Atch 14 - QnA_Govt Response FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 47 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- H9240021R0007
- Issued by
-
United States Special Operations Command
About this file
This is a request for proposal for follow-on technical collection and communication field service representative services issued by the United States Special Operations Command. The requirement includes providing field service representatives at multiple Special Operations Command locations globally to support the Hostile Forces - Tagging, Tracking, and Locating program. Offerors must submit proposals in accordance with the instructions in Section L by 1 October 2021. The government will award a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for labor hour task orders with a period of performance starting 30 days after award. The requirement includes small business subcontracting goals. Questions regarding the solicitation and statements of work must be submitted using the provided template by 1 October 2021 for consideration, with no questions answered after that date.
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
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
DIRECTIONS
TAILORED COMMENT MATRIX
THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RETURNED IN A MICROSOFT EXCEL FILE FORMAT. DO NOT RETURN YOUR RESPONSES IN ANY DIFFERENT FILE FORMAT.
| Directions & Explanation of TAILORED COMMENT MATRIX |
| This Tailored Comment Matrix is provided in order for potential offerors to provide feedback, comments, and ask questions with regard to the released RFP. |
The sheet labeled "DIRECTIONS" explains this document, and provides directions for its use.
The sheet labeled "MATRIX" contains a table with all labeled and numbered elements from the RFP. This table is where potential offerors may respond to the Government with feedback, comments, or ask questions.
| Directions and explanation of sheet labeled "MATRIX" |
| The MATRIX sheet can be reached by clicking the "MATRIX" Tab at the bottom of this spreadsheet. Add rows as necessary under the applicable item. |
| MATRIX COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS: | |
| Column A: | Contains the Item reference number for this item. This number is used for organizational purposes, when referring to this document only. |
Column B: Contains the section number that each element is labeled, within their respective documents. The section number relates directly to the item's location in the RFP.
Column C: Contains the written title for the corresponding item/section number.
| Column D: | Contains a drop down box for selecting the type of comment. Available options are "Critical" "Substantive" or "Administrative". |
| Critical: Violations of law -or- Unnecessary risks to safety, life & limb, or DOD Material; waste or abuse of DOD appropriations; unreasonable burden on resources. | |
| Substantive: Appears or is potentially unnecessary, incorrect, misleading, confusing, or inconsistent with other sections; disagree with proposed responsibilities, requirements, and/or procedures. | |
| Administrative: Address typographical, grammatical, and formatting errors (grammar, punctuation, style, etc.) |
Column E: Contains a drop down box for selecting if the corresponding comments/questions/responses entered in column F contain proprietary information (Yes/No)
Column F: Contains space for potential offerors' comments/questions/responses. Include justification for why the information is considered proprietary if so indicated in Column E.
Column G: The responding Company's name should be entered in the in Column G for all questions
THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RETURNED IN A MICROSOFT EXCEL FILE FORMAT. DO NOT RETURN YOUR RESPONSES IN ANY DIFFERENT FILE FORMAT.
MATRIX
| ITEM # | SECTION NUMBER | NAME OF SECTION | COMMENT TYPE | |
| (Select from drop down) | SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IN QUESTIONS / COMMENTS? | |||
| (Yes/No) | QUESTIONS / COMMENTS | |||
| (With justification of why considered source selection sensitive if applicable) | Government Response | |||
| SECTIONS "A-M" |
1 A Solicitation/Contract Form
| SF 33 | Solicitation, Offer and Award | Substantive | No | Section 9 of the SF 33 specifies that offerors deliver "Sealed offers in original and 1 copies …" Section L specifies that offerors deliver only 1 CD. Please confirm that no copies other than the CD are required for delivery. | Please diregard Section 9 of the SF33 and follow the instructions in L.1.5. | |
| 2 | B | Supplies or Services and Prices |
3 C Descriptions and Specifications
4 D Packaging and Marking
5 E Inspection and Acceptance
6 F Deliveries or Performance
7 G Contract Administration Data
8 H Special Contract Requirements
| H | Special Contract Requirements | Substantive | No | H.10 states, "The Material CLIN, will only be utilized for payment of the following billable expenses; travel and related expenses to cover Government directed unique training, Government directed certifications above and beyond those required to meet the minimum qualification requirements outlined in SOW, travel to support multiple locations in the same geographical area, and relocation expenses (for OCONUS positions only)...For ODC purchases the contractor is required to maximize competition in order to receive the best value for the government." If the material CLIN is limited to travel, training and relocation, will the Government please clarify what ODC purchases requiring competition are anticipated in the performance of this effort? | Language removed from Section H | |
| H | Special Contract Requirements | Substantive | No | H.10 states that the material CLIN is for travel and related expenses (training, certifications, travel and relocation). Section B combines travel and ODCs into a single line item for each TO (0002 and 0004). However, the pricing template prices ODCs separately from travel. Would the Government please clarify whether it intends to award separate CLINs for travel and non-travel ODCs? If not, would the Government please clarify why separate plug numbers for each are provided and how this will be tracked during execution? | It will be one CLIN for both and the reason for them being separate plugs is to be completely transparent and to how much funds will allocated for each. | |
| H | Special Contract Requirements | Substantive | No | H.11(d) references section H.12, however H.12 does not exist. Would the Government please correct the reference? | Corrected H.12 to H.10 for H.11(d) | |
| 9 | I | Contract Clauses |
10 J List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments
11 K Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors
12 L Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders
| Substantive | No | What mechanism does the government want us to use for classified past performance? We have contracts and teammates with significant work in this area with classified contracts. | Fill in the Attachment 7, PPI Sheet, with the information you can and then considering it requires 2 POCs, the Government will call and verify the information. Also read Section L for details on proposal submission. | ||
| Substantive | No | Will the government reconsider past performance contract thresholds in attachment 11? The released RFP contained past performance contract requirements that were not present in the draft RFP. These stated contract thresholds disadvantage companies with significant capability but execute their contracts with both national SOF and the interagency on shorter-term contracts with smaller contract value. We know of no other relevant contract that meets the criteria other than the incumbent contract other than classified contracts which will not acknowledge their existence. | Attachment 11 has been revised | ||
| Substantive | No | Will the government decrease the number of resumes with letters of intent? The draft called for 15 key and essential positions, and the final RFP calls for 22 key personnel resumes with letters of intent. This is onerous given the relationships and expectations of those who sign the letter of intent coupled with the very specific requirements. These positions account for the most critical positions on this program. The letters of commitment / high number of resumes requirement (22 of 74 positions = 29%) conflicts with USSOCOM stated desire for stability as this approach creates program stability risk with the potential loss of 22 incumbent personnel. Letters of intent are a two-way street. In addition to the candidates' stated and signed intent to do the work if we are awarded, we have the reverse obligation to give them the work. Please consider an approach that demonstrates the ability and history of finding these personnel while ensuring that incumbent personnel transition is thoroughly addressed. Government approaches that include a high number of resumes/letters of commitment are understandable for a new effort, but this technique disproportionately advantages the incumbent contractor during recompetes. | No, this is not possible | ||
| Substantive | No | The SOW is classified and a number of questions have been generated that may be classified in nature. The additional past performance requirement and increased number of resumes/letter of commitment have caused reconsideration of teammates and level of recruiting effort.Will the government allow for an extension to submit and receive answers to sensitive issues within the SOW? | In order to ensure no break in service, the Government cannot allow more time. | ||
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Substantive | No | Appendix D and the Pricing Template label positions differently. It is unclear which positions map between the SOW, Appendix B, Appendix D and Attachment 12. Will the Government please confirm the pricing volume is the authoritative source for Position Type, Position, Location, and Level? | Location correlates to the SOW. Position titles are updated with unit/component in Pricing Template to better match the SOW. |
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Administrative | No | L.1.4.3 states glossaries compliance matrices and acronymn lists are excluded from each volume's page count. Section L.1.9 states they shall not be included in each volume at all but instead in a standalone document separate from vols 1-5. Please clarify where they shall be provided. | Since it doesn’t count towards page limit, it doesn't matter where your provide it. |
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Critical | No | L.1.5 states Att 12 pricing template/factor 4 is not to be included on the CD being mailed/hand delivered but should instead be emailed to POCs. Att 12 instructions tab says proprietary subcontractor pricing information shall be included in sealed package and submitted by the prime contractor, and shall NOT be submitted directly to Government (i.e. may not be emailed). Please clarify whether Prime Contractor's Vol IV, to include price template and TCP, shall be emailed, submitted on CD, or both. Please clarify whether subcontractors shall email their proprietary price template and TCP directly to the Government, or whether subcontractor proprietary data shall be provided on a CD in a sealed package and included within the Prime's mailed/hand delivered submission. | Disregard sealed package; this has been correced. Follow instructions in L.1.5. Offerors can either include Subcontractor's info their email submission of pricing or subcontractor's can email separately. |
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Critical | No | Table L.1 - Cost/Price Volume. Would the Government please confirm that Volume IV shall consist of the following 3 subsections: |
1. Written cost/price narrative (pdf)
2. Price Template (excel)
| 3. Total Compensation Plan supporting documentation (pdf) | Yes, the pricing worksheet plus a cost/price narrative and supporting documentation for the compensation plan is required. | ||||||
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Administrative | No | All positions in the pricing volume except for the PM are onsite, while the PM is in a contractor facility. Please confirm that all positions are intended to perform at Government site, except the PM. | The PM is the only position we don't state where they should work but they should be at a contractor facility or SOCOM HQ, all other positions are identified in the SOW. | ||
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Substantive | No | The Government increased the number of key resumes required between the first draft and the final RFP. The new requirement was only in the classified SOW which was not distributed until after the final RFP was released. This places a very short suspense on companies to identify candidates and obtain letters. Would the Government remove the new requirement or provide consideration for the increased requirement? | In order to ensure no break in service, the Government cannot allow more time. | ||
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Critical | No | The Attachment 12 pricing template, instructions tab, states that the unburdened labor rate shall be inclusive of the base salary plus fringe benefits to include contract-specific items such as LQA, education allowance, locality adjustments, etc. Attachment 12 provides plugs for both travel and ODCs. Would the Government please clarify whether each of the following shall be included in the unburdened rate in tab 5 and FBLR in tabs 1-4 or, alternatively, if they shall be reimbursed as ODCs under the cost reimbursable line items, are included within the ODC plug and shall not be separately priced? |
a. LQA
b. Education allowance
c. Hazard and hardship pay
d. DBA
| e. Incentive/Completion Bonus | a, b, c, d, and e should be part of the unburdened salary. Supporting documenation should provide cost breakdown for each. | ||||||
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Substantive | No | If the ODC plug does NOT include OCONUS uplifts (LQA, HOLA/COLA, Education allowance, H&H/danger pay and DBA), would the Government please clarify what offerors shall assume is included within the non-travel ODC plugs? | The ODC plug is to cover any cost associated with the FSR to do their jobs that is not covered by the unit. | ||
| L, M | Instructions to Offerors, Evaluation Factors for Award | Critical | No | Would the Government please confirm offerors shall submit a written price/cost narrative (pdf) in addition to the Attachment 12 Pricing Template excel spreadsheet (xls) and Total Compensation Plan (pdf) that accompanies tab 5 of the pricing template excel spreasheet? | Yes, the pricing worksheet plus a cost/price narrative and supporting documentation for the compensation plan is required. | ||
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Administrative | No | L.6.5 Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan. "IAW DFARS 252.237-7003 and 252.237-7004 the contractor shall provide a written plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in Attachment 11 dated 28 July 2021." Attachment 11 is the relevancy matrix. Will the Government please correct? | |||
| L.6.5 has been corrected. | |||||||
| L, M | Instructions to Offerors, Evaluation Factors for Award | Critical | No | Would the Government confirm that OCI Disclosure forms are not required for contracts where the period of performance has ended? | Provide all and the government will make a determination based on the information submitted. | ||
| L, M | Instructions to Offerors, Evaluation Factors for Award | Substantive | No | L.6.3 requires documentation of approved accounting AND purchasing systems. M.2.6.3 only references an approved accouting system. Will the Government clarify whether documentation of a purchasing system is required? | Sections L&M have been revised. | ||
| L, M | Instructions to Offerors, Evaluation Factors for Award | Critical | No | "Offerors shall submit a total compensation plan, per Instructions Tab in Attachment 12 – Pricing Template, setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed. " Tab 5 requires contractors to fill in the "unburdened rate." Would the Government clarify whether an annual salary or an hourly rate shall be provided? | Annual salary | ||
| L.6.5 | Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan | Substantive | No | Section L.6.5 reads: "IAW DFARS 252.237-7003 and 252.237-7004 the contractor shall provide a written plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in Attachment 11 dated 28 July 2021. The approved plan will be incorporated into the final awarded contract." There is an Attachment 11 in the final RFP, but it is not related to this Plan. Will the Government provide this attachment? | L.6.5 has been corrected. | ||
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Substantive | No | Section L.6.3 refers to DFARS clause 252.242-7005 for Contractor Business Systems, clause 252.242-7006 for the Accounting System, and clause 252.244-7001 for the Purchasing System. Can the Government provide rationale on including the purchasing system clause given the pricing model is focused on labor and the Government will be providing GFE? | All is required by the FAR. There's no exemptions to CAS and See FAR 52.244-2 and DFARS 252.244-7001 | ||
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Substantive | No | Section L.6.3 requires submission of Attachment 8 Pre-Award Survey. Can the Government please provide guidance to Offerors on an alternative if the Government representative will not complete the survey? | This section as been reworded | ||
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Administrative | No | Section L.2.2.1.2 requires resumes for Program Managers. Is the Government requiring multiple PM resumes or a single PM resume? | For Vol 1, the Government is looking only for Contractor Program Management resume/resumes. Section L.2.2.1.2 has been updated. | ||
| L | Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders | Administrative | No | Section L.5.4 requires a description of the compensation plan and supporting information. Does the Government desire a Word pricing volume in addition to the Excel spreadsheet or should this information be included in the Admin volume? | This section has been updated | ||
| L.4.4 | Recency and Relevancy | Critical | No | The new Attachment 11 Past Performance Relevancy Baseline raises many questions, and we are concerned that the matrix introduces inconsistencies with Section L and Section M criteria, as well as the information that will be evaluated from the Information Sheets.Does the Government intend that Attachmenet 11 be used to evaluate individual contract references as described in the Information Sheets, or will be used to evaluate the offeror's overall Past Performance Volume? If the Government's intent is to evalute each cited reference according to Attachment 11, we respectfully ask that the Government consider the following questions/comments regarding specific criteria listed in the Attachment: | Attachment 11 has been revised | ||
| L.4.4 | Recency and Relevancy | Critical | No | 6. OCONUS/HAZ Spt. The criteria to have deployed to 9+ locations does not appear to be reflected in the definition of relevancy in RFP Section L or Section M, and while OCOUS locations shall be listed on the Information Sheets, we have not seen where it is more relevant to have deployed to 9, rather than 6 locations. Is the definition of a "location" a separate geographical location? | Attachment 11 has been revised | ||
| L.4.4 | Recency and Relevancy | Critical | No | 8. Magnitude. The dollar values in this category do not seem to coorespond to the number of personnel cited; for example, if a contract employed 50 personnel, the value would be significantly greater than $7M annually given the labor categories employed in a relevant contract. Further, if an offeror provides a contract reference with a 3-year POP is it scored lower than a contract with a 5-year POP? | Attachment 11 has been revised | ||
| L.4.4 | Recency and Relevancy | Critical | No | 9. DoD and OGA Support. We do not believe that an offeror's cited contract would support both the DoD and an Other Governmental Agency. Please clarify this criteria. | If they have one or the other than an offeror is still somewhat relevant | ||
| L.4.4 | Recency and Relevancy | Critical | No | Finally, based on the inconsistencies with Section L and Section M, the Information Sheets, and the SOWs, we respectfully request that the Government either delete Attachment 11 from the RFP or rewrite, at a minimum, Sections L.4.4, L.4.4.1, M.2.4, and M.2.4.2 and the Information Sheets so offerors have a consistent understanding of all evaluation criteria for Volume III Past Performance Proposal. | Updates made to paragraph L.4.4 in Section L and given the answers provided herein, hope this clears things up. | ||
| 13 | M | Evaluation Factors for Award |
| M | Evaluation Factors for Award | Substantive | No | M.2.6.3 states offerors must submit valid documentation of an approved accounting system "for operating Government cost type contracts to be considered for award." The IDIQ provides for the issuance of LH task orders, and as such this is not a cost type contract. Will the Government please clarify whether an approved accounting system is required? Will the Government please confirm this requirement does not apply to non-cost type subcontractors? | LH is considered cost type contract. There's no exemption under 48 CFR 9903.201-1 therefore CAS is applicable. See FAR 52.244-2 and DFARS 252.244-7001 for applicability | |
| M | Evaluation Factors for Award | Substantive | No | M.2.6.3 Acceptable Contractor Business Systems states" OCI will be evaluated as a contractor responsibility determination in accordance with FAR Part 9 –Contractor Qualifications and any notices to offerors regarding OCI and their responses thereto will NOT be considered negotiations or discussions in accordance with FAR Part 15." Is OCI being evaluated as part of the business systems evaluation or was this intended to be under M.2.6.1? | M.2.6.3 language regarding OCI is moved ot M.2.6.1. | |
| M.2.6.5 | Factor 1IDIQ Management | Substantive | No | This section includes the statement: Reference Sections C and L.10 for detailed requirements. Since there is no Section L.10, will the Government provide the correct reference? | Updated to L.2 | |
| M.2.6.5 | Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan | Substantive | No | In Section M.2.6.5 of the final RFP, the DFARS reference, Provision 252.237-7024, that provides valuable information about what to include in the Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan has been deleted and replaced with the following text: “Plan shall adequately address how performance will continue.” However, the provision is included in the RFP starting on page 45. Please confirm that contractor plans should address DFARS 252.237-7024. | Yes, this is correct and M.2.6.5 has been changed. | |
| 14 | Exhibit A | CDRLs |
A00x
15 DD 254
Attachment 1 DD 254
16 SOW
| Appendix A to HR-TTL Specific Requirements SOW 1.13.2, 1.13.3 | Substantive | No | Under paragraph 1.13, MTTs provide Operational Test Support as coordinated with IEWTD staff and HF-TTL Program. This is the only place in the SOW, RFP, Schedule, and other documents where MTT is used. Would the Government clarify whether MTTs are used synonymously with NET or whether MTTs are only focused on annual tests? | MTTs are synonymous with NET trainers | ||
| Appendix A to HR-TTL Specific Requirements SOW 1.13.2, 1.13.3 | Substantive | No | The Government’s pricing template does not include MTTs. Are MTTs included in the NET pricing tab? | MTTs are synonymous with NET trainers | ||
| Appendix A to HR-TTL Specific Requirements Tab 1 Basic TO-FSR & Op | Substantive | No | The SOW does not explain what level of service FSRs are to provide. The SOW states they will “assist users.” Is the equipment considered user owned and operated and FSRs provide technical assistance only? Are FSRs limited in what support they can offer based on OEM agreements? | The equipment is user owned, but the support required is defined in the SOW. | ||
| 3.3 | (CUI) Transition | Substantive | No | (CUI) The SOW references a transition-in period. Does the Government have any current transition-out plan in place with the current incumbent? | There is an requirement for the incumbent to transition out. There is a 30-day overlap from contract award until the Task Order Period of Performance begins in which the Government will facilitate the transition period. | |
| 3.3 | (CUI) Transition | Substantive | No | (CUI) How many days is the transition period? | Transition is 30 days. | |
| Substantive | No | Can the Government please provide non-CUI position descriptions? | No, this is not possible | |||
| 18 | Price Template |
| Att 12 | Tab 1 Basic TO - FSR & OP | Substantive | No | Attachment 12 (Pricing Template) identifies 2 positions as 3570 hours in rows 44-46, 1 positition as 3570 hours in row 47 and 2 positions as 7520 hurs in row 48. Woud the government please resolve the discrepancy? | This has been updated | |
| Att 12 | Tab 1 Basic TO - FSR & OP | Substantive | No | Att 12 identifies 3570 hours (4 FTE) total per year at USSOCOM HQ, MacDill AFB. However, the TO SOW dated 18 Sep 2021 identifies a differing number in the TCC FSR duty location table. Please clarify which is correct. | This has been updated | |
| Att 12 | Tab 1 Basic TO - FSR & OP | Substantive | No | Attachment 12 (Pricing Template) row 47 column A identifies 1 position however row 47 column E identifies 3760 hours per year. Please clarify which is correct. | This reflects 3760 | |
| Att 12 | Tab 1 Basic TO - FSR & OP | Substantive | No | Attachment 12 (Pricing Template) row 48 column A identifies 2 positions however row 48 column E identifies 7520 hours per year. Please clarify which is correct. | This was changed to 3760 | |
| Att 12 | Tabs 1-4 | Critical | No | Will the Governemnt please confirm offerors may insert a "company" column in tabs 1-4 in addition to in column "m" of tab 5 to indicate the prime contractor or teammate name applicable to the lcat and rate? If not, is the prime contractor intended to submit a single rate that covers all lines with the same position title, location and level regardless of company, or may different rates for each company be submitted for the same labor category/position if there are multiples FTEs in that labor category/position? | Subcontractor name is not required in Tabs 1-4. The Government needs one single rate that encompasses subcontrator cost, if applicable, and prime cost. | |
| Att 12 | Tab 1 Basic TO - FSR & OP | Substantive | No | The pricing template is inconsistent in how it shows the number of people required and the number of hours to be performed. In nearly every line, a single line is used to indicate an FTE and the number or hours worked. We understand that a partial FTE in one line is a clear approach, but it is unclear why the number of FTEs in lines 44-48 use a different method. Would the Government use a single method to display the number of FTEs of a labor category at a location? | Corrected | |
| Att 12 | All tabs | Critical | No | Would the Government please clarify whether labor-related ODCs (DBA, LQA, H&H, Danger pay, bonuses, education allowances, cola/hola, etc) shall be included within the unburdened rates proposed in tab 5 and in the FBLRs proposed in tabs 1-4? | Yes, the FBLR should include all costs associated with that FTE besides travel. | |
| Tabs 1 and 3 | Critical | No | It appears Tabs 1 and 3 in the Pricing Template do not include the second "SOCOM HQ - KeyMaker" or the additional "MARSOC East (Schoolhouse)" positions associated with the "HF-TTL FSR Positions" Task Area. Would the Government please confirm that these positions should be included and please update the template accordingly? | Location correlates to the SOW. Position titles are updated with unit/component in Pricing Template to better match the SOW. | ||
| Tabs 1 and 3 | Critical | No | Would the Government please confirm whether in Tabs 1 and 3 in the Pricing Template the "USASOC HQ" position associated with the "HF-TTL FSR" Task Area should be "US First Special Forces Command" instead and please update template accordingly? | Location correlates to the SOW. Position titles are updated with unit/component in Pricing Template to better match the SOW. | ||
| Tabs 1 through 5 and Instructions tab | Critical | No | Would the Government please explicitly define what should be included in the rates on Tab 5? The Goverment stated in the Draft Q&A response that the rates in Tab 5 should be "bare" rates only and not include fringe; however, the Tab 5 instructions mention including incentive pay and education allowance. Furthermore, the Government"s response to a different question indicated Tab 5 should include benefits. What does the Government consider to be incentive compensation? | Incentive compensation would be a bonus, as an example. Tab 5 should include fringe, sorry for answering the question wrong during draft. | ||
| Tabs 1 through 5 and Instructions tab | Critical | No | Would the Government please clarify whether education allowances should be included in the rates and, if so, on which Tabs? Please confirm that the Government wants all costs included on Tab 5, in additon to any additional fringe as defined in CFR 200.431 to be included in FBLRs within Tabs 1 through 4? | Education would be part of Compensation plan and FBLR. Yes, all costs should be in Tab 5 (minus G&A, Profit, and overhead) including what is defined in CFR 200.431. | ||
| Attachment 12 | Pricing Template | Substantive | No | Under the HF-TTL In-theater FSR support section, the first three (3) SOCCENT positions each include two (2) FTEs at 3760 hours, or 1880 per FTE. The SOCPAC position then includes one (1) FTE at 3760, and the SOCAF position includes two (2) FTEs at 7520 hours. Can the Government confirm those hours are correct in column E with regard to the number of positions stated in column A? | Hours updated in Attach 12- Price Matrix | |
| Attachment 12 | Pricing Template | Substantive | No | The Government includes 720 hours for a Program Manager for each sample task order, which is 1440 hours total and less than one (1) full-time person at 1880 hours. Can the Government confirm the PM is a part-time position, and a full-time PM should not be priced? | This position was removed and should not be priced as a LH, it should be in Overhead. | |
| Attachment 12 | Pricing Template | Substantive | No | The pricing template lists one SOCOM HQ position at 1316 hours and another position at 564 hours. Does the Government require a resume for each separate position? Or if industry proposes to combine the hours into one (1) FTE, can industry submit one resume to cover both labor categories? | Yes, a resume is required with Vol II for these positions. This is a non-personal service so you are free to propose how you see fits best. | |
| Attachment 12 | Pricing Template | Substantive | No | Can the Government clarify if sealed pricing bids from subcontractors should be included on separate CDs within the final submission package or are they required to be submitted via email per Section L? | Pricing Matrix is updated, pricing should be submitted via email as explained in Section L.1.5 | |
| Attachment 12 | Pricing Template | Substantive | No | Pricing instructions for Tab 5 - Compensation Plan state that subcontractors may submit unburdened direct salary data in a sealed package to the prime offeror and that the Government will not accept direct submission from any subcontractor. The solicitation section L.1.5 states that the pricing template shall be submitted via email. Can the Government provide instructions on how to deliver sealed packages from subcontractors via email? Will the Government accept password protected excel sheets? If yes, will the Government accept passwords directly from subcontractors? | Sealed bid was an error and has been removed from the Pricing Matrix. Pricing should be submitted via email as explained in Section L.1.5 | |
| Attachment 12 | Pricing Template | Substantive | No | The Government includes two (2) part-time positions in the pricing spreadsheet for the SOCOM HQ-Mgr position. These hours add to one (1) FTE at 1880 total hours. Does the Government intend for this to be one (1) individual supporting both HF-TTL and TVS efforts, thereby requiring one (1) resume? | This is a non-personal service so you are free to propose how you see fits best given the position and hours. | |
| 19 | Other / Additional |
| Att 6 | Attachment 6 OCI Disclosure Form | Substantive | No | Would the Government please clarify what affiliates must be listed on page 1, item 6 of the OCI Disclsoure form? | Such as proposed or current subcontractors, teaming arrangements, and subsidiaries but not limited to. |
| Att 6 | Attachment 6 OCI Disclosure Form | Substantive | No | If a subcontractor, would the Government please confirm that if the prime contract value is unknown, the % of work field may be marked "unknown" given that the prime contractor may not disclose this data to a subcontractor? | Subcontractor should be able to figure out the % of total value unless classified |
| Att 6 | Attachment 6 OCI Disclosure Form | Substantive | No | Would the Government please clarify what an MYE is? | Changed to FTE |
| Att 6 | Attachment 6 OCI Disclosure Form | Substantive | No | The instructions state that contracts requiring disclosure are those that have been awarded, are being performed AND " requires a comparison with that work identified in Paragraph 6 of OCI Disclosure Form." There is no paragraph 6 in the disclosure form. Please clarify. | Changed to Para. 4 of OCI Form |
| Att 6 | Attachment 6 OCI Disclosure Form | Critical | No | The instructions state that contracts requiring disclosure are those that have been awarded, are being performed AND " requires a comparison with that work identified in Paragraph 6 of OCI Disclosure Form." H.3 suggests that ALL SOCOM-funded contracts require disclosure. Would the Government please confirm that ONLY USSOCOM funded contracts that relate to the work described in RFP No. H9240021R0007 shall be disclosed, and that USSOCOM contracts not related to the HF-TTL IDIQ do NOT require submission of an OCI disclosure form? | If you have a contract with USSOCOM, it needs to be disclosed. |
| Att 7 | Atch_7_Past_Performance_ Information_Sheet_Final | Administrative | No | "If you performed as a subcontractor, team partner or Joint Venture partner, provide the Prime Contractor point of contact information." If an offeror did not perform as a subcontractor, may the offeror delete the table in Item 3? | Yes and put N/A for 3. |
| Att 7 | Atch_7_Past_Performance_ Information_Sheet_Final | Administrative | No | Item 2 “Company:” May offeror’s delete this row of the table for Government contracts? | Yes |
| Att 7 | Atch_7_Past_Performance_ Information_Sheet_Final | Administrative | No | Item 4 “most relevant to the TCC-FSR acquisition” Should this read “most relevant to the HFTTL acquisition”? | No, it's worded correctly, government is looking for relevant experience related to current acquisition. |
| Att 7 | Atch_7_Past_Performance_ Information_Sheet_Final | Administrative | No | Instructions “Limit 3 pages per citation” The table of basic contract information and item 2 take up approximately one page, leaving just two pages for describing the relevance of the work to the SOW. Would the Government consider increasing the page limit to at least 4 pages per citation? | Increased to 4 pages |
| Att. 16 - Q&A | Questions & Answers (Draft) | Substantive | No | With regard to Attachment 16 - Q&A (Draft) and the answer on row 89, the Government states there will not be an overlap in Period of Performance. This statement contradicts the SOW which refers to a transition period. How does the Government intend to transition GFP/GFE, training curriculums, the APL, and other materials the Government stated it would provide without a transition period? | Transition will start prior to the Period of Performance start date and prior to the current contract expiration. It's anticipated that the transition will be the last 30 days of the current POP. |
| Att 11 | TCC Relevancy Matrix | Substantive | No | In the past performance relevancy evaluation criteria, the Government requires over 10 years of experience to be deemed "Very Relevant" for a past performance. The majority of single award contracts and/or task orders have a period of performance of 5 years or less, which means this rating inhibits competition for USSOCOM. Can the Government please provide the rationale for the 10 years of experience criteria for past performance? | Attachment 11 has been revised |
| Att 11 | TCC Relevancy Matrix | Substantive | No | In Attachment 11, the Government is requiring greater than 10 years of experience on past performance to be rated Very Relevant. Is the Government referring to corporate experience, as most contracts including this contract and its predecessor are 5-year periods of performance? | Attachment 11 has been revised |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .