Questions_Set__2_180119.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- UEWTEP II
- Solicitation number
- H92222-18-R-0001
- Issued by
-
United States Special Operations Command
About this file
Q&A Set 2
View the file
Other files
Show all 30
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
Q&A 2 (18019)
| Ref | Question | Answer | |
| 1 | Section H | Given that CLIN 0005 was updated as a FFP line item, will the Government please add FAR 52.232-1 back to the RFP? | CLIN 0005 is Not Separately Price (NSP). This CLIN is for the delivery of CDRLS. The Government shall not pay for deliverables of CLIN 0005. Concerning the 'type' of CLIN, FFP has been removed, and COST has been incorporated. CLIN 0005 internal database designation has been changed from 'priced' to 'information only' . |
| 2 | Section H | Reference FAR clause 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, it is assumed that competition for UEWTEP exists, therefore, will the Government please include clause 52.215-20 Alternate IV in the solicitation thereby confirming that certified cost or pricing data are not required? | Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data is required for the cost/price proposal. Section L.6 states "This section will assist the Offeror in submitting other than certified cost or pricing data. The data is required to determine the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and establish fully burdened labor rates (J-2 Position Qualifications, LCATs, FTEs, and Pricing Sheets) that will become part of the awardee’s contract. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of the proposal" |
| 3 | Section L.2 Volume 1 Qualifying Criteria | Please confirm that teammates/subcontractors are not required to submit the items required per the qualifying criteria such as proof of facility clearance. | Teammates/subcontractors are not required to submit the items required per the qualifying criteria. Facility Clearance is required for the prime offeror only. At no time shall the prime offeror utilizes a subcontractors or teammates facility clearance as proof of facility clearance. |
| 4 | Section L.5 | Section L.5.1. General: requires Letters of Intent for proposed teaming partners. What is the purpose of the Letter of Intent? If a teaming agreement is executed, does its existence satisfy this requirement and if so, can the offeror merely note the existence of the teaming relationship in lieu of a Letter of Intent? | Letters of Intent are required for proposed teaming partners AND subcontractors, to affirm that a portion of said contract is going to be performed by the subcontractor/teaming partner. Section L.5 remains unchanged. |
| 5 | Section L.6 Volume 5 Factor 4 | Can the Government provide more clarity/further detail on their answer to Question 3 within Questions_Set_1 regarding sealed package submissions from subs for pricing? • What specifically does the Government require within the sealed packages? • Does the Government require everything within Section L.6 for the Cost/Price Volume to be within the sealed packages for subs? | There is no specific Government requirement for sealed packages from subcontractors. If, however a subcontractor is concerned about disclosing proprietary data to the prime contractor while complying with Section L.6.5 Total Employee Compensation Plan, then the subcontractor can submit the total employee compensation data directly to the Government. |
| 6 | SOW Section 1.3 | Within Sec. 1.3 Scope the following requirement is stated requiring knowledge of certain contents of the UEWTEP FY18 PEP: “The contractor shall meet all of the requirements of an anticipated and emergent workload identified by our customers and approved by UEWTEP stakeholders and within the USSOCOM UEWTEP PEP, including travel to CONUS and OCONUS locations.” How does the government propose to provide the contractor’s access to USSOCOM Enterprise-wide Training and Exercises Program (UEWTEP) FY18 Program Execution Plan (PEP) (Sept 2017), as answered in the DRFP Q&A by suggestion the government will provide access? | The UEWTEP FY18 PEP will be provided following contract award. The EWW to support the PEP is provided in J-2 and travel is straight reimbursement. |
| 7 | SOW Section 1.3 | Will the Government please provide answers to the following questions? • Are any current contract positions accredited Article 72 under ASSA or TCSA? • Is the current contract a “mixed contract”, or only Article 73? • Are any positions on the current contract not approved for TESA, ASSA, and TCSA? Similar Question: Will the Gov please identify any postions under this contract which fall und | The only positions in Germany and Korea fall under TESA. |
| 8 | General Question | Given that many contract references for past performance have contracting officer approval restrictions that may take up to 45 days to receive, would the Government please consider extending the proposal submittal deadline? | Request is denied. Section M.5 does not include evaluation processes which would restrict the evaluator. |
| 9 | General Question | Will the Government please note in the RFP which country specific status of forces agreements (SOFA) are applicable to UEWTEP and include the relevant agency supplement clauses? | Both the SOW and J2 include the locations. There are agreements in place (SOFA) for Germany and Korea. Supplemental clauses are included in attachment J-6 TBC (theater business clearance) for the CENTCOM AOR. |
| 10 | General Question | Are there no identified Key Personnel? Does the government wish for name/resume references for specific positions? | There are no positions identified as Key Personnel. The Government will not accept resumes. Section L.4.3 SME/Consultants specifically states "Do not provide resumes". |
| 11 | General Question | Are there no Past Performance Questionnaires? | There are no Past Performance Questionnaires. This RFP requests Past Performance Information Sheets. |
| 12 | Attachment J-2 | Given the extent of overseas portion of the UEWTEP effort, would the Government please consider increasing the yearly ODC plug number of $130K even though the CLIN is for evaluation purposes? | No. The ODC plug number is based on historical data. |
| 13 | DD254 | Reference the DD254 issued with the final RFP, ACCM Access is addressed on page 4 Section 13 Ref 10K, however, ACCM does not appear in block 10k on page 1. Will the Government be updating the DD254 for consistency? | Yes, ACCM is required. The DD254 will be updated upon award |
| 14 | Attachment J-6 5152.225-5902 | Do all personnel have to be in compliance with the Fitness for Duty and Medical/Dental Care Limitations or only those personnel in USCENTCOM? | 5152.225.5902 is a USCENTCOM clause, applicable only to personnel working in the USCENTCOM area of responsibility. |
| 15 | Attachment J-8, Section F, SOW 2.1 transition | What is the award date for the UEWTEP II contract? What is the estimated PoP for the contract? What are the anticipated dates of Transition? • The events in Attachment J-8 begin on 21 May 2018, but Section F gives Period of Performance (PoP) as 10 May 2018. • Meanwhile, SOW Section 2.1 Transition states that, “The contractor is responsible for executing its proposed transition plan to ensure 90% of qualified personnel IAW Solicitation Attachments J-2 Position Qualifications, LCATs, FTEs, and Pricing Sheets are in place by 18 June 2018.” • We are given 60 days to transition to 90% capacity, which, if demanded by 18 June 2018 would mean that PoP must begin 18 April 2018. | 1) Anticipated award date is 10 May 2018. 2) Period of Performance (ordering period) is 5 years after date of contract. 3) Amendment 01 of the solicitation, posted Jan 10, 2018 removed any reference to the number of days required for transition. 4) Transition: The contractor shall demonstrate in their transition plan how they will reach 90% FOC on or before 18 June 2018, the day the present contract expires. 5) Attachment J-8 is a schedule of events required to support UEWTEP I (present contract) and UEWTEP II (this RFP), provided as information for the offeror to propose a complete, realistic, transition from date of contract to 90% by 18 June 2018. |
| 16 | Attachment J-8 Transition | What is the anticipated slippage for the dates provided in Attachment J-8_Transition_Events_171229 (ranging from 21 May 2018 to 1 July 2018)? | The only slippage for the events already scheduled would be catastrophic events. |
| 17 | Attachment J-8 | Can the incumbent Transition Out-Plan be provided? | No. |
| 18 | L.1.11 Proposal Due Date | Will the gov't extend the RFP Response date by 1-week (to 7 FEB)? | No. The RFP announcement states "Offerors may submit questions to the Contracting Officer and Contracting Specialist at any time; however, questions received after Wednesday, January 24th, 2018 may not be answered prior to proposal due date of 31 January 2018. " |
| 19 | L.5.1 | Will the Gov't consider allow up to 3 pages for the Past Performance Volume? A single-page summary does not provide adequate space to introduce a complete team's PP or explain the Best Value that an offeror with more than 3 companies brings to USSOCOM. | The summary page only describes what is included in the offeror's Past and Present Performance proposal. |
| 20 | L.5.1 | What is the government specifically looking for in Letters of Intent from Subcontractors? Does the government want anything more than an acknowledgement of a subcontractor to prime teaming arrangement? | The letter of intent shall acknowledge that the subcontractor intends to perform the type of work on the contract, in which the past performance information sheets have identified their recent and relevant performance record. |
| 21 | L.2.2 | What specific document does the gov't prefer for proof of FCL? Is the Prime's ISFD print out (E-FCL verification) or DD form 441, or there another document the government desires? | The ISFD print out is acceptable proof. Please note, the prime offeror's cage code with be submitted through USSOCOM security channels to verify the information contained within the ISFD. |
| 22 | L.3.1 | Request clarification on verbiage in L.3.1 regarding disruptions causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor. It is our interpretation that statement in L.3.1. "Offeror will recruit and retain qualified personnel to remain at a 90% fill rate and risk mitigation strategies for providing uninterrupted support during ... emergencies such as: labor strikes, surges, natural disasters, disruptive world events, pandemic outbreaks, or terrorist attacks." directly conflicts with FAR Clause 52-24-14 para (a) examples 1-9 | The RFP does not state that the contractor shall perform during the examples listed in 52.249-14, else be in default or found negligent. The offeror is required to explain their emergency plans and strategies for continuing services during disasters, as well as personnel related emergencies. Section L.3.1 states "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 such as: labor strikes, surges, natural disasters, disruptive world events, pandemic outbreaks, or terrorist attacks." |
| 23 | Attachment J-8, SOW, various | What is the expected Transition Period/Dates? Is it safe to plan 10 May to 9 Jul 2018 as the Transition period? Throughout the narrative of the Solicitation document the transition period is referenced as 60-days, however the J8 Transition document the earliest date is 21 May and the latest date is 1 JUL. These dates only account for aprox 40days. The Period of Performance is listed as 10 May 2018 - 09 May 2023. | Please see Amendment 01 of the solicitation, posted to FBO 10 January 2018. Transition is from the date of contract to 90% FOB on 18 June 2018. See also the answer to question 16. |
| 24 | L.6.1.1; L.6.3; and M.6.3 | L.6.1.1; L.6.3, and M.6.3 refer to Attachment J-5. Should it be referencing Attachment J-2 instead? Attachment J-5 is ITAR Country List | Yes, L.6.1.1; and M.6.3 have been updated to read 'Attachment J-2). L.6.3 is N/A |
| 25 | None | May the offer put its declaration statement acknowledging and accepting, without exceptions, all Statement of Work (SOW) requirements solely in its Proposal Cover Letter as part of Volume 1 and remain compliant with the gov't intent? | The declaration statement may be included within the Proposal Letter, or made separately within Volume 1. |
| 26 | None | Is there an incumbent in place for opportunity H92222-18-R-0001. If yes, who is the contractor? | Intelligence, Communications and Engineering (ICE, Inc.) is the present contractor. |
| 28 | J-2 | Would the Government consider evaluating the Surge hour costs separately by removing them from the Regular Hours evaluation area and giving them their own evaluation area essentially allowing the Surge hours to be multiplied by the Surge Rate (Surge Fully Loaded Labor Hours Rate) | Yes, the Government intended base off historical use the requirement for Surge hours. Surge hours are only an estimated base off historical use on the current contract and may very pending on the government requirements. |
| 29 | J-2 | …….We contend that the TBD FTEs and the CLIN 1000 FTEs should be 39 and 142. | Yes, 181 FTEs. 142 on task order 1000 and 30 TBD FTEs |
| 30 | Section H | Will the Government please confirm that the Privacy Act is applicable to the scope of UEWTEP? If not, will the Government please consider removing FAR clauses 52.224-1 and 52.224-2 from the final RFP? | 52.224-1 and 52.224-2 have been removed |
| 31 | None | Is there any Government Exemption offered for the General Excise Tax (GET) of Hawaii? | Offerors are responsible for understanding the General Excise Tax Laws |
| 32 | Attachment J-2 | Would the Government consider evaluating the Surge hour costs separately by removing them from the Regular Hours evaluation area and giving them their own evaluation area essentially allowing the Surge hours to be multiplied by the Surge Rate (Surge Fully Loaded Labor Hours Rate)? | Yes, please see updated Attachment J-2 |
| 33 | Section H | Will the Government please confirm that the Privacy Act is applicable to the scope of UEWTEP? If not, will the Government please consider removing FAR clauses 52.224-1 and 52.224-2 from the final RFP? | 52.224-1 and 52.224-2 have been removed |
| 34 | Attachment J-2 | Multiple questions regarding Attachment J-2's pivot table and formulas within specific cells have been submitted. All questions have been collected and addressed. Please see the updated Attachment J-2, submitted with Amendment 02. If you find your specific issue has not been corrected or answered, contact the contracting officer immediately. | Attachment J-2 has been updated |
Q&A 1 (180109)
| Ref | Question | Answer | |
| 1 | L.3 Volume 2 Mgm&Tran Factor 1-Program Mgmt L.3.1 | What specific verification does the Government wish us to provide demonstrating that offerors possess a current DSP-5? | DSP-5 is not required at the time of proposal submission. When a specific DSP-5 license is required, the Government will allow sufficient time for license submittal and approval. Section L.3.1, paragraph 1 has been modified to read "The urgent nature of this work requires that the contractor understand the processes for obtaining a Department of State Export License (DSP-5)" |
| 2 | L.4 Volume 4- PP Factor 3 L.5.3 Recency | Will the Contracting Office extend the definition of “recency” as within the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation? | No |
| 3 | L.6 Volume 5 Cost/Price - Factor 4 | Will the Government accept sealed package submissions from subs for pricing, due to confidential, proprietary information? Can these sealed packages be sent as a separate submission or should they be included with team submissions? Please provide clarification. | The Government has incorporated Attachment J-9 QCP Data, for Prime Offerors and their subcontractor to submit data for rates. Instructions are included in L.6.5. |
| 4 | J-1 SOW 3.7 TSOC as Required (TBD) | Is this section still “To Be Determined” (TBD)? | Yes, it is yet To Be Determined if the TSOC's will request continue support for discretionary task orders. |
| 5 | J-1 SOW 3.8 Emergent requirements (TBD) | Is this section still “To Be Determined” (TBD)? | Yes, Section 3.8 of the SOW are events that have not yet been forecasted, but have historically occurred. |
| 6 | J-3 DD254 | Would the government please clarify the number of TS/SCI billets and the number of S/SCI billets required to fulfill the obligations of Task Order 1000? Item 14 indicates ONE HUNDRED TEN (110) contract billets, while the Pricing Template (J-2 Position Qualifications LCATs FTEs and Pricing Sheets) indicates ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY ONE (181) FTEs | All of the FTEs will require S/SCI. In some cases, TS/SCI in order to support USSOCOM enterprise wide training and exercises. 153 FTEs will be the start of task order 1000, the remaining 28 of the 181 are TBD for TSOC and/or discretionary task orders. All of the billets have been Identified at the correct level of clearance required on Attachment J-2. The DD254 will be amended. |
| 7 | J-2 | Would the government please clarify the number of TS/SCI billets and the number of S/SCI billets required to fulfill the obligations of Task Order 001? Item 14 indicates ONE HUNDRED TEN (110) contract billets, while the Pricing Template (J-2 Position Qualifications LCATs FTEs and Pricing Sheets) indicates ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-ONE (181) FTEs. | All of the billets have been identified at the correct level of clearance required on Attachment J-2. The number of billets required specifically for Task Order 0001 is undetermined, it is a TBD task order. The DD254 will be amended to include the correct number of TS/SCI billets. |
| 8 | L.6.1.3/J-2 | Section L.6.1.3 indicates says “Attachment J-2 includes 125 hours per Subject Matter Expert (SME)/Consultant for evaluation purposes only.” However, Attachment J-2, Tab 4 includes 460 hours per SME. Please clarify which level of effort is accurate. | Section L.6.1.3 will be updated as follows "SME/Consultants are on an as-needed basis only. Attachment J-2 includes 460 hours per Subject Matter Expert (SME)/Consultant for evaluation purposes only. " |
| 9 | Section L Table 1 | The table allows for only 10 pages for Volume 2. Management and Transition. Presenting Management and Transition of a very large contract with multiple geographic locations in a limit of 10 pages simply is not enough space. Strongly request that you increase the page limit to 10 pages for each management plan and transition plan (total of 20 pages for volume 2). | Page limit remains unchanged. |
| 10 | Section L Table 1 | The table allows for only 10 pages for Volume 3, Training. Presenting 3 evaluation elements of a very large contract with multiple geographic locations in a limit of 10 pages simply is not enough space. Strongly request that you increase the page limit to 20 pages for Volume 3. | Page limit remains unchanged. |
| 11 | J2 | The FTE totals from Tab 3 (position Requirements by SOW) and Tab 4 (Labor Costs) appear to be different 75 FTE for Tab 3 and 181 FTE for Tab 4. Please clarify. | Ensure all filters are off within the Tabs on Attachment J-2. There are 181 FTEs on Tap 3 and Tab 4 |
| 12 | L.5.2 | Is past performance required for ALL subcontractors or just for major/key subs (e.g. those that have at least > 10% or 20% workshare)? Currently, past performance requirements are for all subs “expected to perform,” which will likely yield past performance volumes of 75-100 pages or more for an average-sized team. Recommend past performance be required only for key subs with over a certain percentage of expected workshare. | Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS) are required for all subcontractors expected to be performing on this contract, who have past performance that is recent & relevant, in scope of the UEWTEP II effort. Section L.5.2 will be updated to include the follow paragraph "Prime Offerors shall not submit past performance information sheets on a subcontractor/teaming partner/joint venture that have no present or recent experience performing the level of work required for this effort. It shall be noted in the summary page that the proposed subcontractor(s) have no prior recent or relevant experience." AND "Prime Offerors shall only submit past performance information sheets on a subcontractor/teaming partner/joint ventures that are expected to perform +10% of the work" |
| 13 | L.6.2 | Should the date (TBD October 2017) be updated? | L.6.2 is updated to remove "(TBD October 2017)" to read "An advanced copy of the Offeror’s Modified SF 1408 Preaward Survey of Prospective Accounting System Checklist with supporting documentation should be forwarded to the cognizant DCAA and to the Contracting Officer, as soon as possible. Submitting the checklist prior to proposal due date is desired, however failure to submit prior to proposal date will not affect the evaluation". |
| 14 | J2, Tab 5 | Are you expecting overseas allowances for permanently stationed staff OCONUS to be included into specific OCONUS labor rates, priced as ODCs, or be priced elsewhere? | Yes, included in the ODC |
| 15 | L.5.2 | When determining relevancy of past performance, will the government factor in how much of the contract has been performed/completed, or just look at the awarded size/scope? In other words, on a similar but newly-awarded contract where performance only recently began, will the government consider how much of the full size/scope of the award has been performed in order to be able to assess the relevancy and risk of performance? | The past performance evaluation will be conducted IAW Section M.5.1. |
| 16 | L.1.10 | 10 Microsoft Office 2010 (2007 is acceptable) presentation and spreadsheet products are preferred. Q: Will the Government allow for the narrative portion only of Volume 5 to be submitted in PDF format? | Yes. Section L.1.10 will be updated to include "Volume 5 Narrative may be submitted in PDF format" |
| 17 | L.2.2 | [...] showing proof of clearance Q: Will the Government allow offerors to include proof of clearance in a Section 3 of Volume 1? | Proof of clearance shall be provided as part of the Qualifying Criteria, Volume 1. Offeror's cage codes will be submitted through USSOCOM security for verification before the proposal will be evaluated. |
| 18 | L.2.2 / J-3 1.b | The DD 254 does not include a requirement for SECRET safeguarding but the solicitation notice states a requirement for it at the prime contractor level. Q: Will you update the DD254 and Section L to specify this requirement? | The DD254 is correct in regards to Secret safeguarding. It is not required for this effort. The Solicitation Notice will be updated to read "Under no circumstance will interested Prime Contractor Offerors be able to utilize a potential Sub-Contractor’s TS Facility Clearance as proof of Top Secret Facility Clearance." |
| 19 | L.2.3.2 | 2 A conformed contract copy from this RFP [...] Q: Does the Government want all pages submitted or just the SF 33 and Section K completed? | This RFP will have Amendments. It is important that the conformed RFP be submitted with the proposal, to confirm the Offeror has proposed to the correct/conformed amended RFP. |
pending
| Ref | Question | Answer |
| None | Is there any Government Exemption offered for the General Excise Tax (GET) of Hawaii? | |
| Section H | Will the Government please include clause 52.229-6 -- Taxes -- Foreign Fixed-Price Contracts (FEB 2013) in the UEWTEP RFP? | |
| Section J-5 | Will the Government please explain the intent of the ITAR country list? Is it meant to represent partner nations to be trained? Will the Government please provide clarification on how the Section J-5 ITAR Country List is applicable and the specific training or other defense services to be performed by the offeror for those countries? | |
| SOFA | Will the Government please identify any positions under this contract which fall under article 72 SOFA status? | |
| SOFA | Will the Government provide a list of any positions under the existing contract that are currently approved under article 72? | |
| SOFA | Will the Government please confirm that this contract will receive article 72 approval? | |
| SOFA | Will the government allow pricing adjustments if the contract is not approved under article 72? | |
| SOFA | Will the Government consider an ODC pricing approach that takes into consideration ODCs with DOCPER approval and ODCs without DOCPER approval in those instances where the authorization procedure for granting independent status to contractor personnel filling Analytical Support (AS) positions in Germany might be suspended for a period of time. This would help to mitigate disruption to critical services and afford realistic budgeting estimates for vendor and customer. |
File details come from the government source that posted it.