. Cover pages, table of contents and glossary for each volume are not to be submitted. |
| Section L/Pg2/L-1.2c | Can the government clarify what is meant by Section A in the following: "The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the solicitation that the propsal is valid for 180 days from proposal submission date."? Is it the goverments intent the validity statement should be addressed in the email with the proposal submission or what is intented for the statement be noted elsewhere? | Section A is the SF33 on page 1 of the Model Contract, per FAR 15.204-2(a). Item 12 on the SF33 contains a blank for offerors to complete indicating the number of days for which the proposal remains valid. Offerors should use this blank to comply with this requirement. |
| Section L/Pg5/Table-L-2.3 | Can the government clarify that in the following statement the reference of a compliance matrix is the table L-2.3: "*If no exception is proposed on the compliance matrix, it is understood that the Offeror can meet All requirements."? | Yes, the reference to compliance matrix refers to Table L-2.3 |
| Is an OCI plan required for submittal if no OCI is identified? | If there is no OCI present, no documentation is required. Section L paragraph 7.1 has been updated to clarify this. | |
| Is it allowed to bring on teammates that do not have a seat on the AFLCMC contact vehicle for individual TOs? | Yes | |
| Does the Government intend to award the IDIQ based solely on LPTA and then each individual task order will be awarded based on LPTA and / or best value? | This source selection is being conducted as LPTA. Future orders are likely to utlize trade-offs, but may also be LPTA, as specified in the FOPR. | |
| Attachment 2: Section (L) - 7.1 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST MITIGATION PLAN | The statement of work appears to encompass a broad scope of work at the IDIQ level. Does the Government consider the OCI requirement to be evaluated by offerors at the task order level as the work becomes more clearly defined? | Yes, OCI requirements will become more clearly defined at the order level. As such, mitigation plans may be required by the FOPR. |
| Attachment 2: Section (L) - 5.0 VOLUME II - SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN | Does the required Small Business Subcontracting Plan need to provide breakouts of total dollars planned to be subcontracted by base and option years in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, or percentages only as per Table L-5.1 with planned dollars to be subcontracted as TBD? | Yes, percentages only are acceptable. |
| Currently, XXXXXX is in the process of conducting a review and evaluation of the draft solicitation to provide a comprehensive response in alignment with Sections L and M. With that being said, will the Government allot opportunity for offerors to submit additional questions prior to the due date of 16 May 2022? | Additional questions may be submitted; however, the USG cannot guarantee answers to all questions submitted. | |
| XXXX's method of contracting for the provision of these commercial item offerings is pursuant only to FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items. This Proposal is written with the expectation that a subsequent contract will be comprised of an SF 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items incorporating this Proposal’s statement of services along with the commercial item clauses and provision(s) as amended by XXXXX Attachment C XXXX Addendum to FAR 52.212-4 to the contract. In reviewing the proposal requirements, we see that it is the Government's expectation to use the Standard Form 33 for the contract award. We just want to make it clear that XXXXXX proposal is being submitted with the expecation that only those terms and conditions applicable to Commercial Items would apply. | This source selection is being conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15. The resulting IDIQ contract format will not be issued on a SF 1449 and all clauses in this model contract will be included. Exceptions to the RFP that deviate from the terms and conditions may render your proposal unawardable. This however does not prohibit a commercial supply or service from being proposed to FOPR requirements, if they meet the terms and conditions of the FOPR. | |
| In Attachment 2, Section L page 6 L-SECTION I- 7.1 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST MITIGATION PLAN, the Government provides detailed requirements for an OCI Mitigation Plan, but it is XXXXX's understanding that the initial Order under any resultant contract would only be to establish a contract relationship. Would the Government be willing to accept XXXXX's initial general OCI Mitigation Plan and then later once the actual delivery has been executed, a more detailed update would be provided. | Yes | |
| section L-4.1 | According to section L-4.1 Pricing Instructions offeror’s proposal must equal $1,000 on the Post-Award CDRL Pricing Worksheet. Can the Government confirm what offerors are to input for block 17 of the CDRL sheet that is labeled price group? | Offerors are not required to enter any information on the DD Form 1423. The final DD Form 1423 will be issued at the time of award with general instructions. |
| SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS (pages 2-7) | In the solicitation document SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS (pages 2-7) lists 15 CLINs with blank area to propose price. Can the Government confirm that SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS is not to be filled out and submitted as part of the proposal? | That is correct. |
| L.3.0 Section III – Factor I: Technical Capability | Given the limited page allocation will the Government exclude the following from page count by providing a form similar to the one provided for Offeror information? “The experience narrative shall describe the totality of the Offeror’s support for the activity or project: scope, tasks performed, contract/subcontract value, and period of performance.” | No |
| M-3.2: Systems Development b.3, b.4 | Items M-3.2 b.3. and b.4. list three sub-bullets each. Given that the instructions in M-3.2 b. indicate that "the experience narrative demonstrates proficient in at least two of the following attributes for this category", do the sub-bullets under items b.3. and b.4 considered separate attributes, or are they requirements under item b.3 and b.4 respecively? | Technical Acceptability for attributes with subcomponents will be met only if all subcomponents are adequately addressed. For example, all criteria at M-3.2(b)(3)(a-c) must be satisfied for the attribute to be met. The same applies for M-3.2(b)(4)(a-c). |
| Proposal Response Guide - SECTION I- COMPANY/ OTHER INFORMATION | Page 2 of the Proposal response guide requires companies to insert their DUNS Code. Effective April 4, 2022, the federal government stopped using the DUNS Number to uniquely identify entities. Should we instead use our Unique Entity Identifier? | An updated PRG including the Unique Entity ID has been posted to sam.gov |
| Paragraph M-3.0: “Information provided for each category shall be evaluated on a standalone basis and only considered for that category.” | Will the Government allow use of the same "current or recent (within 5 years) activity or project managed, supported, or completed by the Offeror" across multiple categories? | Yes, however the activity or project must address the nuanced requirements of each category separately. |
| The Proposal Response Guide as mentioned in Volume I Section IV – Factor II: Price mentions a pricing worksheet, where is this pricing worksheet? Do we need to provide a breakout of our pricing on a separate sheet? If so, is contractor format acceptable? | Page 14 of the Proposal Response Guide is the CDRL Deliverable Pricing Worksheet. The titled worksheet as included in the Proposal Response Guide is to be submitted as is. Offerors are not to develop a separate worksheet. | |
| L-1.2 c. |
The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the solicitation that the proposal is valid for 180 days
| Please confirm that the Section A referred to in this requirement is the SF33, which shall be submitted in Volume III | Section A is the SF33 on page 1 of the Model Contract, per FAR 15.204-2(a). Item 12 on the SF33 contains a blank for offerors to complete indicating the number of days for which the proposal remains valid. Offerors should use this blank to comply with this requirement. |
| L-1.3 a. |
Volume III Solicitation documentation, Section I, SF33
| Please provide an editable SF33 so that Offerors may appropriately complete this required section. | A version that is not password protected has been posted to sam.gov |
| L-2.1 b. |
Company/Other Information Government Offices: If applicable, provide the name, mailing address, telephone, and facility codes for the cognizant Contract Administration Office, DCAA, DCMA Administrating Contracting Officer, and Government Paying Office. Also, provide the name and telephone and fax number for the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).
| Please clarify the intent of this requirement. For which contract should we provide this contact information? | If your company has multiple corresponding offices as stated in L-2.1(b), provide information for the one most relevant to this solicitation. | |
| M3.0: Each category response shall include, at a minimum, one experience narrative. The experience narrative shall describe a current or recent (within 5 years) activity or project managed, supported, or completed by the Offeror. | Please clarify if the experience narrative needs to be led by the prime, or if offerors can provide experience narratives that were led by a subcontractor on the prime’s team. | The experience narrative must discuss the offeror's specific contribution to the project or activity, and how that contribution demonstrates technical proficiency corresponding to the attributes within the respective category. |
| Exhibit A: CDRL A001-Post Award Deliverable 31 March 2022 | Please specify the requirements needed in order for the Post-Award CDRL Pricing Worksheet to be considered complete. | To be considered complete, the Post-Award CDRL Pricing Worksheet must equal $1,000.00. |
| Attachment 4 - Proposal Response Guide, SECTION IV- FACTOR II: PRICE. Vendors shall complete the Post-Award CDRL Pricing Worksheet. The total price must equal $1,000 to be considered technically acceptable. | Please confirm that under Attachment 4 - Proposal Response Guide, Section IV - FACTOR II: Price, Offerors only need to list the total proposed price of $1,000.00 in order for the document to be considered complete. | To be considered complete, the Post-Award CDRL Pricing Worksheet must equal $1,000.00. |
| Will the XA MAC be centralized ordering or decentralized ordering? | AFLCMC/XA does not anticipate decentralized ordering at this time. | |
| Will the XA MAC be available for use by other Air Force customers? DoD agencies? | AFLCMC/XA does not anticipate decentralized ordering at this time. | |
| Section L-4.1: Instructions reference a CDRL Pricing Worksheet within the Proposal Response Guide. | Is the worksheet referenced page 14 of Attachment 4, Proposal Response Guide? If so, is there any input required by bidder other than $1,000? | Page 14 of the Proposal Response Guide is the CDRL Deliverable Pricing Worksheet. The titled worksheet as included in the Proposal Response Guide is to be submitted as is. Offerors are not to develop a separate worksheet. |
| Reference Section L-5.0 | If the offeror is a participant in the DOD Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan in accordance with DFAR 252.219-7004, is the table provided in Section L-5.1 required to be completed and submitted with the proposal? | If the offeror has an approved comprehensive subcontracting plan under the DoD test program, the offeror shall provide a copy of its approved |
comprehensive subcontracting plan in lieu of the individual plan
| L021 SMALL BUSINESS AND SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS (OCT 2005) | This references the OCT 2005 clauses. However, the latest version clauses have been updated in NOV2021 that includes the $750K threshold implemented in 2020. Please confirm the usage of the latest version of the FAR/DFARS Clauses. | Yes, the latest FAR/DFARS clauses, including the $750K threshold are applicable. |
| The instructions make several references (Section L-4.1; Section M-2.0; Attachment 4, Section IV) to a post-award CDRL pricing Worksheet, however, the “worksheet” in Attachment 4 includes only a single cell with $1,000.00 pre-filled. Is there an additional document required, or are proposers to submit only pg. 14 of attachment 4 as provided in fulfillment of the price volume requirements? | Page 14 of the Proposal Response Guide is the CDRL Deliverable Pricing Worksheet. The titled worksheet as included in the Proposal Response Guide is to be submitted as is. Offerors are not to develop a separate worksheet. | |
| Section L-2.1 (Narrative Summary) states that offerors are to address “significant risks” and that content shall “relate to the evaluation factors.” The evaluation factors, Section M, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 do not include any description of “risk” nor a requirement to project the documented proficiency into any other project, where risk might be meaningfully discussed. Can the government clarify what sort of risk they would like discussed within the Narrative Summary (Volume I, section II). | Correct; risk is not included in the evaluation factors and is therefore not being evaluated. The mention of "significant risks" in L-2.1, Section II is meant only as a suggestion of a possible framework for responses to provide context that may not otherwise be addressed in the Experience Narratives. | |
| The Proposal Response Guide (Attachment 4), section 1 asks for a DUNS Code. As GSA has deprecated the use of DUNS, should we submit the UEID in this space? | An updated PRG including the Unique Entity ID has been posted to sam.gov | |
| Will the Government allow outside funding/requirements? | The Government does not anticipate decentralized ordering at this time. | |
| Can the Government confirm that there is no additional cost/price information or spreadsheets required for the submission of the proposal outside the requirement for the completion of the SECTION IV- FACTOR II: Price SUBFACTOR A: POST AWARD CDRL DELIVERABLE PRICING WORKSHEET in the Proposal Response Guide? | Page 14 of the Proposal Response Guide is the CDRL Deliverable Pricing Worksheet. The titled worksheet as included in the Proposal Response Guide is to be submitted as is. Offerors are not to develop a separate worksheet. | |
| Can the Government provide additional details on the criteria for a contractor “off-ramp” due to lack of responsiveness? | See Section 11.2 of Attachment 5 - Ordering Instructions. There are no additional details to provide at this time. | |
| Attachment 5 Ordering Instructions section 2 Small Business Set-Asides. | Will the Government consider removing the “does not envision small business set-asides for any orders” language to allow for the potential option for SBSA in future? | No, as this language does not preclude a future small business set-aside. However, a SBSA is not envisioned at this time. |
| Volume IV, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan (Ref: paragraph 7.1) | If the Offeror has no existing or potential organizational conflicts of interest, is it acceptable to include a certification to that effect in Volume IV, or is the Offeror still required to submit an OCI Mitigation Plan? | If there is no OCI present, no documentation is required. Section L paragraph 7.1 has been updated to clarify this. |
| M-3.0 Factor I Technical Capability | Can one project be used for all experience narratives within M-3.0 Factor I Technical Capability or must Development Planning, Systems Development and Synthetic Environment Development or shall each have their own unique project for an experience narrative? | Yes, however the activity or project must address the nuanced requirements of each category separately. |
| SF33 | XXXXXX is in the process of filling out the SF33 documentation for our proposal submittal, and noticed that the pdf is not editable. Is there any way the Government can provide a SF 33 template that is editable? | A version that is not password protected has been posted to sam.gov |
| If you are a Small Business, is there a requirement for a Small Business Plan? | No, small businesses are exempt from this requirement. | |
| If we submit a Prime proposal, is there anything to preclude you from being part of a Large Business SB Plan? | No, this would not preclude you from subcontracting opportunities. | |
| Will there be work locations outside of Wright Patterson? (either location or remote options) | This is unknown at this time. | |
| Do you plan on adjusting the RFP due date, based on the date the Q&A's are released? | No, the government does not plan to adjust the RFP due date. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .