GSSE DRFP Q and A 21May24.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 38 KB Posted
- Attached to
- GSSE Draft Request for Proposal Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- H9241524DRFP01
- Issued by
- United States Special Operations Command
About this file
This document is a Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) for the Global Specialized Support Engineering (GSSE) requirement issued by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM).
The GSSE is a small business set-aside contract under NAICS code 541519, which has a size standard of 500 employees or 150 employees. The government is considering a mix of firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract types. The period of performance is anticipated to be 1 April 2025 - 31 March 2030. The government is requesting feedback on the draft solicitation, with questions due by 15 May 2024. Key requirements include providing specialized engineering support services across multiple domains, establishing a cross-learning environment for support engineers, and performing systems maintenance and training. The government is considering several minimum requirements for offerors, such as current active Top Secret cleared personnel and previous transition experience. The technical volume is limited to 30 pages and past performance is limited to 10 pages. The government intends to award a single contract resulting from this solicitation.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 3 Pricing Matrix GSSE.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| GSSE CDRLs.pdf | ||
| GSSE DRAFT Solicitation.pdf | ||
| PWS GSSE 29Apr24.pdf | ||
| DD Form 254.pdf |
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
Sheet2
| Document | Reference | Questions | Answers | |
| 1 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | 52.204-8, page 20 | This section states that the NAICS Code for this acquisition is 541330 with an SB size standard of $25.5M, or, if certain conditions apply, the NAICS code is 541519, which has a SB size standard of 500 employees or 150 employees. |
We recommend that the government select one NAICS code (541519) . This is a large, complex acquisition, with requirements for TS-cleared staff and OCONUS staffing. Past performance on similar size contracts and large-scale transitions (including OCONUS FTEs) are needed to ensure success and not cause mission failure. The SB vendors that possess the right level of expertise and experience to properly support this contract have outgrown the 541330 NAICS SB size standard.
| To ensure the Government receives viable proposals from credible competitors, we strongly recommend stipulating NAICS code 541519 as the only one applicable to this effort. | Noted. This will have a final determination with the RFP. | |||
| 2 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Section L, page 64 | In this section, the Government asks for "documentation of bidder experience deploying, temporary duty and travel of company personnel to OCONUS locations" and then notes, "List of systems needed." |
| Please explain what this means—will Offerors be required to list the systems they use to execute OCONUS deployment/TDY/travel? | Yes, the government wants to understand the systems and processes Offerors use to execute OCONUS deployment/TDY/travel. | |||
| 3 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Section L, page 65; | This section states that the Total Page count of the technical volume shall not exceed 30 pages, and that the Past Performance shall not exceed 10 pages. |
| Please confirm that the Technical Volume has a 30-page limit, and that the Past Performance is its own volume, with a separate, 10-page limit. | Yes. Tech Volume has a 30-page limit and Past Performance is separate 10-page limit | |||
| 4 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Clause 252.237-7024, page 57 | This section states that the "offeror shall provide with its offer a written plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in attachment 1, Performance Work Statement, during periods of crisis. |
| Please confirm that this plan does not have a page limit and that it can be submitted as an attachment to the Technical Volume. | The Offerors will include the "written plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in attachment 1, Performance Work Statement, during periods of crisis." included within the 30 pages of the technical proposal , under management approach. | |||
| 5 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Section L, page 64; | ||
| Section M, page 74 | Please confirm there are no page limits for the Administrative Volume (inclusive of the planned requirement gates) and the Price Volume. | There are no page limits to the Administrative Volume or the Price Volume, however, nothing other than those items pertaining to those specific volumes shall be reviewed. | ||
| 6 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Section M, pages 67 & 70 | Page 67 states, “Each subfactor evaluation criteria shall not receive an independent rating”; however, page 70 states, “Within the Technical Factor, each Subfactor will be rated separately using the color code/adjectival ratings.” |
| Please clarify whether the subfactors of the Program Management/Technical Approach will be rated individually. | Each subfactor evaluation criteria shall receive an independent rating but the three subfactors are equal. The technical factor rating will be a roll up of the subfactor ratings. | |||
| 7 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Section M, pages 71-73 | The draft solicitation describes past performance relevance in three different ways: |
"the work performed was similar in scope and complexity to the requirements described in the PWS" (p. 71)," "contracts demonstrating technical/management capabilities the same as or similar to those required to perform on this item" (p. 72)," and "similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities" (p. 73)."
Please clarify how relevance is defined for past performance. The past performance of "YOUR"organzation relevant to;
"the work performed was similar in scope and complexity to the requirements described in the PWS" (p. 71)," "contracts demonstrating technical/management capabilities the same as or similar to those required to perform on this item" (p. 72)," and "similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities" (p. 73)."
8 GSSE Draft Solicitation Section M, page 74 The draft solicitation states, "The Government is providing NTE Amounts plus applicable indirect for Travel, these amounts are included with Attachment 3 – Pricing Matrix.”
| Please update the pricing matrix to include these amounts. | This will be updated for the RFP. | |||
| 9 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Section M, page 74 | The draft solicitation states, "The Government will determine if the Offeror’s Price proposal is an accurate reflection of all aspects of the technical proposal." |
| Does this imply that Offerors are permitted to propose fewer FTEs than indicated in the pricing matrix, if their technical proposal can be executed without those FTEs? | Offer may propose concepts for reducing FTEs based on the Cross-Learning environment structure; however, should propose to the initial # of FTEs as well. | ||||
| 10 | PWS GSSE 29Apr24 | 1.3 SCOPE | While we understand this is software agnostic, there is value in knowing the current configuration. Can the government provide details about the data sources, systems, and applications in the current architecture? | No, software agnostic for a reason, we have different locations with different mission sets, different areas of focus or priorities which may relay more on different systems thus stressing the importance of agnostic. | |
| 11 | GSSE DRAFT Solicitation | SECTION L - Instruction to Offerors (ITO); A. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CRITERIA: The Total Page count of the technical volume shall not exceed 30 pages. |
| SECTION M – EVALUATION CRITERIA; Evaluation Factor A: Volume 1 – Program Management / Technical Approach (20 page limit) | Please confirm the page limit of the technical volume. It is stated as both 20 and 30 pages in the RFP. | Page limit for the Technical Volume is 30-Pages | |||
| 12 | PWS GSSE 29Apr24 | 3.1 LOCATION AND HOURS OF WORK | Table 4.1 (Historical Service Locations) is referenced in the PWS. Please provide the table and/or location of the table. | Table broken up into several tables integrated within the PWS Section 3.0. Table 4.1 references in paragraph 3.1 removed and replace with correct information. | |
| 13 | GSSE DRAFT Solicitation | SECTION L - Instruction to Offerors (ITO) | Section L looks to be incomplete. Will the Government be updating the instructions upon Final RFP release? | Yes. | |
| 14 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (Page 20 of 75) | Can you the Government confirm that small businesses are eligible to bid under NAICS 541519? | This will be determined with the RFP. | |
| 15 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Section L, page 64 "Volume I: ADMINISTRATIVE" Item #2 | Section L states, "Current number of Active USG Top Secret cleared personnel employed by bidder – The Government is considering a minimum of 50 up to a minimum of 100 personnel currently employed with an Active USG Top Secret Clearance." |
| Question - can gov't confirm that the number of personnel employed by bidder can include Prime and SubContractor team? | Yes. Number of personnel currently employed including Prime and Subs on Team | |||
| 16 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Section L, page 64 "Volume I: ADMINISTRATIVE" Item #4 | Section L states, "Previous transition experience – the government is considering a minimum transition experience of a minimum of between 20 and 50 personnel with at least an active USG Secret Security Clearance" |
| Question - can gov't confirm that the number of personnel employed by bidder can include Prime and SubContractor team? | Yes. Number of personnel currently employed including Prime and Subs on Team | |||
| 17 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Section L, page 65 "A. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CRITERIA" | Section A states, "All pages beyond the 20th page of the technical volume and 10th page of past performance will not be included in the evaluation.", however the same paragraph also states the "The Total Page count of the technical volume shall not exceed 30 pages". |
| Question - can the technical volume (Vol 1) exceed 20 pages if the past performance (Vol 2) pages are less than 10 pages so as long as the total page count remains at 30 or less? | Technical Volume 30-page limit. Past performance 10-page limit. This will be updated for the RFP. | |||
| 18 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Section M, page 71 "Evaluation Factor B: Volume 2 – Past Performance" | Under Volume 2 paragraph it states, "For at least one of the examples the work shall have been performed by the Offeror as the prime contractor." |
| Question - Can the gov't confirm that PP executed by the Prime Offeror under a Joint Venture arrangement is an acceptable example? | Agree, if it was a joint venture and "YOUR" organization was a significant part of it | ||||
| 19 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Section M, page 74 "Evaluation Factor C: Volume 3 – Price Proposal" | Is there a page limit to the Price Proposal narrative? | There is no page limit to the price proposal narrative. Only narrative related to price/cost will be reviewed. | |
| 20 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Page 1, The Solicitation Section 9 lists 8 Jul, at 4:00 pm as a time for the RFP submission to be due. Is this the projected due date? | Yes. The currently anticipated due date is 8 Jul, at 4:00 pm | ||
| 21 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Page 2, Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices. Engineering Support is priced CPFF and FFP; and page 30, Section 52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984) - states the Government contemplates award of a Firm Fixed Price contract resulting from this solicitation. Does the Contractor have the option of pricing/proposing either CPFF or FFP? | This contract will include a mix of FFP and CPFF support. Pricing needs to include both as the goal of the training and integration is to reduce the amount of FTEs required on the CPFF portion of the contract. | ||
| 22 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Solicitation indicates that travel costs are within Attachment 3. Please update Attachment 3 with travel costs. | Travel plug number will be provided with the RFP. | ||
| 23 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Does the Government intend to award multiple contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and subfactors in the solicitation? | The government intends to award a single contract from this solicitation | ||
| 24 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Evaluation Factor B, Volume 2: The past performance shall have been performed within the past five years. For the purpose of evaluating proposals, “recent” is defined as occurring up to and including the past three (3) years. Please clarify, is recent past performance the last three or five years? | This will be updated with the RFP. | ||
| 25 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Attachment 3 Pricing Matrix GSSE has one side FFP and the other side of the spreadsheet CPFF. Do we fill out both FFP and CPFF? | Fill out both sides. | ||
| 26 | GSSE Draft Solicitation | Attachment 3 Pricing Matrix GSSE and PWS GSSE do not match each other as far as the number of FTEs requested to price out. For example: Attachment 3 has only one (1) SOCNORTH SE but page 5 para 3.0.3.1 has two (2). Do we use the PWS and/or adjust the Attachment 3 inputting 24 Months in Colum E? | The PWS identifies the number of personnel required, the pricing matrix is currently listed as 1 position (2 SOCNORTH SE required but pricing is 1 EA so we would multiply by 2). Pricing matrix will be updated for the RFP. | ||
| 27 | DD 254 | Box 1b | Box states Top Secret safeguarding is required. It is our understanding that all work requiring access to Top Secret information will be at government locations. As there doesn’t appear to be the need to store and safeguard Top Secret information at the contractor facility, this box should more accurately state "None." | The government concurs it should read "None" | |
| 28 | DD 254 | Box 9 | Period of Performance: 1July 2024 – 30 June 2029 (Biennial DD Form 254 review required - See Item13). There are contradictions throughout the various DRFP documents with regards to Period of Performance (POP). Please clarify that anticipated POP. | Period of Performance: 1April 2025 – 31 March 2030. DD 254 will be corrected for RFP | |
| 29 | DD 254 | Box 11a | Contractor performance is restricted to the government Performance Locations identified in Item 8. Government agency or activity will provide security classification guidance for performance of this contract. Submit visit request to COR and/or Security Management Office for need-to-know verification. This reference is to box 8 for location however, box 8 does not provide locations. Please provide performance locations. | Locations correspond with those listed in the PWS. DD 254 will be updated | |
| 30 | DRFP | N/A | The SF-33 shows that the “Date Issued” is 31 May 2024 and due 08 Jul 2024. Can the government confirm these are dates when we should expect the Final RFP to be released and when proposals are due? | The government can not confirm these will be the exact dates. | |
| 31 | DRFP | N/A | Sealed offers in original and 1 copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if hand carried, in the depository located in _______________________ Is it the government intent to receive hard copy proposals or electronic copies via email or DOD Safe only? | The government is considering only accepting electronic copies. | |
| 32 | DRFP | Section L Vol I | 1. Top Secret Facility Clearance Level – required due to TS/SCI personnel already on contract. Recommend the requirement be at time of award as many factors can change in 270 days. | TS FCL required at the time of proposal and will be verified prior to award. | |
| 33 | DRFP | Section L Vol I | 2. Current number of Active USG Top Secret cleared personnel employed by bidder – The Government is considering a minimum of 50 up to a minimum of 100 personnel currently employed with an Active USG Top Secret Clearance. As this requirement will be met by the team, consider allowing the requirement to be met by them team proportionately distributed by expected percentage of performance. Consider the following: Team must provide DISS documentation that they have 100 personnel with TS clearance. This must be met with 50% by the prime equal to the minimum performance IAW FAR 52.219-14. | Noted. Thank you for the suggestion. |
tc={FEFA2FE7-FD10-4376-87FA-9A0B880332DB}: [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:
I agree with their suggestion. It is fair, and IAW the FAR Clause.
| 34 | DRFP | Section L | 252.204-7009 - Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Third-Party Contractor Reported Cyber Incident Information. This clause was only included in section L of the RFP, will the Government consider adding it to Section I so that it is part of the subsequent award? | Yes, this will be added to Section I. |
| 35 | DRFP | Section L | 252.204-7009 - Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Third-Party Contractor Reported Cyber Incident Information. For offerors evaluation to include SPRS score please add to Section M criteria and define the minimum score acceptable. | This will be updated with the RFP. |
| 36 | DRFP | Section L | 252.204-7009 - Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Third-Party Contractor Reported Cyber Incident Information. Will the Government please consider adding 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting. (DEVIATION 2024-O0013) to this RFP and subsequent award? | Noted. Thank you for the suggestion. |
| 37 | DRFP | Section L Vol 1 | Will the Government allow 8 point font size in tables and graphics? | No |
| 38 | DRFP | Section L Vol 1 | Will the Government allow landscape page formatting at the offeror's discretion as long as the page size remains 8.5" x 11"? | No |
| 39 | DRFP | Section L Vol 1 & Section M | Can the government provide an outline of the Volumes that the offeror is required to submit? Volume 1 is referenced as “Administrative” in Section L and “Program Management/Technical Approach” in Section M. | Section M will be updated to reflect Section L in the Final RFP. |
| 40 | DRFP & Draft PWS | DRFP: |
Section B & Section I
Draft PWS: Section 3.1 CLINS 0001 and 0002, why is one FFP and the other CPFF when they both point to the same section 3.0 of the PWS? This follows through each OY as well. Yet on page 30, clause 52.216-1 says FFP
| Can the Government please clarify why they have provided identical labor categories and CLINS for both FFP and CPFF contract types when Page 30 of the Draft Solicitation states a Firm Fixed Price contract will be awarded? | The award will have a mix of FFP and CPFF CLINs. The current setup is to have a reduction of CPFF FTEs over time as efficiencies are gained, however, there is always going to be a minimum level of service which will be FFP. | ||||
| 41 | DRFP | Section B | Are offerors expected to complete Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices? If so, please confirm which volume. | Offerors are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instruction in Section L and M. | |
| 42 | DRFP | Section B | We recommend all Labor CLINS be FFP, to give maximum flexibility and speed to meet dynamic mission needs of the contract and end users. | Noted. Thank you for the suggestion. | |
| 43 | DRFP | Section B | Given the 45-day transition, will the govt provide a transition CLIN priced separately and adjust the base period of performance accordingly? | This is to be determined. | |
| 44 | DRFP | Section B | Since fee cannot be included on ODCs, is it the Government's intent for ODCs to be Cost Reimbursable rather than CPFF as is currently stated in Section B? | Yes. | |
| 45 | DRFP | Section B | CLIN 0006 - CDRLS is missing the contract type. Normally this is NSP. Can the Government please clarify? | Yes, CDRLs are going to be NSP. | |
| 46 | DRFP | Section B | Was it intentional to only mark the base year CDRLS as NA? Please provide additional clarification. | This was overlooked and will be updated with the RFP. | |
| 47 | DRFP | Section I | Given that the Government expects adequate price competition, will the Government consider removing FAR 52.215-20 from the RFP? | No. | |
| 48 | DRFP | Section M | Page 67, Evaluation Factor A says each subfactor will not receive a rating. Right above and below the ratings guide on Page 69 and 70 it says both Technical Factors and Subfactors will receive a rating. Can the Government please clarify which is correct? | Each subfactor evaluation criteria shall receive an independent rating but the three subfactors are equal. The technical subfactor rating will be a roll up of the factor rating. | |
| 49 | DRFP | Section L | Paragraph A on page 65 states that the technical volume shall not exceed 30 pages, but then goes on to state that all pages beyond the 20th page of the technical volume will not be included in the evaluation. Additionally, Section M, Evaluation Factor A (on Page 67) states there is a 20-page limit. Can the Government please clarify the page limitations for each volume? We recommend increasing the page limitation to 50 total pages for the technical volume to provide offerors sufficient space to detail all elements and sub elements of Subfactors 1, 2, and 3. | Technical Volume 30-page limit. Past performance 10-page limit. The gov't will not increase page limit | |
| 50 | DRFP | Section M | Given the level of detail required in our Transition Plan, will the government allow a Transition Milestone Table to be excluded from the page count? | No, that is included within page count. | |
| 51 | DRFP | Section M | Qualifications of key personnel (PWS Section 3.0), their skills and experience relevant to this program. Section A. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CRITERIA indicated resumes are optional. With key personnel qualifications being an evaluable item will the government update the instructions to require offerors provide resumes for key personnel to be evaluated under Section M bullet #4. | Resumes are required, with a 2-page limit. Resumes are separate from the Tech Vol. 30-page limit. | |
| 52 | Pricing Template | Will the Government update the Pricing Workbook to align with how the Government wants the Surge CLIN priced? | The pricing matrix will be updated for the RFP. | ||
| 53 | Draft PWS | Section 5.0: QASP | Transition says 100% of personnel in place day 1 and acceptable is 90% day 1 but transition plan in RFP page 67 says 90% in 45 days. Can the Government please clarify which is correct? | ||
| We recommend 75% on day 1 and 90% in 45 days. | Assuming risk at 90% throughout. 75% will result in significant issues | ||||
| 54 | Draft PWS | 3.0.5.1, Position/Labor Category table | Minimum Bachelor's degree in Business, Engineering, or an Aviation discipline. Will the government add the following language, similar to what is included Section 3.0.5.2, to allow consideration of candidates without a degree or DAU certification given applicable work experience? | Noted. The government will consider this suggestion. | |
| 55 | Draft PWS | 3.0.5.1, Position/Labor Category table | 5 years' experience as a staff officer or an aviation officer OR in aviation logistics or aviation maintenance management. Consider amending qualifications to be "5 years' experience as a staff officer or an aviation officer OR specialized SOMPE acquisition experience". | SOMPE acquisition experience is not relevant to this LCAT | |
| 56 | Draft PWS | 3.0.5.2, Position/Labor Category table | Will the government consider candidates with SOF-unique backgrounds (Special Operations Mission Planning, SOMPE acquisition, etc.) on a case-by-case basis in lieu of specific education, certification, and/or years of experience requirements? | SOF-unique background is not relevant to this LCAT and not acceptable in lieu of required qualifications. | |
| 57 | DRFP | Page 65, Section L Proposal Format and Criteria | Please confirm the required resumes are outside the 30-page limitation given to the Technical Volume. | Resumes are separate from the 30-page limit of the Technical Volume. | |
| 58 | DRFP, | Page 72, Section M Evaluation Factor B – Volume 2 – Past Performance. | Would the government confirm the “Description of Work” language is correct for this solicitation? It reads, “Provide a brief narrative describing the contractor performed duties accomplished under the referenced contract or task order. Provide examples of successful data science projects or delivered software, languages and frameworks used, and AI/ML approaches taken.” | Language in solicitation is an Example. Actual description of past performance will be tailored actual work performed. | |
| 59 | USG new question #2 | Can the Active USG Top Secret cleared personnel employed by bidder also be satisfied with Teammate or SubK cleared personnel | Yes. | ||
| 60 | USG new question #3 | Can the deploying, temporary duty and travel of company personnel to OCONUS locations also be satisfied with Teammate or SubK experience | Yes, can be satisfied by teammates or SubK .Deployments and TDY counts as experience but Personal Travel will not be considered experience for OCONUS, it needs to be travel to perform a duty | ||
| 61 | USG new question #4 | Can the minimum transition experience of 20 or 50 personnel also be satisfied with Teammate or SubK experience | 50 personnel including subcontractors. | ||
| 62 | DRFP | Page 64, Section L | Section L states, “Provide documentation of bidder experience deploying, temporary duty and travel of company personnel to OCONUS locations (List of systems needed.)” Please clarify “list of systems”. | SPOT, ECOPS, etc. | |
| 63 | Feedback on Minimum Requirements, Section L | Suggest the Government set the current number of Active USG Top Secret cleared personnel employed by bidder at 50 personnel. | Noted. Thank you for the suggestion. | ||
| 64 | Feedback on Minimum Requirements, Section L | Suggest the Government set the minimum transition experience of personnel with at least an active USG Secret Security Clearance at 40 personnel. | Noted. Thank you for the suggestion. | ||
| 65 | General | N/A | What is the anticipated total FTE count for this effort? | Anticipate 183 at the beginning of Contract POP. |
tc={87A799E9-DC89-4142-A120-1450F481D979}: [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:
from my count 188, but will be reduced over the life of the contract. I can't recall the final FTE count when reduced.
Please check my math.
Reply:
Site leads are not counted in the count.
| 66 | General | N/A | Is the Government planning to use one of the exceptions to NAICS 541330? We recommend the Government use Exception 1 (Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons) with a $47M size standard to maximize small business competition. | This is to be determined. | |
| 67 | General | N/A | Does the Government intend to compete this GSSE requirement on a contract vehicle such as GSA MAS? By using a contract vehicle like GSA MAS, the customer will benefit from established labor rates and ensure all respondents are pre-vetted (by GSA), qualified companies. Or does the Government plan to release the final RFP via sam.gov? | Gov plans to release final RFP on sam.gov | |
| 68 | General | N/A | Has SOCOM developed LCAT mapping for the positions described in the PWS to established GSA/FEDSIM LCATs, SOCIDs, etc.? | No | |
| 69 | General | N/A | What differences does SOCOM envision in objectives, activities, and role responsibilities between the GSSE program and the existing GFSE contract? | This is a new requirement for the GSSE effort. Roles from the existing GFSE contract may reflect some similarities but this is a new requirement | |
| 70 | Draft Solicitation | Page 64 of 75, Volume I: Administrative, #2 | “Current number of Active USG Top Secret cleared personnel employed by bidder – The Government is considering a minimum of 50 up to a minimum of 100 personnel currently employed with an Active USG Top Secret Clearance.” Question: Does this number of cleared personnel include only the prime contractor, or does it include the prime and subcontractors? | This can include subs as well | |
| 71 | Draft Solicitation | Page 65 of 75, A. Proposal Format and Criteria | “The Total Page count of the technical volume shall not exceed 30 pages. Past Performance shall not exceed 10 pages.” Should Past Performance be included in the Technical Volume, or should it be in its own stand-alone volume, as the Evaluation Criteria (page 71) seem to indicate? If Past Performance is its own volume, then is the page limit for the Technical Volume 20 pages or 30 pages? We recommend 30 pages so that we may adequately address the detailed evaluation criteria. | Technical Volume 30-page limit. Past performance is stand-alone with a 10-page limit. | |
| 72 | Draft Solicitation | Page 65 of 75, A. Proposal Format and Criteria | "The Proposal shall be submitted in an 8 ½” x 11” format with 12 point Times New Roman font with 1 inch margins in a Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe (.pdf) format.” Question: May we use smaller font for graphics and tables? We recommend Times New Roman or Arial 9. | Noted. Thank you for the suggestion. | |
| 73 | Draft Solicitation and PWS | Page 65 of 75, A. Proposal Format and Criteria; PWS page 4 Program Manager, Site Lead (5) - Senior | “A cover page, table of contents, index, and/or resumes are not | ||
| required, but if included, does not count toward the page total.” (p. 65 of Draft Solicitation). However, the PWS (p. 4) indicates that resumes are required for Key Personnel including the Program Manager and Regional Support Engineer Site Leads. Does the Government intend to require resumes with the proposal? If so, what is the page limit for each resume? | Yes, 2-page limit | ||||
| 74 | PWS | Page 3 | Can you provide additional details and clarity on the objective of the Cross Learning Environment. Is that in reference to training/development of the multisystem, multidomain GSSE pax themselves, or is it referring to users who will be trained on multiple systems, in multiple domains. | The Cross Learning Environment refers to multidomain Support Engineers. It refers to SEs gaining the training and qualifications necessary to operate in multiple domains specifically at locations where there operational, intel, and/or a tactical SEs are co-located. | |
| 75 | PWS | Page 3 | Is SOCOM open to the proposing of cutting-edge industry approaches to systems training and maintenance leveraging Extended Reality, Digital Twinning, and other capabilities and techniques increasingly used in both the Federal and commercial space? | Yes | |
| 76 | PWS | Page 3 | Is there a full list of technologies, systems, applications, tools, and programs that GSSE resources will be expected to be proficient on? If so, will the Government make this list available to bidders with the final RFP? Given the short 45 day transition window, pre-award resource selection and training will be imperative to ensure a seamless transition. | No, software agnostic for a reason, we have different locations w/ different mission sets, different areas of focus or priorities which may relay more on different systems thus stressing the importance of agnostic. | |
| 77 | PWS | Page 3 | Does SOCOM envision working toward remote systems maintenance and training models in the future that would reduce the footprint of forward-positioned GSSE pax over the life of the contract? | Yes | |
| 78 | PWS | Page 3 | Can you provide clarity on the GSSE’s role in the DevSecOps process? There does not appear to be a Developer requirement in the LCATs. Are the GSSEs’ envisioned to participate in the development requirements identification, testing, and solution implementation activities in the DevSecOps model, or play a different, more direct, role in development? How does this related to other SOCOM programs that explicitly include DevSecOps efforts? | GSSEs are envisioned to participate in the development requirements identification, testing, and solution implementation activities in the DevSecOps model. | |
| 79 | PWS | Page 4 | Which of the Regional Site Leads (RSLs) will cover CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and SOUTHCOM requirements? | Europe for AFRICOM, Tampa for SOUTHCOM and CENTCOM. | |
| 80 | PWS | Page 5 | The PWS indicates that “some” of the Support Engineers (SEs) will have a requirement to become proficient in more than one domain. Are those SE positions identified by number and/or location? When will they be identified as having the requirement, and how quickly will they need to achieve proficiency? Will those designated multidomain positions be relatively static, or will that requirement be changing and/or growing over time? | Offerors will address in Subfactor 3: Training and Integration Approach | |
| 81 | PWS | Page 6 | The Intelligence Domain SEs have an explicit training course development requirement, but the Operations Domain SEs do not. What is the difference between those roles regarding expectations for their roles in training, course development, etc.? | The Intelligence GSSEs have specific application the government requires. | |
| 82 | PWS | Page 6 | What is the role of the Tactical Domain SEs in supporting FMS? There are restraints/constraints for commercial company participation in certain aspects of the FMS process. | The government acknowledges there are restraints/constraints for commercial company participation in certain aspects of the FMS process. | |
| 83 | PWS | Page 11 | Under Tactical SE – Senior (42) (left column of the table), there is a location listed as JBLM, VA. This appears to be a typo because in the right column, the location is listed as JBLM, WA (as it is throughout the rest of the PWS). Will the Government please clarify that this location is JBLM, WA and not JBLM, VA. | Confirmed, there is no JBLM. VA only a JBLM, WA | |
| 84 | PWS | Page 12 | What is the role of the GSSE Cloud Architect vis à vis other Cloud efforts at SOCOM and its components? What specifically is their role in the systems and infrastructure maintenance (et al) described in 3.0.4.1 vis à vis the traditional role and responsibilities of a Cloud Architect? | The GSSE Cloud Architect is specific to the GSSE Effort. | |
| 85 | A. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CRITERIA; 3.0.1 PROGRAM MANAGER; 3.0.2 REGIONAL SUPPORT ENGINEER SITE LEADS | Solicitation Section L; PWS | According to the PWS resumes are required but according to the solicitation resumes are not required. Are Key Personnel resumes required? | Yes, 1 PM (Tampa) and 5 Site Leads (Tampa, FT. Liberty, JBLM, Stuttgart, Camp Smith) | |
| 86 | PWS | It mentions that certain LCATS "are NOT stand-alone requirements but instead an added assignment to an existing Senior position. The responsibilities of the RSL are in addition to the requirements for the functional position proposed". Could you specify which of the functional positions they are referring to (e.g., we are assuming it would be the Senior Support Engineer positions? Computer User Support Specialists and Computer Network Support Specialists?, etc)? | The RSLs are Senior SEs from one of the three domains. | ||
| 87 | Resumes | Regarding submitting resumes, are we only concerned with the positions listed as key personnel? If so, I believe we're looking for 1 Program Manager to work in Tampa and 5 Site Leads to work in different locations? Also do we need to submit all resumes up front (e.g. somebody who's able to work in Stuttgart, Germany in order to proceed)? It looks like there are over 100 other positions that are not listed as key personnel. We assume those are not positions we need to have candidates lined up (resumes fully submitted) for in order to proceed at proposal time? | 1) Resumes for Key Personnel only, 2) Yes, 1 PM (Tampa) and 5 Site Leads (Tampa, FT. Liberty, JBLM, Stuttgart, Camp Smith, 3) Yes, submit resumes w/ proposal, 4) Resumes not required for other personnel. | ||
| 88 | General | Are you willing to consider using GSA 8(a) STARS III as a vehicle for this effort? | Not for this effort | ||
| 89 | General | What are your current pain points with the existing contract? | Not able to discuss | ||
| 90 | General | Required format for submissions/ | No required format, submit suggestions, recommendations, or issues noted in vendor format. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .