GSSE Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 99 KB Posted
- Attached to
- GSSE Request for Proposal Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- H9241524R0004
- Issued by
- United States Special Operations Command
About this file
This document contains a series of questions and answers related to Attachment 4 of the GSSE Request for Proposal (Solicitation Number H9241524R0004) issued by the United States Special Operations Command. The questions primarily address the content and structure of the pricing templates in Attachment 4, including the CPFF and FFP tabs, FTE counts, productive hours per FTE, and the treatment of travel and ODCs. The government provides responses clarifying the intent behind the pricing templates, correcting any errors, and providing guidance on how offerors should populate the templates. The document also includes some high-level information about the overall GSSE contract requirement, such as the total FTE expectation of 183 (93 FFP, 90 CPFF), the consolidation of positions from previous contracts, and the set-aside for small businesses.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| GSSE Questions and Answers 27Aug24.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| H92415-24-R-0004 GSSE Amendment 02 Mod.pdf | ||
| GSSE Sections L and M FINAL Redlines 22 August.docx | DOCX document | |
| H92415-24-R-0004 GSSE Amendment 02 Conformed.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - Cost and Pricing Matrix GSSE v2 20Aug2024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| GSSE Questions and Answers 20Aug24.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| GSSE Amendment 1 Sections L and M Redline 20Aug24.docx | DOCX document | |
| H9241524R0004-0001 GSSE Amendment 1 20Aug24.pdf | ||
| GSSE Amendment 1 PWS Redlined 20Aug24.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 1 - Updated PWS GSSE 20Aug24.pdf | ||
| H9241524R0004-0001 GSSE Conformed 20Aug24.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - Updated Pricing Matrix GSSE 20Aug2024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 4 - Cost and Pricing Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 2 - DD 254 Final.pdf | ||
| H9241524R0004 GSSE RFP.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - CDRL Package.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - PWS Final.pdf |
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
Sheet1
| GSSE Questions and Answers | ||
| Document | Question | Answer |
| Attachment 4 | The CPFF Tabs ask for rates from both Prime and Subcontractors for each line item. The template does not give Offerors the ability to indicate what the total cost is per line; rather, it simply totals the prime costs and the subcontractor costs. This effectively double-counts the labor costs by multiplying the prime's rate by the total number of labor hours, and also multiplying the subcontractor rate by the total number of labor hours. Will the Government consider adding columns to the CPFF tabs to let Offerors specify the hours for prime contractors and subcontractors, and a Total column to add the prime and subcontractor cost for each row? | 1. The CPFF (Base & OY) Total for the Prime's direct labor is summed/total in cell J130/J135; SubK in cell K130/135. Update formula based on who's proposing (Prime or SubK). |
2. If any labor categories are proposed to be SubK, the Prime Offeror shall consolidate and submit (indicate the SubK in the column as indicated).
3. Additionally, If a position/LCAT will be performed/proposed by multiple Offerors, please insert additional row by coping/paste (insert copied cell) function (ex: if Prime and 2 subs, insert additional 2 rows and identify the LCAT, Location, # hours, # FTE, etc.). (Please Identify any changes).
- Per Instructions Tab
Attachment 4 Row 18 indicates 6 Operations SE - Senior located at Tampa, FL. The PWS on page 5 five shows a total of 2 located at HQ USSOCOM and one at SOCENT. Making the assumption that HQ USSOCOM, SOCENT, and Tampa are the same location will the Government confirm that 6 Operations SE - Senior are correct? If correct will the Government provide an update to the Table on page 5 of the PWS as well the Skills and Qualification tab of Attachment 4? The PWS table and the Required Skills and Qualification tab of Attachment 4 identify a total of 9 Operations SE - Senior. JBLM, WA- 1st SFG (1) FT Campbell, KY- 5th SFG (1) SOCPAC, Camp Smith Hawaii (2) NSW – Coronado, CA (1)
HQ, USSOCOM -J33/GMSC (1)
HQ, USSOCOM/PEO-TIS (1)
SOCEUR, Stuttgart, GE (1)
SOCCENT (1)
JVC: The 6 Operations Seniors mentioned in the FFP tab for Tampa consist of the 2 listed on page 5, the 2 Senior Operations tech leads on page 18, the senior operations master trainer on page 19, and the senior operations exercise lead coordinator on page 19. Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly reflect this
| Attachment 4 | Is this sheet meant to be a summation of each of the CPFF sheets (Base to OY4)? If so will the Government make a correction to the sheet to include calculations or is that left to the offeror? | Per Attachment 4 - Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of the data and any associated formulas/calculations. All formulas shall be included and visible to the Government. |
| Attachment 4 | It appears that the formula in the Base Hours Column (G) incorrectly references Column E. Will the Government make a correction and repost the workbook? | Per Attachment 4 - Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of the data and any associated formulas/calculations. Make corrections as needed. All formulas shall be included and visible to the Government. |
Updated the formula to reference column F. Hours will be calculated by FTE * Your proposed hours - 1872 (2080-88 holiday-proposed PTO)
| Attachment 4 | In Row 11 the Program Manager position is listed and it is also listed on the FFP sheet. Which sheet should have the Program Manager? If it is the FFP sheet will the Government remove the Program Manager from the CPFF sheets or provide its intention behind the inclusion? | The Program Manager is an FFP position. Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 13 - there are only two positions identified for this location and LCAT in the PWS and both those are accounted for in the FFP sheet. What is the intent of the Government for including this row or will the Government remove this row from the CPFF sheets? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 16- there is only one position identified for this location and LCAT in the PWS and it is accounted for in the FFP sheet. What is the intent of the Government for including this row or will the Government remove this row from the CPFF sheets? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 37 - There is a single position in the PWS for this position and this location which is covered by the FFP Sheet. What is the intent of the Government for including this row or will the Government remove this row from the CPFF sheets? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 42 - There is a single position in the PWS for this position and this location which is covered by the FFP Sheet. What is the intent of the Government for including this row or will the Government remove this row from the CPFF sheets? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 47 - There is a single position in the PWS for this position and this location which is covered by the FFP Sheet. What is the intent of the Government for including this row or will the Government remove this row from the CPFF sheets? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 51 - There is a single position in the PWS for this position and this location which is covered by the FFP Sheet. What is the intent of the Government for including this row or will the Government remove this row from the CPFF sheets? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 53 - There are two positions in the PWS for this position and this location which is covered by the FFP Sheet. What is the intent of the Government for including this row or will the Government remove this row from the CPFF sheets? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 51 - There is a single position in the PWS for this position and this location which is covered by the FFP Sheet. What is the intent of the Government for including this row or will the Government remove this row from the CPFF sheets? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 31 LCAT and location is not listed in the table on page 6 - Intelligence SE - Senior. Nor is it lsted in the Required Skills_Qualifcations Tab of Attachment 4. Will the Government please clarify it's intent for including the LCAT and location on this sheet? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 34 lists 6 FTEs for the LCAT and location but there are only 5 on the PWS - will the Government please clarify? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 42 lists 1 FTE for the LCAT and location but there is none on the PWS - will the Government please clarify? Additionally this location does not carry across all years of the FFP sheet. | This position is listed under Ft Carson in the PWS and Colorado Springs in the pricing attachment. The pricing attachment has been updated to ensure the position is carried over in all option years. |
| Attachment 4 | Rows 57, 62, 72, 73, and 74 are present for Tactical SE - Mid with the specified location but this LCAT and these locations are all covered by the FFP sheet. Will the Government please clarify? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 78 has 6 positions listed in the PWS for this LCAT and location and all 6 positions are on the FFP Sheet. Will the government please clariy it's intent for including this row? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 86 has 1 position listed in the PWS for this LCAT and location and the position is on the FFP Sheet. Will the government please clariy it's intent for including this row? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 87 has 3 positions listed in the PWS for this LCAT and location and all 3 positions are on the FFP Sheet. Will the government please clariy it's intent for including this row? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 90 has 1 position listed in the PWS for this LCAT and location and the position is on the FFP Sheet. Will the government please clariy it's intent for including this row? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Row 92 has 4 positions listed in the PWS for this LCAT and location and all 4 positions are on the FFP Sheet. Will the government please clariy it's intent for including this row? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Rows 107, 109, and 111 have 1 position listed in the PWS for these rows and this LCAT and location and the positions are on the FFP Sheet. Will the government please clariy it's intent for including this row? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | Section 3.0 of the PWS indicates a total number of FTS’s of 183. Attachment 4 “Required Skills Qualifications” Tab indicates a total FTE count of 183. Attachment 4 “FFP” Tab indicates a total FTE count of 93 and the “CPFF” tabs have no FTE count listed at all. Can you clarify the total number of FTE that will be evaluated in the FFP tab as well as the CPFF tabs? | Correct the FTE for FFP and CPFF is different. |
The current total FTE expectation is 183. 93 of the 183 are FFP. The remaining are CPFF. The expectation is the vendor may reduce the 90 CPFF over time as positions are cross trained.
| Attachment 4 | The Government has supplied PLUG Values to use for the Travel and ODC’s for the CPFF Evaluation but not for the FFP evaluation. Can the Government provide PLUG values to use for the FFP evaluation? | TRAVEL/ ODCs will be evaluted as Cost CLINs only. |
| Attachment 4 | The FFP Tab has different sets of Locations than the CPFF tabs. For example, FFP tab Operations SE MID has 3 locations and the same category in the CPFF tab has 11. Can you clarify the Locations for each category in both the FFP tabs and the CPFF tabs? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify position locations and contract type |
| Attachment 4 | The CPFF Tab has different formula in Column G for “hours” that is using 2080 as the multiplier for the number of FTEs Since 2080 represents all the “work” hours in a year, (40 hours x 52 weeks), this does not represent a productive man year. Can the Government stipulate a common Productive man year to be bid, ie 1920,1880 etc? | One FTE is considered 1872 unless proposed otherwise based on fringe benefits offered to its employees (2080-88 holiday-120 PTO, etc.). This number should be used to calculate both FFP and CPFF. |
| Attachment 4 | Please confirm that the “Rate Buildup” tab is only meant to support the Cost Plus Fixed Fee worksheets. | Correct. However, if your FBLR in the FFP Tab for the same LCAT and location is different please provide justification/rationale. |
| Attachment 4 | “FFP” tab, Cell G11. Please correct this error in formula. | Per Attachment 4 - Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of the data and any associated formulas/calculations. All formulas shall be included and visible to the Government. |
This isn't an error. Replace the underscore with your proposed FTE hour number. 1872 is our default. (2080-88 holiday-120PTO).
Attachment 4 “CPFF – Cost Summary tab” tab, Cell G11. Please correct this error in formula. Per Attachment 4 - Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of the data and any associated formulas/calculations. All formulas shall be included and visible to the Government.
This isn't an error. Replace the underscore with your proposed FTE hour number. 1872 is our default. (2080-88 holiday-120PTO).
| Attachment 4 | “FFP” tab, Cells BA87 through BC92. Please correct the errors in this section | Formula will correct itself when Offerors input numbers. Per Attachment 4 - Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of the data and any associated formulas/calculations. All formulas shall be included and visible to the Government. |
| Attachment 4 | Please confirm that the “CPFF” tabs The Government has included these four areas: GSSE Two Domain - Mid, GSSE Two Domain - Senior, GSSE Three Domain - Senior, GSSE Three Domain - Mid. Can the Government please expand information on these as to what the “Domain” is for each and how many FTE and what categories are being evaluated? | The two and three domain personnel represent GSSEs that have been cross-trained among the original domains (tactical, operational, intelligence). The Government is encouraging cross training of positions as part of this requirement. The assumption is FTEs may be reduced as GSSEs are cross trained. |
| Attachment 4 | Reference the CPFF tabs, Column D, designating CONUS/OCONUS. Please confirm and correct any entries. For example, Cell D15 which shows Stuttgart to be “CONUS” | Corrected |
| Attachment 4 | The CPFF Tabs ask for rates from both Prime and Subcontractors for each line item. The template does not give Offerors the ability to indicate what the total cost is per line; rather, it simply totals the prime costs and the subcontractor costs. This effectively double-counts the labor costs by multiplying the prime's rate by the total number of labor hours, and also multiplying the subcontractor rate by the total number of labor hours. Will the Government consider adding columns to the CPFF tabs to let Offerors specify the hours for prime contractors and subcontractors, and a Total column to add the prime and subcontractor cost for each row? | Please update the formula vase on who is proposing (Prime or SubK). Additionally, If a position/LCAT will be performed/proposed by multiple Offerors, please insert additional row by coping/paste (insert copied cell) function (ex: if Prime and 2 subs, insert additional 2 rows and identify the LCAT, Location, # hours, # FTE, etc.). |
Per Attachment 4 - Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of the data and any associated formulas/calculations. Make corrections as needed. All formulas shall be included and visible to the Government.
| Attachment 4 | Can the government explain what “Competitive Quotes or Sole Source Documentation Included” entails? | This refers to how proposed subcontract quotes were obtained. Were competitive procedures followed? How did the offeror select its subk? See FAR 15.404-3, Subcontract Pricing Considerations. This effort will be subject to FAR 52.244-5 Competition in Subcontracting |
| Attachment 4 | The government has provided a cell for “Proposal Adequacy Checklist”. IAW DFARS 252.215-7009, a Proposal Adequacy Checklist is a summary of data from FAR 15.408 Table 15-2, which is driven by the requirements for certified Cost/Pricing data. Can the government confirm that a Proposal Adequacy Checklist is or is not required? Subsequently can the government confirm that certified cost/pricing data is or is not required? | Per the "#1-Instructions" Tab: The PAC is not required as part of this proposal submission. |
| Attachment 4 | Row 46 has 4 positions listed here but the PWS only lists two for this LCAT and location. Will the Government please clarify? | FFP requirement is different from the CPFF requirement. |
The 4 positions consist of the two at JEB Little Creek, one at Dam Neck, and one at JBLE from the chart on page 11 of the PWS.
| Attachment 4 | Row 49 has 3 positions listed here but the PWS only lists 1 for this LCAT and location. Will the Government please clarify? | This has been updated. There are 0 Senior Tactical FFP positions at JBLM (1 CPFF). There are two FFP Senior Tacticals at Hunter AAF, GA and one Senior Tactical at Ft. Moore, GA. The spreadsheet has been updated accordingly. |
| Attachment 4 | To produce an accurate bid price, we need to know the number of hours to use as a productive man year. Should we use 1880, 1920, 2080 or some other number? Should this number be used for both FFP and CPFF CLINs? And will the Government correct the cell entries in Attachment 4 column G to reflect that number? | One FTE is considered 1872 unless proposed otherwise based on fringe benefits offered to its employees (2080-88 holiday-120 PTO, etc.). This number should be used to calculate both FFP and CPFF. |
| Attachment 4 | How is the contractor to determine the allocation of support between the FFP and the CPFF CLINs? | FFP is 93 + CPFF is 90 = 183 total FTEs |
| Attachment 4 | Does the ODC plug/estimate provided in attachment 4 under CPFF CLIN cover ODCs for the FFP CLIN? If not, will the Government please provide a plug number? | Plug Numbers provided for CPPF requirement as Cost CLINs Only |
| General | Is there an incumbent on this or is this a brand new project? | This is a new requirement but covers positions from 4 previous contracts |
| General | The notice indicates that this the old contract number is H9224117D0003 that was awarded to Cruz Associates on 03/23/2017 and expires on 3/31/26. This contract was originally part of the consolidation of PEO SDA contracts under the Global Systems Support Engineer (GSSE) contract. Has the H9224117D0003 contract been removed from the GSSE consolidated contract and under an independent acquisition? | This is not a consolidation of contracts. This is a new requirement that absorbed and redefined specific postions from 4 contracts that were directly related to our requirements. |
| PWS | What are the specific utility/software tools that training needs to be provided for? | The Government team will provide information on the training that needs to be performed when the requirement arises |
| PWS | For the Tactical SE - Mid please confirm that only 3 of the positions at JBLM require an ACTIVE TS and be eligible for SCI as there are five at that location in the PWS. | An active SECRET clearance with TS Eligibility is required for ALL Tactical SE - Mid positions. Of those 6 positions at JBLM, 3 must ALSO be SCI eligible. |
| PWS | For the Tactical SE - Senior positions please confirm that only 4 of the 6 positions at Hurlburt Field, FL and 1 of the 2 positions at JEB Little Creek, and 1 of the two positions at Hunter AAF require an Active TS with SCI Eligibility. | An active SECRET clearance with TS Eligibility is required for ALL Tactical SE - Senior positions. Per the associated table, SCI eligibility is ALSO required for 4 of the 6 Hurlburt Field, 1 of the 2 JEB Little Creek and 1 of the 2 Hunter AAF LCATs |
| PWS | Paragraph 3.0.3.1 Operations Domain the table for the Operations Domain Senior indicates 9 positions. One of the positions indicates SOCCENT (1). Is this SOCCENT position for the Operations Domain SE Senior based CONUS or OCONUS? Can you identify the homebase for this position? | CONUS, Homebase Tampa, FL |
| PWS | Paragraph 3.0.3.2 Intelligence Domain the table for the Intelligence Domain Mid indicates 26 positions. One of these positions indicates SOCCENT (1). Is this SOCCENT position for the Intelligence Domain SE Mid based CONUS or OCONUS? Can you identify the homebase for this position? | CONUS, Homebase Tampa, FL |
| RFP | Section L.1.2 states primes and subcontractors “must have concurrently employed 50 personnel with an active USG Top Secret Clearance for a period of no less than a year within the last 3 years.” For a subcontractor who is only responsible for staffing 10-20 personnel on the contract, this requirement is overly burdensome and eliminates small companies from participating altogether. Will the government please remove this requirement from non-major subcontractors (<25% workshare) in order to give small businesses/SDVOSBs, an opportunity to bring their capabilities and experience to USSOCOM? | The offeror, when combined with subcontractors, must have concurrently employed 50 personnel with an active USG TS Clearance. It is not a separate 50 for the prime and each subcontractor. |
| RFP | L.4.2 states "PRIME OFFEROR and SUBCONTRACTOR shall complete the Cost and Pricing Matrix found within Solicitation Attachment 4 in its entirety." As a SDVOSB subcontractor, I am exempt from Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) in accordance with FAR part 30 and 48 CFR 9903.201-1(b). I expect to receive a T&M contract from my Prime contractor. Request the government remove this requirement for small business subcontractors who are not receiving cost-type subcontracts, plus permit the Prime offeror to include subcontractor pricing within their ptoposal submission? | The Subcontractor is subject to the same level of detail for the level of effort bidding on for Cost type contracts for evaluation with exception to Adequate Business System. |
The prime will need to furnish the subk proposal with an assertion that the costs it incurs are current, accurate, and complete (The rate paid to the subk). The prime will also need to provide rationale as to why it selected the subk partner, including the extent in which it competed the subcontract.
| RFP | Please confirm that the required documents to be included in our Volume I: Administrative response are to be provided separately and are excluded from page count (including but not limited to the Conformed solicitation copy from RFP section L.1.1, DD Form 254 from RFP section L.1.2, Line of Credit from RFP section L.1.5, and any required amendment signature pages). | The conformed copy of the solicitation and DD254 are exempt from the 10 page limit. The 10 page limit applies to information provided to meet the administrative gates (L.1.2 - L.1.5) |
| RFP | In the table on page 67, for Volume I: Administrative, please clarify what is to be included in the NIST factor, or is this actually for NISS TS Facility Clearance? | Both. The offeror must have a TS FCL and shall possess a SPRS NIST Assessment rating of 75 or greater |
| RFP | L.1 states "provide a cover page...in Volume I: Administrative" and L.1.6 states "cover letter." Volume IV: Cost and Price Proposal also indicates a cover letter/page. Please clarify. | The Cover Letter for Volume IV has different requirements and should be treated as a separate cover letter. |
| RFP | Proposal Format indicates "all tables and/or figures are to be in format with 12-point Times New Roman font." Due to the page count and margin size restrictions, we request that the font size for tables, illustrations, figures, and header/footer content to be revised to allow 9 point Arial or Times New Roman. | Tables and figures shall be 12pt font. |
| RFP | Can the government please specify what documentation should be submitted to show previous experience deploying company personnel to OCONUS locations (documentation for systems such as SPOT or ECOPS)? | The offeror shall provide information on prior deployments and the steps the contractor took to meet mission, including who the contractor coordinated with. The offeror, shall have current and active SPOT and ECOPS accounts with relevant experience within SPOT and ECOPS and applicable training. |
| RFP | The instructions in Block 9 indicate to deliver hard copy proposal documents to the USSOCOM office in Tampa. As the USSOCOM facility is a secure location, we request the following clarifications to ensure proper shipping and delivery: 1) Confirm that our submission should be addressed to the individual listed in Block 10; 2) Provide guidance on the acceptable method of submission (USPS, FedEx, UPS, courier, hand delivery); 3) The expected time for a proposal package to be delivered to the contracting office once received at USSOCOM; and 4) The method of confirming on-time delivery of the proposal--is it delivery to the Command mail room or upon receipt by the contracting office? | This is a block that we cannot update, no physical copies will be accepted. Proposals shall be submitted via Email to the POCs identified in the SAM Posting. |
| RFP | With the cost of relocation from CONUS to OCONUS sites for new/replacement employees, will the Government reimburse the contractor for relocation expenses? | Relocation cost are incurred by offeror. |
| RFP | Please confirm the Prime Offeror or members of a Joint Venture must have a Top-Secret Facility Clearance as accredited in the National Industrial Security System (NISS) at the time of initial proposal submission. | The Prime Offeror or members of a Joint Venture must have a Top-Secret Facility Clearance as accredited in the National Industrial Security System (NISS) at the time of initial proposal submission. |
| RFP | Regarding Section L.1.6 – Proposal Format and Criteria, would the government consider allowing for a smaller font size (10 pt.) in tables and figures? | Tables and figures shall be 12pt font. |
| RFP | Section L.1.2 Facility Clearance (Sub Section Employing Personnel) it states “The offeror, to include subcontractors, must have concurrently employed 50 personnel with an active USG Top Secret Clearance for a period of no less than a year within the last year. Personnel must have been employed in an IT, engineering or intelligence role. When referencing that the offeror and subcontractors must have had employed 50 personnel, can the USG clarify if the prime and subcontractors must all have had independently employed 50 employees with a TS clearance or is it meant to mean that collectively the offeror and all subcontractors must have 50 employees? | The offeror, when combined with subcontractors, must have concurrently employed 50 personnel with an active USG TS Clearance. It is not a separate 50 for the prime and each subcontractor. |
| RFP | Section L.2. Evaluation Factor A: Volume II – Program Management. Due to the amount of information required for Volume II, will the government please consider increasing the page count? | The page count will remain as stated in the RFP. |
| RFP | Section L.1.3 Deploying Personnel it states “Provide documentation demonstrating previous experience deploying, sending temporary duty and/or traveling company personnel to OCONUS locations (systems to include, SPOT, ECOPS, etc.).” Can you clarify the type of documentation required to support this compliance requirement? | The offeror shall provide information on prior deployments and the steps the contractor took to meet mission, including who the contractor coordinated with. The offeror, shall have current and active SPOT and ECOPS accounts with relevant experience within SPOT and ECOPS and applicable training. |
| RFP | Section L.1.2 states primes and subcontractors “must have concurrently employed 50 personnel with an active USG Top Secret Clearance for a period of no less than a year within the last 3 years.” This requirement is reasonable for a prime, both members of a Joint Venture, and major subcontractors. However, for a subcontractor who is only responsible for staffing 10-20 personnel on the contract, this requirement is overly burdensome and eliminates smaller companies from participating altogether. Will the Government please remove this requirement from non-major subcontractors (<20% workshare) in order to give newer businesses, many of which are owned and operated by SOF veterans, an opportunity to bring their much-needed skills and experience to this contract? | This requirement is not being removed. The offeror, when combined with subcontractors, must have concurrently employed 50 personnel with an active USG TS Clearance. It is not a separate 50 for the prime and each subcontractor. |
| RFP | L.4.2 states "PRIME OFFEROR and SUBCONTRACTOR shall complete the Cost and Pricing Matrix found within Solicitation Attachment 4 in its entirety." Our subcontractors will not have cost-type subcontracts, since they are small businesses exempt from Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) in accordance with FAR part 30 and 48 CFR 9903.201-1(b). Will the Government please remove this requirement for subcontractors who are not receiving cost-type subcontracts, and allow the prime offeror to include subcontractor pricing within the prime's submission? | The Subcontractor is subject to the same level of detail for the level of effort bidding on for Cost type contracts for evaluation with exception to Adequate Business System. |
The prime will need to furnish the subk proposal with an assertion that the costs it incurs are current, accurate, and complete (The rate paid to the subk). The prime will also need to provide rationale as to why it selected the subk partner, including the extent in which it competed the subcontract.
| RFP | L.4.5 states "....the offeror...and subcontractors shall provide four years of historical actual and budgetary data for the full period of performance pools and bases were indicated in Attachment 4 Pricing Template, Tabs." This information is far more sensitive than typical source selection information, as it impacts every business factor from market valuations to competitive pricing to employee compensation, and every other proprietary advantage companies invest in. As such, will the Government please facilitate nondisclosure agreeements with the contractors called out as evaluators (Applied Research Solutions and Apogee Engineering LLC), reducing liability to the Government? | All evaluators will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, this will include evaluators that are USSOCOM Contracted Support Staff. |
| RFP | What should an offeror/subcontractor provide if historical indirect rates are unavailable (e.g. a subcontractor is relatively new concern)? | Please support/justified its proposed rates by providing methodology of its indirect rates/determined/developed. If four years of data are not available due to the company being new then provide historical data as far back as possible. Pools and bases should start in Fiscal Year 2021 and include Fiscal Year 2024. |
| RFP | Can the government please confirm that the 1-page cover letter is not included in the 10-page limit for the Administrative Volume I? | The 1-page cover letter is not included in the 10 page limit for Administrative Volume I. |
| RFP | Can the government please clarify how they would like us to repond to the NIST 800-171 requirement above and beyond annotating our SPRS score? | Annotating the SPRS score is fine. It will be checked prior to full evaluation of an offeror's proposal. |
| RFP | SF 33 block 9 states “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”; |
Paragraph L.1.6 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CRITERIA instructs proposals to be submitted in Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe (.pdf) format;
| Clause 52.215-20 states “Submit the cost portion of the proposal via the following electronic media: Email | Proposals should be submitted via email to the POCs listed on SAM.gov. | ||
| RFP | Section L.1.6 Proposal Format and Criteria. Due to the amount of information required for Volume II, will the government please consider reducing the font size of tables and figures to size 10? | tables and figures shall be 12pt font. | |
| RFP | L.4.2 (page 71)Does L.4.2 apply to only major/key subcontractors, or does it apply to all subcontractors, including small business subcontractors? | This is required for all subcontractors. If subcontracting to small businesses, the prime must still provide rationale as to why the subcontractor was selected and the extent to which the subcontract was competed. Small businesses are still required to complete a certificate of current cost or pricing data if the subk proposal exceeds $2M and is a cost contract. | |
| RFP | L.4.5 Indirect Rates (page 73)Many Small Businesses have unique capabilities to support this contract, but do not have the ability to meet the current requirements of this section. |
-If a Small Business subcontractor has less than four years of historical actual and budgetary data for the full period of performance pools and bases, will the government accept whatever historical data that they can show?
| -Should the pools and bases be based on fiscal year 2021, or should they start in fiscal year 2020 and include or exclude fiscal year 2024? | Please support/justified its proposed rates by providing methodology of its indirect rates/determined/developed. If four years of data are not available due to the company being new then provide historical data as far back as possible. Pools and bases should start in Fiscal Year 2021 and include Fiscal Year 2024. | ||
| Attachment 4 | Base-CPFF Tab, Row 11What are the base hours for the Program Manager? | One FTE is considered 1872 unless proposed otherwise based on fringe benefits offered to its employees (2080-88 holiday-120 PTO, etc.). This number should be used to calculate both FFP and CPFF. | |
| Attachment 4 | Base-CPFF Tab, Column GShould the formula for Base Hours in column G be =F13*2080 instead of =E13*2080? |
| Should the value 2080 be replaced with 1872 to reflect the billable hours for 1 year? | Yes it should be F13*billable hours. One FTE is considered 1872 unless proposed otherwise based on fringe benefits offered to its employees (2080-88 holiday-120 PTO, etc.). This number should be used to calculate both FFP and CPFF. | ||
| Attachment 4 | Base-CPFF through OY4-CPFF Tabs, Column J, starting at Row 32Should the formula for Column J (starting row 32) be =ROUND(G32*H32,0) instead of =ROUND(E32*G32,0)? | Ultimately the offeror is responsbile for ensuring the pricing model calculations are correct but yes the formula should read =ROUND(G32*H32,0). Model has been updated accordingly | |
| Attachment 4 | Base-CPFF through OY4-CPFF Tabs, Row 165 Should the formula in J165 be =J130+J135 instead of =J130+J135+K139+K143+K158? |
| Should the formula in K165 be =ROUND(J165*H165,0) instead of =ROUND(G165*H165,0)? | Please calculate Indrect rates/ Profit/Fee based on accounting Practice/standards. Ultimately the offeror is responsbile for ensuring the pricing model calculations are correct | ||
| Attachment 4 | Base-CPFF through OY4-CPFF Tabs, Subtotal CostsShould the formula in K154 be =J130+K130+J135+K135+K139+K143+K149+K153 instead of =J135+K135+K139+K143+K149+K153? | Spreadsheet updated to calculate subtotal cost. | |
| Attachment 4 | FFP Tab, 0001 Tactical SE - Mid Colorado Springs, COThe Colorado Springs location for the Tactical SE, which is listed in the FFP Tab, is not included in the FBLR tab or the Rate Buildup tab. |
| Is this intentional or an oversight? | It's Fort Carson Colorado | ||
| RFP | Will the government permit 10 point font, Times New Roman, for graphics and tables? | Tables and figures shall be 12pt font. | |
| Attachment 4 | What is the significance of the highlighted cells (B14:D14, B27:D27, B42:D42) on this tab? | There is no significance of the highlighted cells; Spreadsheet updated to remove highlights. | |
| Attachment 4 | Operations SE Sr (Tampa), Intelligence SE Sr (Tampa), Tactical SE Mid(JBLM), Tactical SE Sr(JEB), and Tactical SE Sr(JBLM) all have more FTEs allocated on the Attachment 4 FFP tab than are listed in the PWS. Can the government please advise the correct number of FTEs per LCAT and location? | Attachment 4 has been updated to accurately reflect the FFP and CPFF positions for each LCAT. Confusion was caused by some PWS positions being spread out in the document (ie Tampa Intel Senior being the Master Trainer). | |
| Attachment 4 | CLINS 0001 and 0002 have the same description, what methodology drives the CPFF vs FFP allocation for labor? Should bidders assume positions not allocated by the government as FFP are to be CPFF? | The FTE for FFP and CPFF is different. |
The current total FTE expectation is 183 of which 93 of the 183 are FFP. The remaining are CPFF. The expectation is the vendor may reduce the 90 CPFF over time as positions are cross trained.
| Attachment 4 | CLIN 0003 is listed ODCs, however on the CPFF tabs GSSE two and three domain labor is allocated to CLIN 0003. Should this be CLIN 0002? Are lines 131-134 for labor premiums, new labor categories, or some other direct labor cost? | CLIN 00004 is listed as ODCs; lines 131-134 indicates indirect calculations. However, lines may change based If a position/LCAT will be performed/proposed by multiple Offerors, please insert additional row by coping/paste (insert copied cell) function (ex: if Prime and 2 subs, insert additional 2 rows and identify the LCAT, Location, # hours, # FTE, etc.). Keep proposal as close to the template as possible, but change it as needed to accurately reflect all costs. |
| RFP | Can the government clarify the specifics of the "Individual Training Plans" referenced? Specifically does the government desire an approach for user training, contractor training, or both. Can the government clarify their use of "…ensuring all personnel are properly trained..." to mean users, contractor personnel, or both? | Individual training plans for contractors on this contract to achieve the Cross Learning Environment requirements in PWS 3.0 |
| PWS | How many hours is considered one Man-Year? | One FTE is considered 1872 unless proposed otherwise based on fringe benefits offered to its employees (2080-88 holiday-120 PTO, etc.). This number should be used to calculate both FFP and CPFF. |
| PWS | Can the government confirm that the Senior Intelligence SE must have at least 8 years of experience managing FSEs and teams geographically dispersed when there does not seem to be a requirement for this LC to conduct geographic management of multiple teams? | 6 years managing across geographical locations and 2 years managing FSE is acceptable. |
| PWS | Can the government clarify their intent for SEs to provide "Help Desk" support? Does the government desire a separate Help Desk capability (24/7) within the program across all domains or, does the government require the program SEs to integrate with the SITEC Consolidated Service Desk for Tier 1, 2, and 3 support or, does the government desire that each SE be available 24/7 for help desk support to thier customers? | Help Desk will not be integrated with SITEC CSD. SE Help Desk support will be at each Component Depot location. |
| PWS | Can the government please provide the development protocols in place to support Software Development and Developmental Testing (DT)? Does the government require on site support from SEs for DT? If so, can the government please provide the #pax and #DTs annually that will require onsite support. | DT is conducted by Maintentance Software Developers (Para 3.0.5.2) and does not require SE support.There is no set # DTs required annually. | |
| PWS | Can the government confirm that the offeror is only required to provide the offeror's recommended Master Trainer(s)/ Exercise Lead credentials, background, and | ||
| experience and is not required to provide a recommended Master Trainer(s) and Exercise Lead Coordinator by name. | Do not provide names | ||
| RFP | Will all 180+ positions be available at transition or is the government expecting a phased transition based on end dates for the contracts that are being consolidated under the GSSE effot? If the government expects a phased approach, can the government clarify the number of FTEs from incumbent contracts that will be availabel during the transition period? Also can the government provide an expectation when the remiander of incumbent contract FSEs will be available for transition? | Offeror should plan to transition all FFP postions at contract start. Expect phased transition approach for CPFF positions (See attachment 4 for specific numbers). The incumbents will be available to the offeror at time of transition. | |
| PWS | Does the government expect the contractor to develop GSSE two and three tier during transition or is there a timeline the government anticipates those specialized GSSE SEs are available and integrated into the program? | Cross trained GSSEs are expected in out years and it is up to the contractor to propose. | |
| PWS | Has the government developed a mapping against the five legacy contracts and which of those postions are transitoning to the new contract? If so, can the government provide those numbers? Can the government provide the number of net new postions supporting this new contract? | Offerors should use the PWS to verify number of positions required. Incumbent contracts are: |
| • | MPSE: H9241522F0004 - Sawdey Solution Services |
| • | GFSE: H9240420F0286 - Belcan |
| • | SOA-STS: H92241-17-D-0003 - Cruz, Inc |
| • | C2MS III: 47QTCK18D0039 - PSI |
| PWS | Is there exsisting FSE sustainment training course materials available from Legacy contracts? Can the government confirm that the course materical will be made available during transition? | We have GFSE training materials on the legacy effort and can make them available upon contract award during the transition period. |
| RFP | Will the Government clarify which elements of the Administrative Volume belong in the Administrative Gates section, which is constrained to 10 pages? | Correct Adminitrative gates are incuded in the 10-page limit |
| RFP | Section L.1.2 states, "An approved Department of Defense Security Agreement (DD Form 441/441-1) must be provided with proposal submittal as proof of current Facility Clearance." |
| This form does not indicate an Offeror's Facility Clearance Level (FCL). Instead, will the Government accept an export of an Offeror's Facility Profile from NISS, which indicates the Offeror's FCL? | Please provide an export from NISS along with the DD form 441-1 | ||
| RFP | What evaluation criteria will the Government use to determine the adequacy of the offeror's and subcontractor’s description of how they satisfy the NIST requirements? | Offerors should state they will comply with NIST SP 800-171 security requirements, and ensure subcontractors will do the same. Offerors should have an assessment of their compliance submitted to SPRS in accordance with DFARS 252.204-7019. | |
| RFP | What evaluation criteria will the government use to determine the adequacy of the offeror's and subcontractor’s descriptions of how they justify their SPRS score? | Offerors can simply submit proof of their SPRS scores rather than a justification of why they received their score. | |
| RFP | Would the Government please clarify language in section L.1.4 that states “Possess a SPRS National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171 Assessment rating of 75 or greater.” Should NIST 800-171 compliance and SPRS Assessment score be discussed separately, as indicated in the table on pg. 67? | No, that is an oversite. NIST and SPRS are discussed together | |
| RFP | Section L.1.5 states “All Offerors, to include the Prime Contractor and any Subcontractors, are required to safeguard covered defense information and implement the security requirements specified by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171. Specifically, to comply with safeguarding covered defense information and NIST security requirements, Offerors must satisfy the requirements and procedures stated in provisions 252.204-7008, and 252.204-7019 at the time of proposal submission to be considered for award.” Will the Government permit open POAMs in a contractor’s NIST 800-171 implementation or must all POAMs be closed? | Offerors may submit open POAMs for evaluation by the government team and should ensure they follow the procedures outlined in DFARS 252.204-7019(c). If an offeror has open actions/milestones in its POAM it should outline a clear plan to close these prior to contract award. | |
| RFP | Section L.2.1 requires Offerors to describe "relocation," "planned number of new hire personnel," and "OCONUS positions to hire or transition" as part of the Transition and Integration Plan. As it stands, only the incumbents have the information to satisfy this requirement. To level the playing field, will the Government please provide the current staffing disposition of the incumbent contractors, including the location of personnel, labor categories? | Offerors should use the PWS to verify number of positions required. Incumbent contracts are: |
| • | MPSE: H9241522F0004 - Sawdey Solution Services |
| • | GFSE: H9240420F0286 - Belcan |
| • | SOA-STS: H92241-17-D-0003 - Cruz, Inc |
| • | C2MS III: 47QTCK18D0039 - PSI |
| RFP | What resources are available for training, today? | Incumbent Master trainers will have training materials they can provide in transition. |
| RFP | The Government requires Offerors to provide a "Training plan to increase performance of GSSE support by establishing a cross learning environment (PWS Sections 3.0 & 4.9), with proposed efficiencies." Will the Government confirm that a Cross Learning Environment does not exist today? | Government confirms a cross learning evnironment is a new initiative that does not exist. |
| RFP | If a Cross Learning Environment does exist, on what network is it hosted? | 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. It does not refer to a hosted network environment. |
| RFP | Will the Cross Learning Environment be hosted on a Government network? | 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. It does not refer to a hosted network environment. |
| RFP | What Classification level does the Cross Learning Environment need to be? | 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. It does not refer to a hosted network environment. |
| RFP | If the Cross Learning Environment is not hosted on a Government network, should Offerors price this separately? | Cross learning environment is not hosted on a network, it is a methodology |
| RFP | If an Offeror is proposing tools and/or novel technologies for the Cross Learning Environment, how should Offerors price this? | Offerors may edit the pricing model as needed to propose additional costs. |
| RFP | Are there existing training materials for each domain/system, or are offerors expected to produce this from scratch? | Some training materials exist and will be provided to the awardee, however, offerors will be expected to produce training materials. |
| RFP | L.3.2 ends with "Verification includes the use of Contract Performance Assessment Ratings (CPARs). submitted to the Government Agency/Business that can verify the past performance submitted." This is unclear; are offerors supposed to provide CPARs with this proposal? | The period was a typo, wording has been updated. |
| RFP | If Offerors are required to provide CPARs with this response, will the Government exempt them from page limitations since the reports are multiple pages long? | Yes, CPARS may be exempt from the page limit |
| RFP | How will the Government evaluate past performance submitted from Agencies that do not use CPARS? | Past Performance that does not have CPARS will still be evaluated in accordance with M.2 of section M. |
| RFP | Travel is required to various OCONUS hazardous/non-hazardous locations. In order to provide an accurate quote for DBA insurance, Offerors are required to know which hazardous/non-hazardous OCONUS locations, the length of each deployment, and which labor categories will be deployed. We understand that providing this information to Offerors is unreasonable. |
| Is it acceptable that Offerors provide the percentage rate based on OCONUS locations specified in the RFP? | Yes, it is acceptable that Offerors provide the percentage rate based on OCONUS locations specified in the RFP. | ||
| RFP | M.2.3 states "Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use data | ||
| obtained from other sources." What other sources might the Government use? | DCMA, DCAA, BLS, GSA, etc. | ||
| Attachment 4 | The solicitation does not specify how many labor hours to bid per employee. The formulas in the CPFF tabs in the workbook use 2080 hours per person. To ensure fair bidding and equal comparison between Offerors, and to prevent any underbidding by shorting the number of labor hours per employee, will the Government indicate how many annual labor hours Offerors should bid for each FTE? | One FTE is considered 1872 unless proposed otherwise based on fringe benefits offered to its employees (2080-88 holiday-120 PTO, etc.). This number should be used to calculate both FFP and CPFF. | |
| Attachment 4 | The FFP tab lists 6 FTE for Operations SE - Senior in Tampa. However, the PWS and the Required Skillls_Qualifications tab of Attachment 4 only list 3 Operations SE - Senior FTE in Tampa. Could the Government confirm how many Operations SE - Senior FTE should be assigned to Tampa? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify the number of positions, LCATs, and locations for both CPFF and FFP positions. Confusion was caused as the PWS lists Operations SE - Seniors in multiple places in the PWS (ie Master Trainer in Tampa). | |
| Attachment 4 | The FFP tab lists 1 FTE for Intelligence SE - Senior in Tampa. However, the PWS and the Required Skillls_Qualifications tab of Attachment 4 do not list any FTE for Intelligence SE - Senior in Tampa.. Instead, those documents state that there should be 1 Intelligence SE - Senior at Camp Smith. Could the Government confirm the number and location of all Intelligence SE - Senior FTE? | The current total FTE expectation is 183 of which 93 of the 183 are FFP. The remaining are CPFF. The expectation is the vendor may reduce the 90 CPFF over time as positions are cross trained. | |
| Attachment 4 | The FFP tab lists 6 FTE for Tactical SE - Mid in JBLM. However, the PWS and the Required Skillls_Qualifications tab of Attachment 4 only list 5 Tactical SE - Mid FTE in JBLM. Could the Government confirm the number and location of all Tactical SE - Mid FTE? | Attachment 4 has been updated to clearly identify the number of positions, LCATs, and locations for both CPFF and FFP positions. JBLM now has 4 FFP and 1 CPFF Tactical SE - Mid |
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 .