RFP Comment Matrix Master.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 69 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Intelligence Support Services Joint III – Solicitation (H92402-24-R-0001) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- H92402-24-R-0001
- Issued by
- United States Special Operations Command
About this file
This document is a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Intelligence Support Services Joint III (ISSJ-3) contract issued by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The purpose of this effort is to provide comprehensive, actionable, intelligence services across various intelligence disciplines including all-source intelligence, human intelligence, signals intelligence, open-source intelligence, targeting intelligence, counterintelligence, and socio-cultural analysis. The contract is structured as a single-award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) with Cost Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) pricing, with an estimated 270 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). The requirement is set aside for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), with a primary NAICS code of 541990. The period of performance is a 5-year base period with a 5-year option period. Proposals are due on November 4, 2024. The RFP contains detailed requirements for transition planning, key personnel, past performance, and pricing. It also includes specific provisions related to cybersecurity and facility clearance requirements.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| H9240224R0001_Amendment 1.pdf | ||
| Attach 5 - Section M (Amendment 1).pdf | ||
| Exh A - CDRLS (Amendment 1).pdf | ||
| H924024R0001_CONF.pdf | ||
| Attach 4 - Section L (Amendment 1).pdf | ||
| Attach 4b - PP relevancy Matrix - Amendment 1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attach 3 - ISSJ Pricing TemplateR1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attach 3 - ISSJ Pricing Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP Comment Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Exh A - CDRLs.pdf | ||
| Attach 4b - PP Relvency Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attach 4c - Letter of Commitment.pdf | ||
| Attach 5 - Section M.pdf | ||
| H9240224R0001.pdf | ||
| Attach 4a - DCAA Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist.pdf | ||
| Attach 4 - Section L.pdf | ||
| Attach 6 - Past Performance Questionaire.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 17
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Comment Matrix H92402-24-R-0001 RFP Comment Matrix
| Document | |||
| (select from drop-down) | Section or | ||
| Page # | Comment | Answer | |
| Attach 4 - Section L | P.6 - L.2.2 | That government states that "The Offeror or one member of a Joint Venture (who will hold the responsibility for |
safeguarding) must have approved safeguarding at the minimum SECRET level as accredited by DCSA at the time of proposal submittal and shall meet all requirements identified in the attached Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254)."
| Question: Will the government allow one of the major subcontractors from the team to meet safeguarding requirement? | No, the Offeror or one member of the JV must hold the SECRET level DCSA safeguarding requirements. | ||
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | 12 AND 14.2 | Historically, CRC has been used for the placement of OCONUS FTEs; however, since the end of the active wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the requirements for CRC have been absorbed by the Command, supported elements, and the contracted company(s) supporting the program. Will the government please: |
1) Confirm that CRC is no longer a requirement; and
| 2) Update sections 12 and 14.2 of the SOW accordingly? | The SOW has been updated. Attending CRC is not a requirement for this effort, however, the checklist embedded in SOW Section 12.1 must be executed independently by the awardee prior to sending CTRs OCONUS on this contract. | |||
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | General Instructions Tab | The subcontractor Rate Buildup Tab Instructions, #2 states: "All subcontractors will complete Column H, Direct Labor Rate." Will the government please confirm the correct reference for Direct Labor Rate to be filled out is column I and update the instructions to: "All subcontractors will complete Column I, Direct Labor Rate." | Corrected to Reference Col I. | |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | General Instructions tab, row 16, number 4 | Row 16, Number 4, states: “It is intended that these five Task Order tabs (from the successful offeror's proposal) will be incorporated into the awarded contract task order;" however, there are no Task Order Tabs in the pricing matrix. Will the government please clarify which parts of the pricing matrix are intended to be incorporated in the awarded Task Order? | The Base Year and all Option Years tab reference a TO; which is summarized in Tab "TEP- Task Order". The 5 task orders are the five awardable task orders. | |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | Rate Table | For the LCATs in the North Carolina location, will the government please: |
1) Confirm offerors should use the OPM.gov Salary Table “2024-RA Incorporating the 4.7% General Schedule Increase and a Locality Payment of 21.90% For the Locality Pay Area of Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC” for the base period OR
| 2) Clarify the correct OPM Salary Table | Attachment 3, ISSJ Pricing Template, Tab Rate Table - Prime Unburdened" has been updated to include the Locality areas for the GS Equivalent - Floor Rate, Column P. The Government utilized the 2024 w/ locality differentials for the specified areas. | ||
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | Rate Table | For the LCATs in the Washington location, will the government please: |
1) Confirm vendors should use the OPM.gov Salary Table “2024-SEA Incorporating the 4.7% General Schedule Increase and a Locality Payment of 30.81% For the Locality Pay Area of Seattle-Tacoma, WA” for the base period OR
| 2) Clarify the correct OPM Salary Table | Attachment 3, ISSJ Pricing Template, Tab Rate Table - Prime Unburdened" has been updated to include the Locality areas for the GS Equivalent - Floor Rate, Column P. The Government utilized the 2024 w/ locality differentials for the specified areas. | ||
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | Rate Table | For the LCATs in the Annapolis, MD location, will the government please: |
1) Confirm vendors should use the OPM.gov Salary Table “2024-DCB Incorporating the 4.7% General Schedule Increase and a Locality Payment of 33.26% For the Locality Pay Area of Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA” for the base period OR
| 2) Clarify the correct OPM Salary Table | Attachment 3, ISSJ Pricing Template, Tab Rate Table - Prime Unburdened" has been updated to include the Locality areas for the GS Equivalent - Floor Rate, Column P. The Government utilized the 2024 w/ locality differentials for the specified areas. | |||
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | Travel & OCD Tabs | The Travel and ODC Tabs for the Task Orders appear to be incorrectly labeled 1, 1, 2, 3, 4 in cells A4, A13, A22, A32 and A42. Will the government please correct the pricing template to match the Travel and ODC tab elements of cost to the corresponding Task Orders? | Corrected. | |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.1.8 and L.5 | It is unclear how many PPPISs offerors can submit with our proposal. For example, we respectfully request that the government makes the following revisions: |
1) L.5.2 to state: "The Offeror shall submit a minimum of three and a maximum of five Past and Present Performance Information Sheets total identifying active or completed Government contract/task/delivery orders for each contract they are submitting for themselves. For Joint Ventures, each member of the Joint Venture must submit at least one Past and Present Information Sheet(s). Each subcontractor expected to perform at least 20% of the labor hours under the contract must submit a minimum of one and a maximum of two Past and Present Performance Information Sheets. Each sheet is limited to five pages per effort.
2) L.1.8 to state Volume 4 is limited to 25 pages. Table of contents and Summary Pages, Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Letters of Intent, Organizational Change History, and Consent Letters are not included in the 25-page limit. AND
| 3) If no, will the government please clarify the total amount of PPPISs offerors can submit with their proposal. | Revised some unclear language. There can be a maximum total of 9 (nine) PPIS. The prime is required to submit a minimum of 3 (three), maximum of 5 (five). Of those Prime PPIS, every member of a JV (if that is your strategy) must submit at least one PPIS. ADDITIONALLY, Each subcontractor expected to perform 20% of the work must submit 1-2 (one-two) PPIS. The GOV gives enough in the page count for 2 (two) subcontractors performing each 20% of the work for a maximum of 4 (four) subcontractor sheets in total. Each PPIS is limited to five (5) pages. | ||
| Attach 4 - Section L | General and L.6.1.6.1.1 | Offerors invest a significant amount of resources, including time, money, and personnel, to develop the best possible solution for our clients. To protect this investment and plan for unforeseen circumstances, many offerors have a policy requiring us to submit our proposal 24 business hours in advance to rapidly adjust to unanticipated issues if they arise. Given the proposal is due on November 4, which is a Monday, this means offerors will hand deliver our proposal on Friday, November 1. In addition, we understand we need to provide written notice at least three days before delivery of proposals per Section L.6.1.6.1.1. |
| Will the government please confirm offerors will be able to hand deliver our proposal Friday, November 1? | Offerors will be able to hand deliver proposal on Friday, November 1. However, the USG is extending the proposal deadline to Wednesday, November 6. | ||
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.1.8 and L.4 | Section L.1.8 requires offerors to provide One (1) digital copy (CD/DVD) in PDF/Excel Format for Volume 3 - Transition. It is unclear what requirements of the transition plan (located in Section L.4) are required in excel and what the format requirements are (e.g., what a page is defined as, how many excel 'pages' are permitted). In addition, offerors can easily convert items developed in excel (e.g., the event-driven timeline) into graphics or tables within our Transition Volume and submit it in its entirety as a .pdf, which reduces government burden by eliminating the need to open multiple files from offerors. |
Will the government please:
1) Confirm offerors can submit the entirety of its proposed transition plan in .pdf format OR
2) Clarify what requirements from Section L.4-L.4.1.3 of the transition plan are required in Excel format AND 2.a) Clarify format requirements for excel (e.g., how a page is defined) The format for the Transition plan has been updated to reflect PDF only.
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.5.2 and L.5.7 | To reduce government burden, will the government please confirm Offerors can provide CPARS in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) for contracts that have CPARS? | The Past Performance Quetionaires are more specfic to the ISSJ-3. As described in M.5.5. The past performance questionnaires is only one source USSOCOM can use for the performance rating. A non submittal of the PPQ will not disqualify the past performance submission. However, it may impact the overall confidence rating. Offerors should note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources; however, the Government is not limited to these resources. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.5.4 | In L.5.4, the requirements state: “…based on the matrix found at L.5.6 below;” however, Section L.5.6 is Organizational Structure Change History. Will the government please confirm this should read L.5.5 and update Section L.5.4 accordingly? | Updated the matrix reference in L.5.4 to state "…based on the matrix found at L.5.5 below." |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.6.1 | Section L.6.1 states, “The PRIME OFFEROR (to include all members of a JOINT VENTURE) AND proposed SUBCONTRACTOR(S) shall complete the Pricing Template found within Solicitation Attachment J-3 in its entirety.” Will the government confirm that a prime Joint Venture (JV) submission should include the JV Pricing Matrix and Volume, as well as each JV member’s Pricing Matrix and Volume. | |
| Offerors shall treat each member of the JV separately. It is up to each JV to determine their pricing structure. However, as an example, if the Mentor Partner will be submitting the invoices to the Government, they can be treated as the Prime and the Protege as a subcontractor. Each member shall fully support their proposed direct labor rates and indirect rates compliant with the company's disclosed accounting practices. | |||
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.6.1 | Section L.6.1 states, “The PRIME OFFEROR (to include all members of a JOINT VENTURE) AND proposed SUBCONTRACTOR(S) shall complete the Pricing Template found within Solicitation Attachment J-3 in its entirety.” Depending on Joint Venture (JV) structure a JV pricing submission may include a JV offeror submission with no indirects, where all indirects are included in the respective JV member submissions, because JVs are unpopulated entities with no Fringe, or possibly OH, G&A, and fee. To ensure all indirects and fee are accurately submitted for evaluation for JV prime offerors, will the government accept JV prime offeror Attachment 3 Pricing Templates and Volumes that provide no Fringe, OH, G&A, or fee at the JV level; with all respective indirects and fee captured/provided in the JV Member Pricing Templates and Volume submissions? | The JV is an unpopulated JV they do not have indirect rates. Offerors shall treat each member of the JV separately. It is up to each JV to determine their pricing structure. However, as an example, if the Mentor Partner will be submitting the invoices to the Government, they can be treated as the Prime and the Protege as a subcontractor. Each member should apply their indirect rates in accordance with their disclosed accounting practices. The Government understand that unpopulated JVs do not have employees or indirect rates. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.6.2.2 | Section L.6.2.2 states: "If a subcontractor is unable to provide its proprietary data to the Offeror, the Offeror may then do a total price analysis IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) and the subcontractor shall submit its proprietary cost breakout directly to the Government.” Will the government please confirm subcontractors may submit their sealed package to the prime, to be included in our prime submittal to the government. | Yes, subcontractors may submit their sealed packages to the prime to be included in the prime's submittal to the GOV. Updated L.6.2.2. |
| Attach 4c- Letter of Commitment | n/a | Attachment 4C - Letter of Commitment has a DRAFT Water Mark. Will the government please remove the word DRAFT and provide an updated attachment? | This attachment is just a draft template. You may amend to have your company’s letterhead added and remove draft watermark as the document is not "locked." |
| DRAFT SF 33 - Solicitation | Page 20 | Page 20 includes the following: 52.215-21 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modifications NOV 2021. Small businesses are exempt from this requirement. Will the government please confirm small businesses do not need to submit a Certificate of Cost with the proposal? | A Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data is not required due to the exception in FAR 15.403-1(b)(1) Competition. Small business status does not apply. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.5.2, Pg 8 | Please confirm that Offerors (inclusive of prime contractor / JV members and significant subcontractors) are required to submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) Past and Present Performance Information Sheets for the Offeror team as a whole. | Revised some unclear language. There can be a maximum total of 9 (nine) PPIS. The prime is required to submit a minimum of 3 (three), maximum of 5 (five). Of those Prime PPIS, every member of a JV (if that is your strategy) must submit at least one PPIS. ADDITIONALLY, Each subcontractor expected to perform 20% of the work must submit 1-2 (one-two) PPIS. The GOV gives enough in the page count for 2 (two) subcontractors performing each 20% of the work for a maximum of 4 (four) subcontractor sheets in total. Each PPIS is limited to five (5) pages. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.1.8, Pg 4 | Prime contractors only have access to sanitized rates from partners and subcontractors. In order to provide the Government with unsanitized rates from each partner/subcontractor, will the Government provide instructions for multiple sealed CD/DVDs to be submitted for Volume 5 - COST and PRICE or instructions for password protected files where the passwords are only provided to the Government? | Refer to L.6.2.2 for instructions on sanitized subcontractor pricing proposals. Subcontractors have the option to submit their sealed packages to the prime contractor for inclusion in the prime's submission to the Government. If your subcontractor does not want to provide their sealed package, they can submit their Attach 3 and supporting documentation directly to the GOV per our instructions. |
Reference FAR 15.404-3: If the Offeror is unable to obtain the required documentation from its subcontractors to conduct the appropriate cost or price analysis as required, the subcontractor shall provide the information directly to the Government following the submission instructions of this RFP. However, the Offeror and its subcontractor in this scenario shall provide the rationale detailing exactly why the Offeror is unable to conduct the price or cost analysis required by FAR 15.404-3 in its Written Price Narrative. For example, if a price/cost analysis is required for a subcontractor, that analysis requires a breakout of the individual cost elements to a prime, and a subcontractor is unable to provide its proprietary data to the Offeror, the Offeror may then do a total price analysis IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) and the subcontractor shall submit its proprietary cost breakout directly to the Government.
Sealed packages that are sent directly to the GOV should not require passwords and must be received by the proposal due date.
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.2.1, Page ? | Section L.b.1.b states "“A conformed contract copy from this RFP with digital signature of an official authorized to contractually bind the Offeror in Block 17 of the SF 33.” Please confirm if an offeror should submit the entire conformed contract copy with a signed SF33, or just a signed SF33? | H9240224R0001 (SF33) with any amendments is considered the conformed copy. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.2.1, Page ? | Section L.2.1.b states “A conformed contract copy from this RFP with digital signature of an official authorized to contractually bind the Offeror in Block 17 of the SF 33.” The government provided separate Section C, L, and M. Will the government provide the conformed copy or should an offeror combine all documents into a conformed copy? Or is the government considering the document titled “H9240224R0001” the conformed copy? | H9240224R0001 (SF33) with any amendments is considered the conformed copy. |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | Reference Attachment 3, the instructions for the “Rate Table – PRIME UNBURDENED” tab states “the Prime to enter the unburdened labor hourly rate for all labor categories.” It further states “Failure to input a proposed unburdened labor hourly rate for all labor categories proposed by the Prime, and not a subcontractor, in all locations with yellow highlighted cells shall render a proposal ineligible for award”. As an unpopulated JV proposing as the Prime Contractor, all labor is proposed and performed at the JV member and subcontractor level. Therefore there are no Direct Labor rates at the “Prime” level. As each JV member and subcontractor will provide their proprietary Direct Labor Rates directly to the government and FBLR’s to the Prime JV, The “Rate Table” tab, Column F will be blank on the Attachment 3 for any Prime JV offeror. Please confirm a JV’s offeror with this column blank will be considered for award? | The JV is an unpopulated JV they do not have employees (direct labor) or indirect rates. Offerors shall treat each member of the JV separately. It is up to each JV to determine their pricing structure. However, as an example, if the Mentor Partner will be submitting the invoices to the Government, they can be treated as the Prime and the Protege as a subcontractor. Each member of the JV must fully support their proposed rates used in the development of the TEP. | |
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | SOW Section 13.0 Contractor Furnished Items identifies DBA Insurance as an item the Contractor shall provide. Please confirm this DBA insurance will be cost reimbursable and can be charged to the contract? | DBA along with the OCONUS uplifts will be included in the Government’s “plug” number for the ODC CLIN. This will be cost reimbursable. Refer to ATCH 3, "ODC" titled tab for more information (scroll far right) | |
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | 12.1 | In Section 12.1, it states: "The contractor shall be responsible for pre-deployment medical examination." Can the government please clarify if that means being responsible for the coordination or financially responsible? Or both? | Both |
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | 12.2 | In Section 12.2, it states: "The contractor shall be responsible for, and ensuring, all OCONUS Contractor personnel, under this contract have received requisite vaccinations and immunizations.." Can the government please clarify if that means being responsible for the coordination or financially responsible? Or both? | Both |
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | 3.0 | Under Section 3.0 Requirements, the CONUS locations listed are: National Capital Region (NCR), North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and Washington. Can the government please indicate specific cities for North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and Washington? | Attachment 3, ISSJ Pricing Template, Tab Rate Table - Prime Unburdened" has been updated to include the Locality areas for the GS Equivalent - Floor Rate, Column P. The Government utilized the 2024 w/ locality differentials for the specified areas. |
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | 4.0 | In regards to Section 4.0 Personnel, can the government please clarify which personnel will be on Government or Contractor site? | All personnel associated to Attachment J-3, pricing matrix will work on government site. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.6.1 | In Section L.6.1 it states "The PRIME OFFEROR (to include all members of a JOINT VENTURE) AND proposed SUBCONTRACTOR(S) shall complete the Pricing Template found within Solicitation Attachment J-3 in its entirety." The provided Attachment J-3 includes the indirect rate calculations for subcontractors that are T&M. This level of detail on subcontractor rates provide undue burden on small business subcontractors that may not have a current DCAA audit. T&M rates place the burden on the Prime Offeror to ensure subcontractors provide their due diligence and shift the operational risk from the government to the contractor. Would the government consider amending this requirement so that only the prime and major subcontractors with over 20% workshare are required to complete the Attachment J-3? | No. We require all the pricing matrix for all subcontractors. |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | "Rate Table - PRIME UNBURDENED" | Will the government please provide the regional locations of performance for each state to ensure GS floors are consistent to the regions, versus state averages, which may be lower than the regional GS average? | Attachment 3, ISSJ Pricing Template, Tab Rate Table - Prime Unburdened" has been updated to include the Locality areas for the GS Equivalent - Floor Rate, Column P. The Government utilized the 2024 w/ locality differentials for the specified areas. |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | "Rate Table - PRIME UNBURDENED" | Can the government please confirm Column P, "OY10" is not relevant for this solicitation and will be amended to remove column P? | OY10 has been removed and will be reflected in the amended Attachment 3 - ISSJ Pricing Template |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | Historically, many prime offerors justify rate build ups inclusive of Direct Labor, Fringe, G&A, OH, and Fee, which aligns with the TCP provided by the prime. The prime then forces subcontractors to take a much lower FBL rate creating a disparity between what the prime offeror can pay versus what subcontractors can pay. This results in the typical staffing and retention issues often seen on these types of contracts. Will the government please consider requiring a memorandum be provided by the Prime Offeror and subcontractors adhering to paying employees no less than the Direct Labor Rates proposed? Offerors that do not reflect subcontractor rates commensurate with the benefits in the Total Compensation Plan (TCP) will be considered unrealistically low and assessed a risk rating or thrown out. | The GOV will not require a memorandum. The GOV will be conducting cost realism using the most probable cost as described in M.6.2.5. | |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.3.1.4 | Section L.3.1.4 states: "the Offeror will recruit and retain qualified personnel to maintain at least an 85% fill rate." For the purposes of planning and to ensure all vendors have a fair understanding of how many new hires will be required based on current fill rate, will the government please provide the current fill rate by LCAT? | This contract is fluid, there is no way to accurately state how many new hires will be required at the time of award. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.4.1.2 | Section L.4.1.2 discusses offerors having an event-driven timeline identifying key milestones by labor category and location for both CONUS and OCONUS positions within the government mandated 90 day transition period with an 85% fill rate. To ensure all offerors provide adequate transition planning and to accommodate current and future deployments reducing operational risk, will the government please: 1.) Provide the current fill rate by LCAT and location? and 2.) Identify which positions are currently deployed? | No. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.5.2 | Section L.5.2 states: "Each subcontractor expected to perform at least 20% of the labor hours under the contract must submit a minimum of one and a maximum of two Past and Present Performance Information Sheets." Will the government please confirm only subcontractors performing 20% or more may submit PPI's? | Yes, only subcontractors intending to perform 20% or more of the work should submit PPIS. |
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | 3.1 | In regards to Section 3.1 of the SOW, does the Government require the Transition Manager, PM, and DPM to live within a one-hour recall radius of Fort Liberty, North Carolina during the full Period of Performance? | No, they are not subject for the one-hour recall, however, their place of performance is onsite at Fort Liberty, NC |
tc={19B5C72E-562F-4F28-A473-5C62CBF6E787}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
Can we give base names like Fort Liberty?
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | 7.1 | Section 7.1 of the SOW states: "The Government will only reimburse SV travel expenses for those candidates who have been determined qualified, selected for hire, and perform on this contract." Given the historical success rate of Skills Verification, and the subjective nature for each Government assessment, will the government please allow vendors to bill for all candidates approved for in-person Customer SV's regardless of the final hire approval assuming the candidates met all technical SOW objective metrics? | No, the Government will only reimburse those costs for hired individuals post SV process. | |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.3.2 | Element 2: Key Personnel Requires the Offeror to provide their process and corporate commitment for recruiting/retaining Key Personnel. Does the government intend for Offerors to provide supplemental information to the requirements in L.3.1.4 how the Offeror will recruit and retain qualified personnel? Does the response to this section count toward the 12 page limit for Volume 2 Element 1? If not, please confirm the page limit to this response. | The response to L.3.2 will count towards the page limit for the Management Volume of 12 pages. | |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | General Instructions | Will the Government please confirm that the Managing Partner of a Joint Venture should be considered the Prime offeror? Or would the government allow offerors to update Attachment J-3 tab titled 'Offeror Information' to reflect two Prime Offerors in order to account for differing indirects? | Yes, JVs shall ensure that all rates are included based on the intent of the JV. If one will act as the Prime to bill the Government, since these are unpopulated JVs, the Partner that will be billing the Government shall enter as the Prime and the protege may complete their costs as Subcontractor/Protege. | |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | General Instructions | Will the Government please confirm that Offerors should not adjust the prescribed LCATs, hours and FTE mix prepopulated in Attachment J-3 since they are not highlighted in yellow. | Confirmed; hours and # of FTEs are Government directed; no adjustments shall be made. | |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | General Instructions | Will Government allow Offerors to update the Attachment J-3 ODC & Travel tab to allow for additional indirect rows? | Per Tab, General Instructions, Offerors shall update Indirect Rates and how they are applied (formulas utilized in the application of the indirect rates) to ensure compliance with their disclosed accounting practices. Application of indirect rates shall clearly be identified. | |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | Base Period | Can the government clarify if the "3-month rotation" is OCONUS or CONUS? | The 3-month rotation is OCONUS. | |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.1.7. (p. 3) | Can the government confirm if the labels on the CD ROM/DVDs are required to contain any specific information? | No specific information required on the labels of the CD ROM/DVDs. | |
| Attach 4b - Past and Present Performance Relevancy Matrix | Turnover | "Contract led to a turnover rate of 7% year over year or less." Would the government consider using fill rates (or staffing rates) instead of turnover rates? Fill rates give a more accurate picture if a vendor is meeting its obligations and mission performance. | Updated "washout" rate to "turnover" rate as described in L for consistency and added a separate column to Past Performance Relevancy Matrix for fill rates. | |
| Attach 4b - Past and Present Performance Relevancy Matrix | Turnover | Alternately, would the government consider both fill rates and turnover rates? | Yes, the GOV will add fill rates in Past Performance Relevancy Matrix in the RFP amendment | |
| Attach 4b - Past and Present Performance Relevancy Matrix | Column D | Recommend rephrasing "this effort entails managing multiple intel disciplines" since the specific intel discipline does not determine how the individuals or program needs to be managed. | The GOV will keep phrasing in COL D as is to fit the requirement. | |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | Base Period | Can the government confirm when a deployable resource is deployed that compensation will not be limited or discounted to 8 hour/40 hour weeks but actual hourly rate. | This is a CPFF contract; the hourly rates proposed x the hours worked will be the basis for compensation to be reimbursed . | |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.4.1 | Would the Government clarify the definition of the phrase "Full Operational Responsibility" used in L.4.1? Are Offerors to understand that "Full Operational Responsibility" is the 85% fill rate metric on the 90th day from performance start required in L.4.1.2? | Yes, offerors are expected to understand that achieving this 85% fill rate by the 90th day is a key performance metric outlined in section L.4.1.2. | |
| Attach 5 - Section M | M.6 | Are the OCONUS costs ‘dictated’ by DoS Guidelines included in the government ODC Pugs or does the contractor still need to propose both DoS dictated OCONUS Costs plus additional OCONUS Costs? | All DoS Guidelines are included within the ODC plug number. Offerors are not to propose additional OCONUS uplifts. | |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | Rate Table Time unburdened | In the government’s attachment 3, pricing template, there is some disparity in the GS equivalent mapping. Question: Is the government’s intent to use a GS equivalent of the GS 14 scale with the SME LCATs, GS 13 scale with the expert LCATs, and GS 12 scale with the Journeyman LCATs? | There was an error in the Template released; Government equivalency has been updated and will be reflected in the amended RFP. | |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.5.4 | The Government states that they will perform an independent analysis in determining the relevancy of a contract based on the data provided and/or obtained and based on the matrix found at L.5.6 below. There is no matrix in paragraph L.5.6. Which matrix is the Government referring to? | Updated reference to state "...matrix found at L.5.5." | |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.6.1 / L.5.2 | Do all Subcontractors need to submit a Cost Proposal to include a Narrative and Attachment J-3 or just the Major Subs ( at least 20% or greater of the hours and using Past Performance)? | All subcontractors proposed shall submit Attachment 3 and a Cost Narrative. | |
| Attach 4 - Section L | Attachment J-3 Pricing Template, Tab General Instructions | In addition, subcontractors are required to provide documentation as to the adequacy of their accounting system for flexibly priced contracts. | ||
| Question: Is this needed for all Subs? Is this needed if the subcontract type between Prime and Sub is T&M or FFP Type subcontracts? If required for all subs, is there specific documentation the government is looking for? | An assessment of the accounting system’s adequacy is mandatory for all subcontractors engaged in contracts with flexible pricing structures, such as Time and Materials (T&M) or Cost-Reimbursement contracts. When the Prime Contractor is negotiating a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract, they must specify the measures they will implement to ensure the fulfillment of the required labor hours. If the subcontractor relationship involves cost-based contracts, the subcontractor must provide the government with proof of an acceptable accounting system. Acceptable documents include an audit conducted by a government agency that certifies the vendor has an acceptable accounting system. This documentation ensures that the subcontractor’s accounting system can promptly generate all necessary cost data and support cost negotiations in compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and relevant supplements. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.4.1.1 | The Government states "Organic Workforce" in section L.4.1.1 and in Attachment 4b PP Relevancy Matrix, Cell F3 the Government states "Organic Resources". Question: Can the Government state the difference between Organic Workforce and Organic Resources? | The terms "Organic Workforce" and "Organic Resources" as used in Section L.4.1.1 and Attachment 4b PP Relevancy Matrix, respectively, refer to the same concept. They both denote personnel and resources that are part of your internal team, without relying on external subcontractors or third-party providers. To maintain consistency, the Government will use the term "Organic Workforce" throughout the documentation. |
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | 3 | The SOW indicates "**Select positions have a language-enabled requirement with Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) 2+/2+ rating or higher depending on position**. Will the government provide additional information on which languages are required? | The government can confirm that select positions will require a language-enabled skill set, with an ILR rating of 2+/2+ or higher, depending on the position. The specific languages identified for these requirements include Mandarin, Russian, Arabic, and Farsi. However, to maintain flexibility within the labor categories, we will not specify particular languages within the labor category descriptions. |
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | 9 | The SOW indicates "Select positions require a successful Counterintelligence-Scope or other Polygraph to be completed before operational employment". Poly requirement will affect pricing. Will the government provide additional information on which positions require poly, and which kind of poly is required? | The SOW has been updated to reflect the labor categories that will require CI/poly. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | l.2.1 b. | Solicitation requests "all amendments posted to SAM.gov". Will the Government accept acknowledgement of the amendments by including the dates in Block 14 of the SF33, rather than actually including the amendments? | For the sake of clarity and consistency in the proposal submission process, we require a conformed copy of the SF 33 which will include any and all amendments. While acknowledging the amendments by including the dates in Block 14 of the SF33 is helpful, it does not replace the need for a complete conformed copy of all amendments. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.2.4 | Will the Government correct the reference to Attachment J-4A,SF-1408 in the second paragraph to be DCAA Pre Award Survey Checklist, rather than SF1408 | Updated to state DCAA Pre Award Survey Checklist. |
| DRAFT SF 33 - Solicitation | Section B | For the completion of Section B, will the Government confirm that CLINS 0003 and 1003 are NSP and therefore the amount for those CLINS in Section B is $0.00 | CLINs 0003 and 1003 are NSP. |
| DRAFT SF 33 - Solicitation | 52.216-19 | RFP references 270 FTEs in several places, however, Attachment 3 accounts for pricing only 263 FTEs. Will the government confirm the correct number of FTEs and labor categories to be priced? | The 270 FTEs was an estimate. The 263 FTES (including Transition Manager) that are priced in the pricing matrix is accurate. A revised pricing matrix will be sent out with the amended RFP. |
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | 7.1., Government Skills Verification (SV) | This para states the Government will only reimburse "SV travel expenses for those candidates who have been determined qualified, selected for hire, and perform on this contract." However, it is the Government who determines which candidates are selected for the SV (7.0, a-g). not the contractor. Recommend revising 7.1 to state that the contractor will be reimbursed for travel expenses for all individuals selected by the Government for SV, regardless of the outcome of the SV. | The government acknowledges that it is responsible for determining which candidates are selected for the SV process. However, the policy remains that travel expenses will only be reimbursed for those candidates who have been determined qualified, selected for hire, and perform on this contract. This ensures that reimbursement is aligned with candidates who successfully complete the SV process and contribute to the contract. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.1.7.c., Proposal Format | This section states "Offerors are encouraged to divide and cross reference individual topic areas of the Volumes." Please clarify the meaning of "cross reference." For example, does this mean the contractor may insert a cross reference in Volume 2 (Management) that points to information contained in Volume 3 (Transition)? | In order to ensure a smooth and efficient evaluation process, each volume should be self-contained. Cross-referencing between volumes is not allowed, as evaluators will assess each section independently. Please ensure that all relevant information for each topic area is fully included within the corresponding volume. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.3.2.1.,Key Personnel | Section L.3.2.1 states that Offerors shall submit signed LOC for each Key Personnel. Please confirm that LOCs are required for current employees of the offeror being bid as Key Personnel. (vice letters of commitment for a contingent hire). | Yes, LOCs are required for all Key Personnel, including current employees of the offeror. This ensures that all proposed personnel are committed to the project, whether they are existing employees or contingent hires. |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.6.1 | Section L.6.1 requires the Prime Offeror and all proposed subcontractors to complete the Pricing Template (J-3). Since the Government has removed the need for DCAA checklist submissions for subcontractors, can subcontractors that are proposed as FFP/LOE be relieved of the requirement for submission of the J-3 template and a sealed package | All subcontractors are required to submit Attachment J-3 Pricing Template. Attachment J-3 is required to ensure prime and subcontractors are in compliance with the minimum salary floors and indirect rates applied based on contractor's disclosed accounting practices. |
| Attach 5 - Section M | M.2.2 | M.2.2 Facility Clearance States: To receive a Pass rating, the Offeror (to include all members of a Joint Venture) shall provide proof of final cleared TOP SECRET Facility as accredited by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). This statement suggests a requirement for a SCIF rather than the ability for the entity to hold FTE clearances. We recommend amending the language to read "Top Secret Facility Clearance" so it is consistent with the requirements addressed in section L.2.2. | Updated the language in M.2.2 to read "Top Secret Facility Clearance" to align with the requirements in Section L.2.2. This adjustment should clarify that the requirement is for a Top Secret Facility Clearance, not specifically a SCIF. |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | Rate Table - PRIME UNBURDENED tab | The Government provided GS equivalents in Attachment 3 appear to be inconsistent. For instance, on lines 63 and 64, the Security Support (Physical, Personnel, Special, SAP and Industrial Security Support) -Subject Matter Expert (SME) with 10 years' experience has different GS Step levels. This occurs with other categories as well. Since these rates are used to evaluate the proposed rates, could the Government please confirm that the appropriate GS Levels have been assigned to each category. | There was an error in the Template released; Government equivalency has been updated. |
| Exhibit A001-12 CDRLS | General | Does the Government have a distro list for the Prime offeror to submit CDRLs through the life of this effort? | Distro list should be provided to award winner only. |
| Exhibit A001-12 CDRLS | Page 16 | Daily Manning Report: Would the government consider this being something that is tracked that can be requested, but not as a daily report that has to be electronically distributed that as such, has to be approved by the COR since it is a contract deliverable? These will already be rolled up in the MSR and distributed. | No, the Gov wants a daily manning report. |
| Exhibit A001-12 CDRLS | General | The CDRLS section 16. REMARKS provide BLK14 instructions on delivery and does not list the COR in this sections. We recommend the COR be added for each CDRL. | CDRLs have been updated to include COR in boxes 14 and 16. |
| Exhibit A001-12 CDRLS | Page 22 | Performance Evaluation Meetings: Can the Government please clarify the intent of this CDRL and what the electronic delivery of the deliverable should be? | Performance Evaluation Meeting are intended to be a tool for the KO in the event there are issues with the contractor's performance that the KO deems serious enough to require corrective action. The electronic delivery of the deliverable will be determined when/if a meeting is necessary |
| Exhibit A001-12 CDRLS | Page 22 | Performance Evaluation Meetings: Section 10. FREQUENCY states monthly/as required. Can the Government please clarify wether this will be a monthly requirement or strictly as required? | Updated CDRL A008 Block 10 to read As Required. |
| Exhibit A001-12 CDRLS | Page 25 | Annual Report: Due to the amount of activities needed to close out a contract year, we recommend extending the due date on this CDRL to 45 calendar days the month | Updated to 30 calendar days. |
| Exhibit A001-12 CDRLS | Page 28 | Transition Out Plan: Can the Government please advise whether the due days are business days or calendar days? | Updated CDRL to show calendar days |
| Exhibit A001-12 CDRLS | Page 28 | We recommend the updated transition out plan be due 90 days from the end date of period of performance. This will ensure the processes and documentations are more accurate for transitioning out of the contract. | CDRL updated to reflect |
| Exhibit A001-12 CDRLS | Page 31 | DBA Rate Quote: If the Certificate of Insurability does not include all of the information needed, will the Government accept a memorandum on company letterhead with the information not provided on the Certificate of Insurability? | No. The Gov will not accept a memorandum on company letterhead. |
| Attach 5 - Section M | Page 4 | Section states, "…to receive a Pass Rating, the Offeror must provide a physical address and any applicable SIPR email addresses that can received SECRET information." |
| If an offeror does not have a SIPR email address, would a JWICS account suffice? | The USG will update request for any higher network email addresses (if the offeror possesses) in the cover letter. | |||
| Attach 5 - Section M | Page 4 | Since existing contractor SIPRNet accounts can only be used in support of the contract they were issued for, we request the Government to remove the requirement to provide this information." | Removed SIPR. But the USG included request for any higher network email addresses (if the offeror possesses) in the cover letter. | |
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | Page 5 | Will the government please review the required qualifications for the key personnel PM/DPM which includes the industry standard of PMI PMP certification, but lists the government only certification/ training of DAWIA or Back-2-Basics Program Management Certifications. Recommend these either being swapped as the PMP is the industries highest standard and should be more desirable or put them all together as equivalents for the requirement. Back 2 Basics isn't a certification and someone with a PMP shouldn't be lower rated than someone that also has that training, when the PMP is already the highest level of training and certification. | ||
| SOW has been updated to remove DAWIA as a desired qualification. | ||||
| Attach 4b - Past and Present Performance Relevancy Matrix | VR | For VR Rating - Appreciate the government providing the PP Relevancy Matrix to understand which elements are of importance. Request government clarify their intent to meet the VR rating for a SBSA opportunity with the "Number of FTEs required of the Vendor" column is not consistent for a small business past performance opportunity and appears to require past performance from a large business or JV. Recommend 10, which would also provide the government insight to a small business' past performance to manage a large contract commensurate to their NAICS code rather than a large teammate or their large JV partner. or remove the FTE number and replace with Prime or Sub work and give the higher rating to Prime work vs. Subcontracted work. Unless the government’s intent is to identify the company's ability to team with a large in the past. The recent USSOCOM GSSE bid is comparable size and complexity and only required 50 FTE from across the team in total. | The GOV will keep the FTE Relevancy criteria as is to fit the requirement. | |
| Attach 4b - Past and Present Performance Relevancy Matrix | VR | For VR Rating - Understand the government’s factors for "Nature of Work/ General Scope" column are based on the contract’s scope; however, to meet the government’s intent of understanding the mission requirements, recommend the efforts entail more than one of the disciplines per contract or more than two cumulatively, which would be consistent for a small business past performance opportunity. | The GOV will keep the Nature of Work / General Scope Relevancy criteria as is to fit the requirement. | |
| Attach 4b - Past and Present Performance Relevancy Matrix | VR | For VR Rating - Understand the government’s factors for "OCONUS" column are based on the contract’s scope, request the government clarify their intent. Recommend 10+ deployed employees are more consistent for a small business past performance opportunity and would provide the past performance of the management functions. | The GOV will keep the OCONUS Relevancy criteria as is to fit the requirement. | |
| Attach 4 - Section L | L.2 Volume 1 qualifying Criteria | Given the size and complexity of the contract, would the government consider requiring proof of managing at least 1 Prime contract as part of the qualifying criteria for bidding as the Prime on this contract? In the case of a JV, either the SB Managing Partner OR the JV itself could have Primed a federal contract. Without proof of managing a Prime contract, it introduces execution risk as managing a subcontract does not incorporate all of the relevant Prime activities that are required to be successful. | No. | |
| Attach 3 - Pricing Matrix | Rate Table | We recommend the Government keep the years of experience requirement for the Program Manager but increase the floor rate to GS15 Step 1 and lower the Deputy Program Manager experience requirement to 8 years of managerial experience, keeping the GS14 Step 2 floor rate. If experience requirement stays the same, recommend their floor rate increase to GS14 Step 5. The pricing matrix currently has Program Coordinators with only 5 years of experience with no PMP certification or degree required and has their floor rate at GS14 step 1 and step 3, similar or higher than the PM and DPM. | Attachment 3, ISSJ Pricing Template, Tab Rate Table - Prime Unburdened" has been updated to include the Locality areas for the GS Equivalent - Floor Rate, Column P. The Government utilized the 2024 w/ locality differentials for the specified areas. | |
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | General | The LCATS identified in the SOW require experience at a GS level that is not consistent with the GS equivalent floor rate identified in the pricing table. Will the Government change each of these requirements to not have the GS language, update to "O-6 / Director level or higher", or update the GS equivalent levels? | Attachment 3, ISSJ Pricing Template, Tab Rate Table - Prime Unburdened" has been updated to include the Locality areas for the GS Equivalent - Floor Rate, Column P. The Government utilized the 2024 w/ locality differentials for the specified areas. | |
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | Page 34 | SVs: How will the contractor tie the Government review timeline to the performance metrics the contractor is adhering to since this dependency is outside of our control? | The government acknowledges that the skills verification process, including its timeline, is managed by the government. Therefore, the performance metrics of the contractor will not be adversely affected by the duration or outcome of this verification process. The contractor will not be held responsible for any delays or results pertaining to the government’s skills verification of contractor. | |
| Attach 1 - Statement of Work | Page 35 | SV: Will the government provide timelines for all of the government notifications and feedback through the entire process? This is important since we are evaluated for performance on staffing levels and have daily deliverables on staffing. Additionally, not having this information could impact transition and mission management. What happens if the government doesn't meet their timelines as well? | Project coordinators communicate with the GOV leads at each site for access and sit in on the SV while being conducted. The customer notifies go/no status on each candidate to the COR and the vendor at the same time. The PCs are embedded in the process from beginning to end and will have transparent visibility of all SV timelines from start to finish for each candidate and position. | |
| Attach 4 - Section L | Page 2 | L.1.6.1 If not the entire package, would the Government consider allowing the pricing volumes or at a minimum subcontractor proprietary pricing data to be submitted via one of the aforementioned alternative means? | No. | |
| Attach 4 - Section L | Page 3 | L.1.7 as 1.5 spacing greatly reduces the available space for responses, would the Government please consider changing the spacing to 1.0? | Line spacing settings shall be at least one and one-half (1½) line spacing. |
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. Updated .