Q&A_Set_4_(171114).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- H92222-18-R-0001
- Issued by
-
United States Special Operations Command
About this file
The Government anticipates this to be the final round of Q&A. If your question has not been addressed, please contact Greg Metty, contact information within this announcement. Additional questions received may not be answered prior to the release of the FINAL RFP.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Q&A_Group_2.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| QA_171101.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| J-7_SF_1408_Checklist.doc | DOC document | |
| J-5_ITAR_Country_List.pdf | ||
| J-4_DD_1423-2_A001-A007_Reports-Deliverables.pdf | ||
| J-3_DD_Form_254.docx | DOCX document | |
| J-1_SOW_DRAFT_171018.docx | DOCX document | |
| J-2_Position_Qualifications,_LCATs,_FTEs,_and_Pricing_Sheets_10112017_RVB.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| J-6_TBC.docx | DOCX document | |
| H92222-18-R-0001_DRAFT_171018.doc | DOC document |
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
Set 4 (Posted 171114)
| DRAFT RFP Section | Page(s) | Question/Concern | Answers |
| Prime Offeror’s with higher annual receipts will score higher based on Section L, Table 2. Highest possible score will be assigned to 8a’s with the “Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires” Will score a Very Relevant Rating. This will always place ANC’s and Tribal Native Companies in the Highest Possible Rating Category because “ANC owned business will be determined independently without regard to its affiliation with the Alaska Native Corporation, any entity of the ANC governing body, or any other business enterprise owned by the ANC, unless the SBA Administrator determines that one or more such ANC owned businesses have obtained, or are likely to obtain, a substantial unfair competitive advantage within an industry category”. | The DRAFT RFP makes no reference to higher annual receipts leading to a higher score in regards to Past and Present Performance. | ||
| We feel the only way to level the competition is to allow all Prime and Subcontractor Past Performance to count toward the Evaluation Rating. | All relevant prime and subcontractor past performance will be included in the past performance assessment. Subcontractor past performance will only be considered relevant if it pertains to the portion of the UEWTEP II proposed for performance by the subcontractor | ||
| We respectfully request that the Government consider changing: For the prime Offerors, relevancy is defined as contracts that are most similar to this overall effort in terms of number of employees, labor positions, percent of work performed by the prime, management required, training capability required, and customer supported. Request change to: |
For the Offerors, relevancy is defined as contracts that are most similar to this overall effort in terms of number of employees, labor positions, percent of work performed by the prime, management required, training capability required, and customer supported.
Please review SBA 124.302 8a graduation and early graduation criteria and Size Eligibility determination. We feel the Relevancy Section L, Table 2 is heavily weighted to Alaskan Native Corporations, Tribal Native Corporations and 8a companies who are very near exceeding the NACIS Size standards.
| Request is denied. The relevancy table is not weighted towards ANCs. | |
| We respectfully request that the Government consider changing: The Government will perform an independent analysis in determining the relevancy of a contract based on the data provided and/or obtained. For proposed subcontractors/teaming partners, relevancy is defined by that which reflects the area of expertise the subcontractor is projected to actually perform under this contract, (i.e. specific areas in the SOW/labor categories). The more the overall effort is similar in these areas, the more relevant it becomes. Request change to: The Government will perform an independent analysis in determining the relevancy of a contract based on the data provided and/or obtained. For proposed subcontractors/teaming partners, relevancy is defined by that which reflects the area of expertise the subcontractor is projected to actually perform under this contract, (i.e. specific areas in the SOW/labor categories). The more the overall effort is similar in these areas, the lower the overall risk of successful performance. |
Please review SBA 124.302 8a graduation and early graduation criteria and Size Eligibility determination. We feel the Relevancy Section L, Table 2 is heavily weighted to Alaskan Native Corporations, Tribal Native Corporations and 8a companies who are very near exceeding the NACIS Size standards.
| Request is denied. Past and Present Performance are assigned a Confidence Rating, not a Risk Assessment, IAW the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, effective date March 31, 2016. | ||
| We respectfully request that the Government consider changing: The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s (to include proposed subcontractor(s)) demonstrated record of performance in providing services that meet users’ needs. Past Performance evaluation will focus on how well the Offeror performed or is performing on other recent and relevant efforts. For proposed subcontractor(s), evaluation will focus solely on work that the subcontractor is proposed to perform under this contract. Request change to: The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s (to include proposed subcontractor(s)) demonstrated record of performance in providing services that meet users’ needs. Past Performance evaluation will focus on how well the Offeror performed or is performing on other recent and relevant efforts. Offeror’s will be given a combined recency and relevancy rating from the table Section L, Table 2. | Request Denied, however Section L.6.4 will be updated to include (in red) "The more the overall effort is similar in these areas the general scope of work, of number of FTEs, labor positions, percent of work performed by the prime and/or sub, management required, training required, subcontracts utilized, and customer supported, the more relevant it becomes. | |
| Please review SBA 124.302 8a graduation and early graduation criteria and Size Eligibility determination. We feel the Relevancy Section L, Table 2 is heavily weighted to Alaskan Native Corporations, Tribal Native Corporations and 8a companies who are very near exceeding the NACIS Size standards. | Section L, Table 2, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, is IAW the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, effective date March 31, 2016. | |
| Do you have a question that specifically asks the government to consider opening the Recency period to at least 4 or 5 years – closer to the length of the current contract? | No. | |
| Will the Government make the following documents available? |
1. White House Memorandum, National Level Rehearsal, Feb 11
2. SECDEF Defense Planning Guidance FY Years 2014-2018, Apr 12
3. DASD(R) and DJ7 Memorandum, “Turning Point – Implications of New Strategic Guidance”, Jan 12
4. Director, Joint Staff Memorandum, DJSM 0384-12, Subject: Highly Qualified Expert-Senior Mentor Pay Incentive Policy, 31 Aug 12
5. CE2T2 Program Goals and Objectives, Dec 16
6. USSOCOM Commander’s Education and Training Guidance FY 16-19, May 16
7. USSOCOM Directive 350-12, Joint Special Operations Task Force Training, 14 Mar 17
8. USSOCOM DOTMLPF-P Change Recommendation, USSOCOM Enterprise-wide Training and Exercises Program (UEWTEP), 24 Sep 15
9. USSOCOM Policy Memorandum 16-14, Unauthorized Portable Electronic Devices Discovered Within Headquarters U.S. SOCOM, 12 May 16
10. CJCS Notice 3500.01, “2016-2019 Chairman’s Joint Training Guidance,” Aug 16 - Replaced with version for 2017-2020
| These documents will be made available to the winning offeror. | |||
| Will the government consider using One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) for this 8a acquisition | No. Market Research was conducted, and as part of the research we reviewed the OASIS contract. It was determined that the use of OASIS was not in the Government's best interest. | ||
| RFP Section H | 11 | As this is an 8A set aside recommend that the language in Section H regarding capping indirect rates not be placed on 8A SBs and their teammates?:5652.216-9004 Procedures for Issuing Task Orders under Single Award, Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity Contracts (2003) |
(a) Core Task Orders (TO 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 & 5000): The intent of the Government to have the core requirements identified in the SOW and Attachment J-2 (as TO 1000) to be issued annually. The Not to Exceed amount will be based the contractor's proposed labor rates, hours and ODC indirect rates approved and accepted at time of contract award .
| No, that clause does not limit proposed indirect rates as ceiling rate. | ||
| ANC’s and Tribal Native Companies are not subject to 124.302 8a graduation and early graduation. Additionally, ANC’s and Tribal Native Companies can take credit for the size and scope of all contracts of the ANC or Tribal membership as part of their qualification and not exceed the size standards because they are using a newer 8a with lower revenue. They have no requirement to subcontract so their subcontract evaluation would be the same as their Prime contractor rating. | Please see previous Q&A Set 2, Posted 171107, which addresses subcontracts and the removal of the SF 294-295 requirement. | |
| In Section 3.5 of the draft Statement of Work, six different exercises are listed for the contractor to provide non-personal technical services. Our research has determined that there are existing current contracts for the support of these exercises provided by several different vendors. These contracts have requirements such as SME role players, aircraft, boats, significant material, and logistical support | No, this is a SME and Consulant only contract. | |
| Question 1. Please confirm UEWTEP is not a consolidation of these individual exercise support contracts. | Confirmed | |
| Question 2. What does the Government see as the interface between UEWTEP and these support contracts during both the exercise planning phase and exercise execution phase? | There is no interface between the UEWTEP contract and any other contract. There is interface during the JELC between all of the planners | |
| Question 3. Will the UEWTEP awardee be in any position to task another vendor? | No | |
| Question 4. Does award of UEWTEP present any Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) and preclude a successful Offeror to bid on other USSOCOM or subordinate command contracts? Examples could be Special Warfare Mission Support (SWMS) task orders or some of the individual exercise support contracts. | No |
Set 3 (Posted 171113)
| DRAFT RFP Section | Page(s) | Question/Concern | Answers |
| Section M.6.2 | 56 | Price Evaluation: This section states that the offeror's total compensation will be evaluated but provides no further details on how they will evaluate this information. Against what standard will the Government evaluate total compensation? Will the Government assess risk to offerors that do not provide benefits (or minimal benefits) to employees or use 1099 independent contractors in full time positions? Will the Government assess risk against offerors that propose salaries that are significantly less than the prevailing salaries for these positions? Will the Government evaluate cost of living for different locations required? Will the Government increase management, transition, or technical risk for offerors that propose professional compensation that is lower than prevailing salaries for the positions? Given the level of detail the Government provided for how it will evaluate the other factors, this lack of detail does not seem commensurate with the other parts of Section M. In summary, the Government has given almost no specific details on how it plans to evaluate prices submitted. We recommend you provide more detail to your evaluation plan for price analysis, so offerors can provide the correct supporting information to be evaluated fairly. | FINAL RFP will include Section L.7.6 Total Employee Compensation Plan, detailed instructions. Offerors shall submit a total compensation plan as required by FAR provision 52.222-46. The total compensation plan shall set forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees along with supporting data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure. The employee compensation plan should clearly show how the offeror will be able to provide uninterrupted high-quality work and will show ability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Additionally, where the SOW specifies labor categories, the offeror shall map their proposed labor categories to the labor categories specified in the SOW and provide supporting data such as recognized regional compensation surveys, displaying the mapping of the labor categories. |
| Volume 2 Management, FACTOR 1: Program Management Plan | "...OCONUS locations (PACOM / NORTHCOM; EUCOM / AFRICOM; DOCPERS KOREA/SOFA, and CENTCOM AOR)." |
| Was SOUTHCOM AOR intentionally omitted from the OCONUS locations? | SOUTHCOM will be included in Volume 2, Management | |||
| CLIN 0003 Other Direct Costs (ODC) (TAB 5) | Request that the Government consider amending as follows: “If the rates and factors are based on a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) OR approved provisional billing rates…If the rates and factors are based on other than an FPRA OR approved provisional billing rates….” | Provisional billings rates are not approved or recommended by DCAA for pricing future work. | ||
| DD254 Continuation Page / SECTION 8 | Can the Government please confirm that the security management support requirement is to be at the customer site for all listed Government installations? Document control functions, inventories, and possibly use of security-related databases (if other than JPAS) can’t be performed virtually? | At each site listed in Section 8 of the DD254 there is a local government security manager office that can provide support to the vendor. | ||
| Section L.1.10, Table 1 | Page limits for Volume 4 - Past and Present Performance indicate "No Page Limit SF294-295 + Consent Letters." The SF294 and SF295 subcontracting reports are not required from 8(a) small businesses and are | The FINAL RFP will include instructions for Offeror’s to provide documentation/proof of having past performance that required subcontracting. | ||
| Section L.2.2, M.2.1 | Will the government consider modifying the Section L and M requirements to allow an 8(a) company with active Secret Clearance, and with experience obtaining a TS, submit a proposal to be evaluated? Our 8(a)’s FSO and President has a TS and all exclusive teammates have a TS; however, without a current DD-254 stating a TS requirement, 8(a) companies cannot acquire a TS clearance. | Government requires TS facility clearance as stated in the solicitation at proposal submission (L.2.2 and M.2.1) | ||
| Section L.2.2, M.2.1 | Regarding the TS requirement and Joint Ventures, if a newly formed JV has a JV member with a TS, this TS does not automatically promote to the newly formed 8(a) JV. Even though the JV team member has a TS, and the unpopulated JV’s FSO has a TS, the newly formed 8(a) JV would require a DD-254, with a need/requirement for TS before the JV and it’s new cage code, could obtain a TS to meet the current TS requirements stated in Sections L and M. Would the government consider modifying the Section M requirements to allow an 8(a) JV, with a TS team member and TS FSO, to submit a proposal for evaluation? | If the JV was recently formed (to compete on the UEWTEP effort) the JV would not have a clearance even if the two members in the JV had TS/SCI independently unless they won work that required a TS/SCI clearance previously. This finding has been verified with the Small Business Representative at DSS and Industrial Security here in the command, the JV must have its own clearance, not good enough that the individual companies have their own. | ||
| Will the Cost Spreadsheet's formulas be accessible and/or modifiable in the final FRP version? We believe there are multiple discrepancies in the spreadsheet Tab4 Labor. Example. Row 33, column D states 3 FTEs, however column E equals 2 FTEs, but column H appears to be a multiple of Column D. Also Column D is title "#of FTEs", however not all the hours support FTE amounts (1880hrs) such as rows 23,50,93-107, &120. If these costs feed the TEP tab/CLIN 1000 it could cause erroneous pricing assumptions on non-TO 1000 requirements (tab 4) | The Government will correct all FTEs and spreadsheet will be locked at FINAL RFP | |||
| Does Executive Order 13495 of January 30, 2009, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts pertain to this acquisition? | No. | |||
| What is the due date and method of submission for the Acceptable Business Systems Modified SF 1408 Preaward Survey? Acceptable Business Systems Modified SF 1408 Preaward Survey are due to Contracting Officer NLT TBD OCT 2017 | If an Offeror does not currently have a federal government determination of having an adequate accounting system, the Government will accept the SF 1408 anytime prior to the proposal submission date. The SF1408 will be provided to DCAA for audit in their determination of adequacy. Please note that DCAA audits may take up to 45 days. | |||
| The Government requires a singular rate per FTE/LCAT. Will the government accept Overtime Rates for surge hours? | No. | |||
| Security will be IAW the attached DD254. Contractor team individual(s) supporting this task will be cleared at the TOP SECRET level at the start of the task. At the discretion of the Government, selected individuals supporting this contract will require access to Special Access Program (SAP) information. Access to SAP information requires the requisite security clearance based on a security investigation with a date less than five years old and requires employees to undergo additional personnel security screening meeting the DoD SAP accessing directives and policies. Contractor employees will require access to SCI, Foreign Government Information, NATO, and ACCM material in performance of this effort. Contractor employees will require access to NIPRNET/SIPRNET/JIANT/BICES/JWICS computer systems only at Government facilities. The contractor will be authorized to courier classified information up to SECRET in performance of official duties upon approval of and designation by the COR. What additional security screening will employees be required to go through? CI or Full-Scope Poly? | None are anticipated at this time. | |||
| J-1 SOW_DRAFT Section 3.8 | 11 | Anticipated workload is three exercises and /or events encompassing 10 JELC events. How will the Government address requirements should this baseline be exceeded ? | This is not a baseline. These are historically emerging requirements outside of the Yearly Program Execution Plan. The J2 captures base hours per FTE requirement and additional surge hours per FTE to meet emerging requirements. | |
| J-1 SOW_DRAFT Section 8.1 | 12 | Individuals will be cleared at the TOP SECRET level at start of the Task. Will the Government accept INTERIM Top Secret pending final clearance ? | Yes. INTERIM is defined as being granted TS access pending final adjudication. The Government will not accept personnel with a SECRET clearance in the process of being submitted for upgrade to a TS. | |
| J-2_Position_Qualifications | Tab 3 Position Requirements by SOW | Clarify that Column D entitled Position/Title is the supported branch, unit or command (i.e. Instructional Systems Designer , SRC, RMT, USASOC) vice the Category (LCAT) which appears in Column E. | Column D states the TITLE of the position. | |
| J-2_Position_Qualifications | Tab 3 Position Requirements by SOW | The labor qualifications for many positions add multiple requirements compared to the previous UEWTEP solicitation. Has the Government evaluated the impact on the incumbent workforce? | Revised/Updated J2 will be available to Offerors once the document is finalized | |
| Will the Government expand the page count to allow contractors to illustrate and better showcase their solutions? | The Government will update L.1.10 to increase the page count for Volumes 2 and 3 from 6 to 10 pages each. The Government wants to make clear that the increase in page count is not an invitation to fill pages with non-evaluated pictures/graphics, kudos, i.e. quotes & text boxes, etc. For Volume 2, The Transition Time Line, if included as a foldout page, will count as 1 (one) page of text. All other foldout pages within the proposal will count as two pages of text. | |||
| SOW 1.2 | Will the applicable documents listed in the SOW be made available by the government in an online reading library for proposal reference? | already addressed-Not answered | ||
| SOW 1.2 | May we have a copy of the 'USSOCOM Enterprise-wide Training and Exercises Program (UEWTEP) FY18 Program Execution Plan (PEP)? | Restricted release of document will be granted to offerors, once finalized | ||
| Under what scope of the draft RFP provides for training to USG personnel only, or if not, will the contractor provide training to any foreign nationals? Please identify such countries and entities, if known. | Country lists was provided. Partner Nation participation varies from exercise to exercise. During the JELC if foreign nationals are identified as part of training audience, the Government will provide sufficient time for vendor to obtain ITAR. | |||
| If training any foreign nationals is a contract requirement, will the USG customer agree to the inclusion of the ITAR exemption clause related to the performance of defense services (22 CFR 126.4(a)) in the proposal? Inclusion of this clause will authorize the prime and subcontractors to provide defense services, including training, to foreign nationals. A sample of the exemption clause language is attached: ITAR exemption clause: |
In furtherance of the ______________ mission, Contract #_____________, and under the provisions of 22 CFR 126.4(a) and 125.4(b)(3), International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), the contractor and its subcontractors are hereby authorized to provide non-personal engineering, technical, administrative and training defense services and technical data to ___________________ in _____________ . U.S. technical data and defense services, including classified information, are authorized to be exported in furtherance of and accordance with the contract.
| There would only be very limited times (if any) that this would be applicable, and if it is, it will be incorporated in the individual task order. Presently, the Government does not find a time where this will be necessary. | |||
| If training any foreign nationals, will there be any classified training? | No | ||
| If there will be classified training of foreign nationals, what steps will the USG customer take to obtain signed DSP-83 Nontransfer and Use Assurance forms from the foreign Partner Nation? (The Department of State will not approve a DSP-85 classified export license to provide classified training unless there is a signed DSP-83.) | All Training is UNCLASSIFIED and releasable. | ||
| SOW 3.7 | Should '3.7 THEATER SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMANDS (TSOCs) AS REQUIRED' requirements be incorporated into this effort, what Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) and DOCPER requirements become requirements for this effort? | Yes, for this contract, SOFA applies to Korea and Germany; DOCPER only applies to Germany. | |
| RFP Section L | 48 | Reference Section L.7.2.4., please confirm that the Government will accept reasonable rate changes for indirect rates (to include the material and travel CLINs). | Indirect rates should be based on the Offeror's budgetary data for the period of performance. If there is an existing FPRA that is materially impacted due to new efforts being proposed, indirect rates should be updated with supporting rationale for the changes. |
| RFP Section B | 2 | Reference CLINs 0002 Travel, 0003 ODCs, and 0004 Travel please confirm that “COST” means through total cost (that is includes all applicable indirect rates as per 16.301 and 31.205-46). | Correct. |
| RFP Section I | 14 | Will the Government please remove clause 52.232-1 Payments (1984) as this is the Firm Fixed Price Payments clause? | 52.232-1 has been deleted |
| SOW | Please confirm that SOFA/TESA and other applicable privileges will be afforded to contractor personnel overseas. If so, please specify for each country the applicable agreements. | Yes applicable privileges will be afforded to contractors while overseas. When traveling TDY OCONUS, applicable privileges will be stated in the SPOT Application. | |
| J-2 Position_Qualifications | The solicitation does not give any equivalency of experience for the following required courses/criteria, but I believe there should be; -ILE (interim level professional military education). | ||
| Revised/Updated J2 will be available to Offerors once the document is finalized | |||
| other than ASOT 3 (FTC, OTC, former MOTC exceed ASOT3) -JIPOE (Joint intelligence prep of the environment). Historically, the CIA has always been on the ground collecting intel before any DoD elements. Specifically CIA/SAC. | |||
| Revised/Updated J2 will be available to Offerors once the document is finalized | |||
| JTS (Joint training system) If the reason for this requirement is to put lesson plans into TRADOC format, I understand. But if it is to ensure the ability to train in foreign environments, I believe there are a lot of us who have done it extensively without having been approved certified through JTS | Revised/Updated J2 will be available to Offerors once the document is finalized | ||
| CLIN 0003 Other Direct Costs (ODC) (TAB 5) | Request that the Government consider amending as follows: “If the rates and factors are based on a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) OR approved provisional billing rates…If the rates and factors are based on other than an FPRA OR approved provisional billing rates….” | DCAA's acceptance of billing rates clearly states that the calculated rates are for use in establishing provisional billing rates and they should not be used for other applications such as negotiating contract pricing or forward pricing rates. Neither does the calculation of the billing rates constitute acceptance of any contractor accounting practices. |
| L.2.2 | Top Secret Facility Clearance- We are an 8(a) company who currently does not have Top Secrete Clearance, but our teaming partner does. Will our approach be compliant with the requirements should everything else be favorable? Would an Interim Top Secret Clearance suffice until full clearance is awarded? | No. The winning offeror must have a TS Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission. |
| M.2.1 | Facility Clearance- Can the prime use a subcontractor's Top Secret Facility Clearance for the purpose of executing this contract? | No. The Government does not enter into a contract(s) with the subcontractor(s). The willing offeror must have a TS Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission |
| L.1.0 | This is an all-electronic solicitation release. No hard copies will be mailed.”, however, L.1.8 states “Mail delivery is acceptable. Hand delivery is also permitted…. Additionally, L.1.9 states Submit or Hand Deliver clearly marked proposals to… and, L.1.10 states “Three ring binders are preferred per volume for required print copies.” Please clarify if hard copies are required or not. | The Solicitation is an all-electronic release. The Contractor's proposal shall be IAW Section L.1.8, L.1.9, and L.1.10 |
| Who is the Current incumbent | Intelligence, Communications and Engineering, INC (ICE) | |
| What is the value of the current contract and current contract number | $180M, H92222-14-D-0015 |
Set 2 (Posted 171107)
| DRAFT RFP Section | Page(s) | Question/Concern | Answers |
| 52.216-22 / Indefinite Quantity | We respectfully request that the Government review the date provided in paragraph (d) of the referenced section. As written this would indicate that the Contractor is not required to make any deliveries during the entire final option period of the contract. If correct as written, can the Government please provide additional clarification? | 18 June 2023 is the last day the Government may issue task orders. | |
| Section L.1.10, Table 1 | Page limits for Volume 4 - Past and Present Performance indicate "No Page Limit SF294-295 + Consent Letters." The SF294 and SF295 subcontracting reports are not required from 8(a) small businesses and are | All references to the SF 294-295 have been removed. | |
| Section M.3.2 | The evaluation criteria for the Transition Plan refers to a Table 1 listing the plan requirement that is not included in Section M. Please clarify. | FINAL RFP will be corrected to read "Table 2 below" | |
| Section L.2.3.2 | Section B is not listed in the conformed contract fill-ins. Does the Government intend the contractor to fill-in the CLIN amounts in Section B? | The Offeror shall list their MAX AMOUNT (not individual labor rates) in Section B, for each CLIN. Offerors labor rates shall be included in Attachment J-2. The LABOR SCHEDULE, which will include individual labor rates, is added after contract award. | |
| Is the DRAFT PWS document loaded to Solicitation H92222-17-R-0007 still valid? There are many differences in the two solicitation notices specifically when comparing the new SOW and Draft RFP notice to the old Draft PWS. | These are draft documents, corrections/updates will be made at FINAL RFP | ||
| Is FEDEX or UPS an acceptable delivery system? FEDEX and UPS are not messenger services, but acceptable delivery services used by the USG for official mail. | FedEx, USPS, UPS are acceptable. | ||
| M.2.1 Facility Clearance The Offeror provided proof of a Cleared Top Secret Facility and Secret Safeguarding as accredited by the Defense Security Service (DSS) via an approved Department of Defense Security Agreement (DD Form 441/441-1). Is an ISFD/NISS print out that shows TS FCL and Secret Safeguarding an acceptable alternate to the DD 441/441-1? During discussion with DSS; DSS stated the DD 441 and DD 441-1 are not used to annotate Safeguarding authorizations. DSS uses the Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) for both government and industrial security officers to verify both facility clearance and safeguarding authorizations. ISFD is currently being migrated to DSS' National Industrial Security System. | (DD Form 441/441-1) will be removed from Section M.2.1 Facility Clearance. | ||
| Sections H and I | 11 | Section H incorporates 252.219-7010 Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Concerns - Partnership Agreement (MAR 2016) and Section I incorporates 52.219-18 Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Participants (Jan 2017). Are both applicable ? | 52.219-18 has been removed for FINAL RFP |
| J-6_TBC | Document references a Solicitation on Page 1 of 37 that appears to be from a prior solicitation. Subsequent pages reference the current awarded IDIQ. | TBC was an older version. FINAL RFP will be updated. | |
| Will the Government allow changes to the pricing & costing model? | Instructions for filling out the price/cost sheet are included on TAB 1 of Attachment J-2 | ||
| Does the Government intend for a 30-45-60 day writing period for submittal of proposal? | The Government intends for a 30 day response time | ||
| For consistency with section L, please delete “and Secret Safeguarding” under M.2.1 Facility Clearance. | Section L will be in accordance with the DD254 provided with the FINAL RFP | ||
| RFP Section L.6.1 | Page 46 | Are consent letters required from subcontractors only in the event the subcontractor is aware of adverse past performance that will need to be addressed? Will the Government be including a template for consent letters with the final RFP or should offerors use their own format? | Consent letters are required only if a subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner has adverse past performance information. Letters will be provided in the contractor's format, no Government template is provided. |
| CLIN0002 Travel and CLIN 0003 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) | Are costs for Contractor housing/quarters to deployed personnel (either TDY or PDY) considered to be part of the NTE values provided, either as Travel (CLIN 0002) or ODC (CLIN 0003)? | TDY is a travel on CLIN 0002 , PDY is not reimbursable. | |
| CLIN0002 Travel and CLIN 0003 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) | Are costs for Contractor housing/quarters to deployed personnel (either TDY or PDY) considered to be part of the NTE values provided, either as Travel (CLIN 0002) or ODC (CLIN 0003)? | TDY yes, PDY no | |
| SOF O6+ LEVEL BATTLE STAFF TRAINING (O6 CERT) (TO 1000) | Are contractors going to be giving the 06 Certification Standards in order to provide the necessary evaluations on the training audience? | Yes, the Governement provides the Standards |
Set 1 (Posted 171101)
| Section I Clause 5652.237.9001 | 26 | Key Personnel Requirements: This clause states that resumes will be evaluated, however Sections L&M do not mention resume submission or evaluation. Please clarify if resumes for the Program Manager and Assistant Program Manager are required with our proposal submission. | Clause 5652.237.9001 has been removed for FINAL RFP. |
| Section L.1.10 | 42 | Proposal Format: The RFP states that changes should be "marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page" Request that post discussion tracked changes be in the left margin rather than the right. Microsoft Word automatically places a vertical line in the left margin when using track changes. Requiring a vertical line in the right margin will be cumbersome, manually intensive, and prone to errors. | Language has been changed in Section L.1.10 to 'left margin'. |
| Section L.1.10 | 42 | Proposal Format: States that Microsoft 2010 is preferred. Can we submit our written electronic files in PDF format instead of Word to ensure consistent formatting across computers and software versions? | PDF format is acceptable for all portions of the proposal that have been created using Microsoft Office 2010 (2007 is acceptable). This excludes the Excel Spreadsheet, J-2 Position Qualifications, LCATs, FTEs, and Pricing Sheet. Language stating this will be included in the FINAL RFP. |
| Section L.1.10 | 42 | Proposal Format: Please confirm that a Compliance Matrix will be exempt from page count. | There is not a requirement for a Compliance Matrix in this solicitation. If included in a proposal, Compliance Matrix will count towards page limit. |
| Section L Table 1 | 42 | Quality Control Plan: The Management page limit section calls out a QCP, however it is not outlined in Sections L or M. Please clarify if a QCP is required with our submission. If it is required, please identify instructions for this plan and how it will be evaluated. | The QCP is a requirement of J-4 DD1423-2 A002 CDRL. Section L.1.10, Table 1, FINAL RFP has been updated with the QCP requirement removed from Volume 2. |
| Section L.3.2 | 44 | Department of State Export License: How would you like proof of a current DSP-5? Please consider adding the requirement to Volume 1. | DSP-5 license is not required at time of proposal submission. |
| Section L.3.2 | 44 | Department of State Export License: Does the DSP-5 need to cover every location listed in Attachment J-5? | If a DSP-5 license is required, the Government will allow sufficient time for license submittal and approval. |
| Section L.4.1.2 | 45 | Anticipated Award Date: Can we assume an award date will be 60 days prior to performance start? | Task Order 0001 (Minimum Contract Order/Start Up $2,500) will be issued at contract award, with a period of performance of 6 months. Task Order 1000 - Core Activities, requirements described in the SOW and identified within J2 Position Qualifications, LCATs, FTEs, and Pricing Sheet, will be issued on 19 April 2018, with a period of performance of 12 months. The winning offeror will have 60 days from the time TO 1000 is issued to fully transition personnel and be 90% FOC on or before 18 June 2018. FINAL RFP and SOW will be updated to incorporate instructions |
| Section L.6.1 | 46 | Summary Page: request extending the page count from one to two pages for the Past Performance summary page to adequately describe the team composition and proposed role for each team member. | The Government has determined that a one-page Summary Page for each Past/Present submission is adequate to describe the role of the Offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner. |
| Section L.6.3 | 47 | Recency: Solicitation lists that performance must be within the past three years, "2014 to the present." Because the proposal is likely due in December 2017 (or January 2018), the instructions lack clarity whether the performance must be in the last 3 or last 4 years. Recommend removing the "2014 to the present" and clarify that this three years should be since proposal submission. | Section L.6.3 has been updated to read "the Government defines recency as contracts performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation". |
| Section L.7.2.3 | 48 | Professional Compensation: This section requires submission of a Compensation Plan and "Supporting information shall be provided in a workable excel sheet document, and include a written narrative." What types of supporting information is the Government evaluation team expecting? Should we submit salary survey data? Should we provide information about prevailing salaries commensurate with the position requirements? Should we provide data about our salaries, compensation, and benefits? | Companies need to provide sufficient data for basis of their labor rates to ensure adequate compensation levels and benefits are being provided. |
| Is the Government willing to relax the 8a size standard | Based on the nature of the work in this requirement the appropriate NAICS Code is 541990 with a $15M Size Standard. This is the same NAICS Code that was utilized under UEWTEP I and was validated by the SBA Headquarters in Washington D.C. The SBA has already validated the 541990 NAICS Code as appropriate for this acquisition as well. |
Duplicate Questions
| Does the government require Resumes for Key Personnel? If so do they count against the 6pg limit? | Answer Addressed Q&A 1 Posted to FBO 171101 | ||
| What is the government's estimated start date for the transition period. POP start is 19 Jun 2018; transition would begin 19 June 2019 and last up to 60 days | Answer Addressed Q&A 1 Posted to FBO 171101 | ||
| The Government did not ask for a compliance matrix. However, we have found they are helpful to include to make it easier for evaluators to link RFP requirements to the location in our response. Compliance matrices do not include information to be evaluated but serve as another table of contents, so they are typically excuded from page counts in RFP instructions. | Answer Addressed Q&A 1 Posted to FBO 171101 | ||
| Section L.4.1.2 | 45 | Transition Staffing: How does an Offeror staff 50% of personnel within 14 days of contract award when performance does not start for 45 days? | Answer Addressed Q&A 1 Posted to FBO 171101 |
| Section L, Table 1 |
and
Section M In the row providing requirements for Volume 2, the Table provides guidance for a QCP at 10 pages. We find no detailed description of the QCP anywhere else in the draft solicitation, and no criteria in Section M as to how the government intends to evaluate it.
| Recommend evaluation methods and criteria for a QCP be added to Section M. Recommend some discussion of specific purposes (beyond the generically obvious) the government would like the QCP to monitor and address/resolve. | Answer Addressed Q&A 1 Posted to FBO 171101 | |||
| CLIN 0001 Labour (TAB 4) | Section L.7.2.3 mentions supporting information for the Total Compensation Plan in an excel spreadsheet – can the Government provide clarification for this requirement? | Answer Addressed Q&A 1 Posted to FBO 171101 | ||
| Section L.1.10, Table 1 | a. Page limits for Volume 2 - Management indicate "6 + QCP (limit 10 pages)," but a QCP is not listed as a deliverable with the proposal. Is the 6 page limit for Factor 1 - Program Management Plan and the 10 page limit for Factor 2 - Transition Plan? | Answer Addressed Q&A 1 Posted to FBO 171101 | ||
| Section F states POP 19 JUN 2018 to 18 JUN 2024 which differs from the 5 year period for cost purposes (L.7.2.3). Is the 6th year refering to a 1 year extension? And if so, how does the government intend to price that additional year? 6th year stated on Section F refers to a 1 year extension. | Answer Addressed Q&A 2 Posted to FBO 171107 | |||
| Does the Government have a location requirement for the Key Personnel (PM and Assistant PM) | Answer Addressed Q&A 1 Posted to FBO 171101 | |||
| Please clarify CLIN Delivery Dates specified in Section F, page 7 of 57, showing POP 19 Jun 2018 to 18 Jun 2024 equating to 6 total years. This conflicts with other references of a 1 Base year + 4 Option Years POP. | Answer Addressed Q&A 2 Posted to FBO 171107 | |||
| Section L, Table 1 states a Vol 2, factor 2 will be a QCP with 10 pages. However L.4. Volume 2 Management, FACTOR 2: Transition Plan indicates Fac 2 is transition. Are we to provide a Transition plan or a QCP? If a Tranisiton plan does it go against teh 10pg or 6page count limit? | Answer Addressed Q&A 1 Posted to FBO 171101 | |||
| Section I | 15 | Clause 52.216-18 Ordering states orders may be issued 19 June 2018 thru 18 June 2023. Period of performance of IDIQ is shown as thru 18 June 2024. | Answer Addressed Q&A 2 Posted to FBO 171107 | |
| The first paragraph of SOW 9.0 and section L.3.2 state that the contractor must possess a current DOS export license. SOW section 9.0, second bullet states that the Contractor will have a minimum of 90 days to obtain a DSP-5. Can the Government confirm that the Contractor will have 90 days after award to obtain the required export license (DSP-5) and do not have to have a current DSP-5? | Answer Addressed Q&A 1 Posted to FBO 171101 | |||
| 52.216-22 / Indefinite Quantity | We respectfully request that the Government review the date provided in paragraph (d) of the referenced section. As written this would indicate that the Contractor is not required to make any deliveries during the entire final option period of the contract. If correct as written, can the Government please provide additional clarification? | Answer Addressed Q&A 2 Posted to FBO 171107 | ||
| Section L, Table 1 |
and
Section M In the row providing requirements for Volume 2, the Table provides guidance for a QCP at 10 pages. We find no detailed description of the QCP anywhere else in the draft solicitation, and no criteria in Section M as to how the government intends to evaluate it.
| Recommend evaluation methods and criteria for a QCP be added to Section M. Recommend some discussion of specific purposes (beyond the generically obvious) the government would like the QCP to monitor and address/resolve. | Answer Addressed Q&A 1 Posted to FBO 171101 | |||
| Section M.5.1 | The SF294 and SF295 subcontracting reports are not required from 8(a) small businesses and are not mentioned as deliverables in Section L. Recommend the reference to "submitted SF 294/295s (if applicable)" be deleted. | Answer Addressed Q&A 2 Posted to FBO 171107 | ||
| Section L Table 1 | 42 | Management Page Count: 1.5 line spacing results in approximately 4 paragraphs per page. Given the 20+ requirements that need to be addressed in the Program Management section alone, please consider a page count of 12 pages. 6 pages for each Factor. | Answer Addressed Q&A 3 Posted to FBO 171113 | |
| SOW Section L L.1.10 Table 1 Page Limits | Based on previous experience and knowledge, we believe the 6 page limit for the Management, plus 10 pages for a Quality Control Plan, and the 6 page limit for the Technical may be insufficient to effectively respond to the solicitation. Would the Government consider increasing to a 50 page total limit, distributed across the Management and Technical volumes according. | Answer Addressed Q&A 3 Posted to FBO 171113 | ||
| Section L.3.2 | 44 | Program Management Plan: Is it expected that the Offeror details the travel approach for each one of the AORs listed? If so, please consider the page count required to address each AOR "IN DETAIL." | Answer Addressed Q&A 3 Posted to FBO 171113 | |
| Section L, Table 1 |
and
Section L.3.2 Guidance in Table 1 allows 6 pages for Management, which necessarilly includes the Offerors's Transition Plan, in addition to a Management Plan that provides many detailed elements, as described in Section L.3.2, for a complex global effort. Six pages is not sufficient to properly provide the requested/required detail, which includes: "describe in detail the program management leadership and oversight philosophies, tools, techniques, corporate expertise, reach back capabilities, and contract management for each site... also describe the overall approach for managing different sites to include personnel appointed to act as site(s) lead/manager(s), who oversee workload completion, and personnel management... describe its approach to problem solving and demonstrate the ability to satisfy SOW requirements without introducing unacceptable risk. The Program Management Plan shall include a detailed description of how the Offeror will recruit and retain qualified personnel to remain at a 90% fill rate and risk mitigation strategies for providing uninterrupted support during personnel absences due to sickness, leave, voluntary or involuntary termination from employment, or emergencies ... describe IN DETAIL its processes, procedures, and approach for executing smooth, timely and cost effective travel to OCONUS locations..." And then there is the Transition Plan requirements...
| Consider increasing the Management Plan portion of the proposal (Factor 1) to 20 pages, which will provide adequate room to answer, IN DETAIL, the essential elements of the solicition - which are indeed essential to properly evaluate responses to this requirement. Further - recommend allocating 10 pages to the Transition Plan (Factor 2), SEPARATE from the Management Plan, to enable adequate description of plans and risk mitigation techniques within this critical element of execution. This volume requires a minimum of 30 total pages in order to give minimum essential information to enable this best value evalution. | Answer Addressed Q&A 3 Posted to FBO 171113 | ||
| Table 1 | Table 1 mentions SF294/295s in the page count for the Past and Present Performance volume; will the Government provide this form as an attachment with the final RFP along with instructions within Section L.6? | Answer Addressed Q&A 2 Posted to FBO 171107 | |
| The Draft RFP states in M.2.1 Facility Clearance The Offeror provided proof of a Cleared Top Secret Facility and Secret Safeguarding as accredited by the Defense Security Service (DSS) via an approved Department of Defense Security Agreement (DD Form 441/441-1). Is an IOFSV print out an acceptable alternate to the DD 441/441-1? | Answer Addressed Q&A 2 Posted to FBO 171107 | ||
| What country(ies) does the government require the offeror to have a DSP-5 licensing in? Who is each Foreign Enduser, Foreign Consignee, and/or Intermediate Cosignee and their perspective address/contacts. | Answer Addressed Q&A 1 Posted to FBO 171101 | ||
| Section L, Table 1 |
and
Section L.3.2 Guidance in Table 1 allows 6 pages for Management, which necessarilly includes the Offerors's Transition Plan, in addition to a Management Plan that provides many detailed elements, as described in Section L.3.2, for a complex global effort. Six pages is not sufficient to properly provide the requested/required detail, which includes: "describe in detail the program management leadership and oversight philosophies, tools, techniques, corporate expertise, reach back capabilities, and contract management for each site... also describe the overall approach for managing different sites to include personnel appointed to act as site(s) lead/manager(s), who oversee workload completion, and personnel management... describe its approach to problem solving and demonstrate the ability to satisfy SOW requirements without introducing unacceptable risk. The Program Management Plan shall include a detailed description of how the Offeror will recruit and retain qualified personnel to remain at a 90% fill rate and risk mitigation strategies for providing uninterrupted support during personnel absences due to sickness, leave, voluntary or involuntary termination from employment, or emergencies ... describe IN DETAIL its processes, procedures, and approach for executing smooth, timely and cost effective travel to OCONUS locations..." And then there is the Transition Plan requirements...
| Consider increasing the Management Plan portion of the proposal (Factor 1) to 20 pages, which will provide adequate room to answer, IN DETAIL, the essential elements of the solicition - which are indeed essential to properly evaluate responses to this requirement. Further - recommend allocating 10 pages to the Transition Plan (Factor 2), SEPARATE from the Management Plan, to enable adequate description of plans and risk mitigation techniques within this critical element of execution. This volume requires a minimum of 30 total pages in order to give minimum essential information to enable this best value evalution. | Answer Addressed Q&A 3 Posted to FBO 171113 | |||
| CLIN 0001 Labour (TAB 4) | Section L.7.2.3 mentions supporting information for the Total Compensation Plan in an excel spreadsheet – can the Government provide clarification for this requirement? | Answer Addressed Q&A 2 Posted to FBO 171107 | ||
| Section I Clause 5652.237.9001 | 26 | Request that this clause be included in FINAL RFP. The Government states in Section L.3.2 "The Offeror shall describe in detail the program management leadership and oversight philosophies, tools, techniques, corporate expertise...." Key Personnel Requirements and Sections L&M evaluate Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager in addition to corporate experience are essential to overall contract management. Please consider adding to Section L&M. | Answer Addressed Q&A 1 Posted to FBO 171101 | |
| Section L.3.2, Volume 2 Management, Factor 1, Program Management Plan | 44 | Would the Governement consider adding additional page count in order to address "The Offeror shall describe in detail the program management leadership and oversight philosophies, tools, techniques, corporate expertise, reach back capabilities, and contract management for each site, provided on Attachment J-2" and "The Offeror shall describe IN DETAIL its processes, procedures, and approach for executing smooth, timely and cost effective travel to OCONUS locations (PACOM / NORTHCOM; EUCOM / AFRICOM; DOCPERS KOREA/SOFA, and CENTCOM AOR)." | Answer Addressed Q&A 3 Posted to FBO 171113 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it.