HDTRA1-20-R-0002 Draft RFP Questions and Answers PA.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 76 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DTRA A&AS PMO Draft RFP Q&A Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HDTRA1-20-R-0002
- Issued by
- Defense Threat Reduction Agency
About this file
This document contains answers to questions submitted in reference to the draft request for proposal HDTRA1-20-R-0002 for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's A&AS Program Management Office. The answers clarify requirements for the proposal, including page limits and formats for resumes, past performance, and cost submissions. They also provide details on evaluation criteria, the anticipated period of performance start date, seating requirements, and network access. The responses aim to ensure offerors have the necessary information to develop compliant and evaluable proposals for the PMO services solicited.
View the file
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
| Question # | Reference | Question Cat | Question | Comments | Answer |
| 1 | Section M.2.3 Factor 2 - Past Performance | Contract | Section M.2.3 Factor 2 states - The evaluation criteria for magnitude of a past performance reference is to compare the reference to the estimated cost per year of this effort (estimated at $25M-$34M per year). Since this effort is a SB set aside for companies with a 5 year annual revenue average of $16.5M, it will be almost impossible for a SB Prime to have a contract with this annual value as a reference. Suggest removing cost estimate, however, still requiring previous Prime contracting experience managing both large and small subcontractors. | Real concern on DTRA part is reduction of risk. Risk to DTRA can be mitigated a number of ways: 1) Letter from Prime's funding institution providing Line of Credit (LOC) equal to a minimum of 4x's monthly billing. This assures payroll for Prime and Sub in case there is an issue at contract start-up. (For example, contractor employees are on boarded and receive company specific training T-5, work starts day 1 T+1, 30 to 45 days later first invoice is issued T+45, 30 to 45 days later invoice paid T+45. Total time from initial cost to contractor to payment may be 95 to 100 days.) Funding institutions will not issue LOC without established credit worthiness of company. | |
| 2 | Attachment 1 - PWS | Technical | Section 5.2 states that the contractor shall provide portfolio/programmatic management support, to include financial and policy personnel expertise as defined in PWS 4.2, to fulfill these tasks, to the RD Directorate. The reference PWS 4.2 is the Place of Performance. Where is the definition of the desired expertise? | Discussion during 1:1 regarding Earned Value Management and sub-parts Basis of Estimate and Work Breakdown Structure, suggested that since this is a services contract EVM, would not be part of the financial requirements. In a services contract, EVM adds significant cost and very little value. We ask that all reference to EVM, BOE and WBS be removed. | |
| 3 | HDTRA1-20-R-002 Solicitation | The PWS in financial tasking references EVMS, the flow down clause references BOE, since this is a services contract, can we assume DTRA contracting would get a waiver for EVMS requirements | Ref: Proposal Adequacy Checklist, page: 70/72 | ||
| 4 | PMO Job Descriptions | Technical | The Program Integrator job description refers to C-IED five times. C-IED is not in the PWS and recent decisions have transferred the C-IED mission to the U.S. Army, however, Countering improvised threat networks (CTN) would be the proper focus for the program integrator. Should CTN replace C-IED in the Program Integrator job description? | During the 1:1's it was stated that this was an old job description and C-IED would be replaced with CTN. In further discussions with DTRA TT organization, it was obvious that executive agency for the "delivery mechanism" - IED or UAS- was moving to the Army, the payload and the network necessary to build the improvised threat was remaining with DTRA. For this reason, it remains important to capture CTN. | |
| 5 | Section L.5.6 Government Estimates | Technical | This section states for the purposes of cost estimation, assume that desk stations for 89 personnel will be located at the Defense Threat Reduction Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. A table below this indicates 56 seats are at DTRA NCR which includes Fort Belvoir and Reston. For pricing purposes, will the government provide actual seats available at each location and include if any seats are at the DTRA SME proximal contractor facility? | During our 1:1 it became clear that there are "contracted" seats - seats that Gov is currently contractually obligated to provide to contractors. It was also made known that the Gov actually makes more seats available than "contracted". The Gov understands that they need to provide clearer direction to include: 1) Location 2) ~ FTE required 3) Seats available, thereby allowing the contractor to understand other facility requirements. | |
| 6 | Section L.5.6 Government Estimates | Technical | The last table in this section details the FTE of clearance types across departments projected FY21-25. This table shows a total FTE of 342. Will the government explain this table with respect to the Total FTE count on each effort - PMO and SME. The draft PMO total is 131 and the draft SME Tech total is 72? | During 1:1 clarity was brought to this chart that 342 was for both SME Technical and PMO contracts. Does this number stay constant? We believe some of the SME Technical PM's incorrectly in PMO draft. Also, some of the policy support may also be contained within the SME Technical instead of the PMO, based on requirement. Our calculations offer an FTE split of approximately 140 PMO and 200 SME. Can Government clarify? | |
| 7 | Section L.5.6.1 Estimated A&AS workforce | Technical | The total anticipated value ranges shown in the table appear too high for FTE of 131 and too low for FTE of 342. CLINs 001, 002 and 003 which make up the labor for the base year total to $46.9M - $53.6M. This results in a fully burdened cost per FTE of $358K - $409K. Will the government review this and provide the expected ranges? | See comments above. Adding the Estimated Value Range of PMO and SME per the current Section L's and dividing by 342 FTE provide a understandable estimate. | |
| 8 | Section L.5.4 Cost or Pricing Information | Technical | This section requires the offeror to provide a detailed cost proposal for accomplishing the PWS requirements in accordance with the offeror's technical/management approach. By not providing a specified level of effort by labor category, the government is providing the incumbent with an advantage since they know the current level of effort. For cost comparison purposes, will the government consider providing a detailed level of effort that each offeror will price? | As discussed in our 1:1, we are not asking for this at an LCAT level, but rather an activity level. This allows creativity within technical approach but keeps the competitive range intact | |
| 9 | Section L.5.6 | Contract | This section says to use a current estimated start date of 1 November 2020. Is the offeror expected to use 1920 hours per FTE starting on 1 Nov 20 or does the 1920 hours start on 7 April 2021. | This is very confusing as we anticipate a great number of badge flipping as well as incumbent use (our Large Subcontractor(s) are incumbent. How do we ensure that Gov is not paying/budgeting for same FTE twice? If this is removed, does incumbent have an benefit? What are you trying to accomplish - pricing comparison? Then all would need to compute at 1920 hour immediately. | |
| 10 | Section L.2.7 | Contract | This section states the offeror's facility should be able to store documents up to the SECRET level at the end of the transition period. Is this facility required to be within the 6 mile proximal radius or is storage capability at the contractor's facility allowed regardless of where the contractor facility is located? | During 1:1 it was discussed that facility could be outside of the 6 mile radius, and in fact, contractor employees may work from home or may be situated with SME Prime contractor and that Safeguarding could be at the SME Prime contractor. | |
| 11 | Section L.4.3 | Contract | This section states the offeror should identify a maximum of five references for the prime offeror. | If the small business Prime contractor utilizes Class Deviation 2019-O0003 Similarly Situated Small Business, allowing several small businesses to make up the 51% small business requirement, it is requested that the Small Business Prime must show previous Prime Contract past performance and Line of Credit - total Small Business Similarly situated team, would have a total of 5 Past Performances AND a established teaming agreement with performance guarantee between the small businesses. The "other than similarly situated small business subcontractors may submit a total of 3 Past Performance. This gives you a total of 8 Past Performances (5 Similarly Situated Small Businesses and 3 other than small) | |
| 12 | Section L.5.3.4.3 Accounting System | Contract | If the offeror is a joint venture, they will not have an approved accounting system as the joint venture since the joint venture is unpopulated. If one of the partners has an approved accounting system, is this sufficient to meet the approved accounting system criteria? | Again, we believe that the Prime Offerer must have approved accounting system. There is significant risk to unpopulated joint venture with understanding of what entity manages accounting practices/system and there is considerable added cost. How is past performance handled - if you allow joint venture partners to each submit past performance - you are actually doing the same as we are requesting for Similarly Situated Small Business - but you do not have a designated Prime which adds risk over similarly situated small business. Would also strongly suggest that you would require a line of credit for any allowed joint venture. | |
| 13 | L.4.3 Present and Past Performances | Contract | This sections states a maximum of 3 references for other divisions, subcontractors, teaming contractors, or joint venture partners for which utilization is proposed. Please clarify with respect to subcontractors - is it an overall total of 3 references from all subcontractors or a maximum of 3 references from each proposed subcontractor. For example if a Prime has 3 proposed subcontractors - can the proposal include a maximum of 9 subcontractor references (up to 3 per subcontractor) or only a total of 3? | During our 1:1 we discussed this an believe the intent of DTRA A&AS is to receive a total of no more than 8 past performance - 5 for Prime/Similarly Situated Small Business Team/Small Business Joint Venture and 3 total for other than Prime/Similarly Situated Small Business Team/Small Business Joint Venture. Again, we must state that it is important the your Prime/Similarly Situated Small Business Team/Joint Venture - be allowed a total of 5 past performance and it does not fall only on the Prime within that category. | |
| 14 | L.4.3 Present and Past Performances | Contract | If the offeror has a team of similarly situated small businesses to support the 51% small business set-aside requirement, with teaming agreements in place, may the Similarly situated small businesses collectively submit a total of 5 references and a maximum of 3 references for the large business subs. | During 1:1 this was discussed as being very important and the best way for you to get a full understanding of the Prime teams ability to perform. We also strongly suggest that in addition to the 5 Past Performances from the Similarly situated small business to mitigate risk we suggest LOC from Prime and Prime must show that they have experience as a Prime contractor and has required approved accounting systems and infrastructure to execute on contract. | |
| 15 | PWS 5.5 | This appears to contain SME level support (S&T Support), should this below in this PWS or the SME PWS? Or should it be in both pending specific S&T tasks. | It appears that there needs to be rebalancing of FTE's and movement of S&T SME level support to SME PWS. | ||
| 16 | PWS 9.0 | Facilities/Government Furnished Equipment: “If only 67 DTRA-provided notebook computers are made available, will there be requirements for the standard equipment (computers) the contractor provides to the remaining personnel?” (Trying to figure out how many contractor will have to provide and if a minimum standard will be expected of the equipment provided) | Our understanding after the 1:1 is that the cost for these computers is charged under ODC and that the Government provides configuration of computers. This is treated as GFE that is purchased by contractor and then inventoried and transferred to Gov GFE. | ||
| 17 | L3.3.2.1 | What information does the note on page 17 refer to that should be included in Volume 1? | |||
| 18 | Contract | Will the selection committee be the same and work together for both SME and PMO opportunity to evaluate the realism of the ACA requirement? | |||
| 19 | Para 5 | What is the nature of the Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA)? Is there a prescribed format or expected contents listing or a template? | |||
| 20 | Para 5.1 | Interpreted to mean full staff is expected to be ready to commence work at the time of Award? | This goes back to transition plan and November 1 start date versus April 2021 start date. Need clarity. | ||
| 21 | Para 5.12, .13, .14 | Surge personnel - considering the short term specialized skills requirement, the cost of these personnel will be higher. Will increased billing just for these personnel be negotiated? | |||
| 22 | Para 7.1 | Is there no direct reimbursement for the costs of elevated security clearances (polygraph)? Costs will have to be recouped through increased monthly labor billing | |||
| 23 | Para 10.3.1 | how is a CDR 'validated'? Is there a meeting and discussion, with a consensus outcome? Who can prepare and submit a CDR? | |||
| 24 | How many day is DTRA going to allow for RFP draft and submittal? | We would like to see 45-60 days. | |||
| 25 | PWS | The PWS is missing para 5.9, is this a typo? If not, please provide paragraph 5.9 |
| 1 | Section M.2.3 Factor 2 - Past Performance | Contract | Section M.2.3 Factor 2 states - The evaluation criteria for magnitude of a past performance reference is to compare the reference to the estimated cost per year of this effort (estimated at $25M-$34M per year). Since this effort is a SB set aside for companies with a 3 or 5 year annual revenue average of $16.5M, it will be almost impossible for a SB Prime to have a contract with this annual value as a reference. Will the government change this magnitude comparison or consider changing the NAICS to 541715 with a size standard of 1000 FTE which will most likely result in Past Performances which meet the $25M - $34M range? |
| 2 | Attachment 1 - PWS | Technical | Section 5.2 states that the contractor shall provide portfolio/programmatic management support, to include financial and policy personnel expertise as defined in PWS 4.2, to fulfill these tasks, to the RD Directorate. The reference PWS 4.2 is the Place of Performance. Where is the definition of the desired expertise? |
| 3 | Section L.5.5 | Contract | DTRA Clause 252.216-9005 does not allow fee on travel and ODCs. Is a Prime allowed to put fee on a subcontractor's labor since this is related to the PWS and the prime is allowed to put fee on the PWS items? |
| 4 | PMO Job Descriptions | Technical | The Program Integrator job description refers to C-IED five times. C-IED is not in the PWS and recent decisions have transferred the C-IED mission to the U.S. Army. Does C-IED belong in the Program Integrator job description? |
| 5 | Section L.5.6 Government Estimates | Technical | This section states for the purposes of cost estimation, assume that desk stations for 89 personnel will be located at the Defense Threat Reduction Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. A table below this indicates 56 seats are at DTRA NCR which includes Fort Belvoir and Reston. For pricing purposes, will the government provide actual seats available at each location and include if any seats are at the DTRA SME proximal contractor facility? |
| 6 | Section L.5.6 Government Estimates | Technical | The last table in this section details the FTE of clearance types across departments projected FY21-25. This table shows a total FTE of 342. Will the government explain this table with respect to the Total FTE count on each effort - PMO and SME? The draft PMO total is 131 and the draft SME Tech total is 72. |
| 7 | Section L.5.6.1 Estimated A&AS workforce | Technical | The total anticipated value ranges shown in the table appear to be incorrect for a FTE level of 131. CLINs 001, 002 and 003 which make up the labor for the base year total to $46.9M - $53.6M. This results in a fully burdened cost per FTE of $358K - $409K. Will the government review this and provide the expected ranges? |
| 8 | Section L.5.4 Cost or Pricing Information | Technical | This section requires the offeror to provide a detailed cost proposal for accomplishing the PWS requirements in accordance with the offeror's technical/management approach. By not providing a specified level of effort by labor category, the government is providing the incumbent with an advantage since they know the current level of effort. For cost comparison purposes, will the government consider providing a detailed level of effort that each offeror will price? |
| 9 | Section L.5.6 | Contract | This section says to use a current estimated start date of 1 November 2020. Is the offeror expected to use 1920 hours per FTE starting on 1 Nov 20 or does the 1920 hours start on 7 April 2021? |
| 10 | Section L.2.7 | Contract | This section states the offeror's facility should be able to store documents up to the SECRET level at the end of the transition period. Is this facility required to be within the 6 mile proximal radius or is storage capability at the contractor's facility allowed regardless of where the contractor facility is located? |
| 11 | Section L.4.3 | Contract | This section states the offeror should identify a maximum of five references for the prime offeror. If the offeror is a joint venture made up of 2 partners with no present of past performance as a joint venture, may the partners collectively submit a total of 5 references - the references provided will be a total of 5 - i.e. 3 from one and 2 from the other, etc.? |
| 12 | Section L.5.3.4.3 Accounting System | Contract | If the offeror is an unpopulated joint venture, they will not have an approved accounting system as the joint venture. If one of the partners has an approved accounting system, is this sufficient to meet the approved accounting system criteria? |
| 13 | L.4.3 Present and Past Performances | Contract | This sections states a maximum of 3 references for other divisions, subcontractors, teaming contractors, or joint venture partners for which utilization is proposed. Please clarify with respect to subcontractors - is it an overall total of 3 references from all subcontractors or a maximum of 3 references from each proposed subcontractor. For example if a Prime has 3 proposed subcontractors - can the proposal include a maximum of 9 subcontractor references (up to 3 per subcontractor) or only a total of 3? |
| 1 | Section L.5.3.4.3, pg. 21, para 1 | Contract | Draft RFP Section L.5.3.4.3 indicates a requirement for prime offerors to have an accounting system that has been approved by DCAA at the time of award to be eligible for award. Many small businesses under the $16.5M NAICS have not had their accounting system reviewed by a government agency, and this requirement would be a barrier to entry. Would an SF 1408 (Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System) provided by an independent accounting firm be acceptable as evidence of an adequate accounting system? |
| 2 | Section L, M and PWS | Contract/Technical | Solicitation lacks specificity on staffing needs and alignment with the PWS and six departments/front office. Would the government consider providing the specific number of personnel required at the start of work and labor categories for all offerors to propose? |
| 3 | Section L.5.6.2, pg. 26, para 1 and pg. 27, para 1 | Contract | Draft RFP states "For travel requirements, use the plug numbers listed below with no deviation…. Applicable burdens are included and therefore shall not be applied to the amounts provided in the table." Further in the section it states "Any indirect rates associated with travel shall be applied by the offeror to the base-line amounts above to arrive at the total proposed travel cost." Please provide clarification as to whether or not the plug amounts include applicable burdens/indirect rates. |
| 4 | Sections L.1.3.8, pg. 8, para 1 / L.5.6.1, pg. 23, para 1 | Contract/Technical | Section L.5.6.1 provides three separate CLINs with anticipated values: RDT&E Programmatic A&AS Services, RD PMO O&M and CBDP RDT&E Programmatic A&AS Services. Section L.1.3.8 states that offerors shall differentiate the Operations and Maintenance costs from the Research and Development. Is it the government's intent to receive proposed costs by the CLINs provided in L.5.6.1? |
| 5 | Sections L, M and the PWS | Contract/Technical | The DRFP lacks specificity that enables non-incumbent offerors to accurately link/crosswalk LCATs, CLINs, Clearances, Locations, PWS Tasks and gov't station availability. Without this level of insight, we doubt that any single non-incumbent offeror has the insight to accurately staff, price and develop a management plan to effectively and efficiently execute this requirement. With this level of information, a good number of reputable small businesses can execute this requirement. As part of the final RFP, can the government provide a cross walk that clearly indicates staffing needs by positions that included LCAT (even if historical), Level (Sr., Mid, Jr), Location, directorate supported, clearance requirements, onsite/offsite, PWS Task(s) Supported, and aligns to which CLIN? |
| 6 | Section L | Contract/Technical | What is the specific number of personnel required at the Start of Work? |
| 7 | PWS, Section L and M | Contract/Technical | The DRFQ Lacks the specificity that would permit an offeror from analyzing the PWS requirements and determining the appropriate number of staff required to perform that task. (e.g. 5.2.1 states "Provide programmatic and technical domain support (CBRNE, CWMD, C-IT, CTN) to the RD Directorate, Departments and Divisions, to ensure all programmatic and portfolio management activities are supported at the Directorate, Front Office, Department, Division and program levels to include the following activities." As an illustrative example, The PWS does not indicate the # of programs supported, the number of activities required, and the # of deliverables. All of which are required to accurately and efficiently staff the requirement. Therefore, would the government provide specific staffing needs? |
| 1 | PWS 5.2; 5.2.1 Bullet 2 and Bullet 14 sub-bullet 1; 5.2.3 Bullet 4; 5.2.5.3 and 4.1 | Technical | Section 5.2 has many references to technical skills expertise required, as one example, "The portfolio/programmatic management and policy personnel shall also include the technical/operational expertise/background for the specific mission domain (CBRNE, CWMD, C-IT, CTN) required to complete the tasks in a timely and quality fashion.”, there are many others . The TPM resume referenced in support of RD CB does not call out any technical education required. These technical skill requirements are not support by the Disciplines listed in PWS 4.1. Will the Government remove technical skill requirements from the PMO PWS as these will be provided by the SME contract? | ||
| 2 | L.5.6.1 Estimated A&AS Workforce, first table Range of Value | Contract | Given the size and scope of this effort (~$260M over 5 years (without Surge efforts) and approaching 200 FTE), there is a significant risk to the government putting an small company with no experience or past performance executing a contract of this size. Will the Government consider a NAICS code that allows for a larger cap? Will the government reassess aligning SME personnel assigned to PMO to the S&T SME contract to which would allow this effort to be more manageable for a SB and consolidate technical SMEs under one contract? | ||
| 3 | PWS 4.1; 5.2.1; 5.7 | Technical | Para 4.1 DISCIPLINES does not list Foreign Military Sales (FMS) support as a required discipline but Paras 5.2.1 and 5.7 have bullets requiring this support in detail. Our experience is that this is a complex and specialized policy area. Will the Government add FMS experience as a discipline in para 4.1.? | ||
| 4 | PWS 5.2.1 | Technical | Bullet 7 describes the requirement to "Ensure that each component part of the portfolio/ program is properly integrated to meet DOD and DTRA level requirements". Can the government clarify it's expectations for integrating the portfolio? | ||
| 5 | PWS 5.2.1 | Technical | Bullet 14, sub-bullet 8: Can the government clarify the scope of the "materials" subject to the quality control process? | ||
| 6 | PWS 5.2.5.3 | Technical | 5.2.5.3 Acquisition Strategy Expertise Support enumerates acquisition support but does not include proposal evaluation support. Is this function purposely excluded? | ||
| 7 | PWS 5.2.8 | Technical | 5.2.8 Strategic Planning and Communications: Bullet 5 - Apply knowledge gained through SME contractor or programmatic contractor support provided at the Agency level to ASD (NCB) and other DTRA customers or stakeholders, as appropriate. This sentence is confusing. Is it asking the contractor to use information gained from another DTRA Agency-level contract? Can the Government specify which contracts they are referring to? | ||
| 8 | PWS 5.4 | Technical | 5.4 Financial Management (FM) Support: The contractor shall provide financial management support ... using the approved DoD, DTRA financial management tools (Joint Service Chemical Biological Information System (examples: JSCBIS), Spend Plan Management and Reporting Tool (SMART), and Defense Agency Initiative (DAI)). (page 13) A&AS contractors are currently restricted access to these systems. Is it DTRA RD's intent to allow A&AS contractors access to JSCBIS, DAI and SMART to query data and or enter data? | ||
| 9 | PWS 5.8 | Technical | 5.8 Studies Management: "Maintain sufficient staff trained in decision-making techniques and Lean Six Sigma (LSS) certified to meet customer needs." LSS certification is provided through numerous organizations from commercial enterprises to academia. Would this be better to say LSS experienced? Will the Government provide an estimated number of LSS personnel needed? | ||
| 10 | L.1.2 - Table Proposal Organization | Technical | Section L.1.2 provides 30 pages in the Technical Volume to address the M.2.2.2 evaluation criteria to "effectively manage and meet the requirements of the contract". The PWS covers efforts across six Departments and in over 10 distinct technical areas. Will the Government increase the page count to at least 50 pages to allow the proposer to address each of the PWS areas appropriately to support better evaluation of meeting the requirements by the government? | ||
| 11 | L.1.2 - Table Proposal Organization | Contract | Vol. II, Sub-Factor B - Technical Approach has a page limit of 30 pages. Subordinate to Sub-Factor B are three sub-bulleted areas; Key Personnel Resumes, Sample Resumes, and Sample Challenge/Task; each with page limits. Are the sub-bulleted page limits included in the 30 page Sub-Factor limit or are they additive to the Sub-Factor limit? | ||
| 12 | L.1.2 - Table Proposal Organization; L.3.3.3.1.3 | Contract | Vol. II, Sub-Factor B - Technical Approach, sub-bullet Sample Challenge/Task, has a page limit of 20 pages. L.3.3.3.1.3 Sample Challenge Task indicates that there will be three Technical Challenges. Does the 20 page limit of Table L.1.2 apply to each Sample Challenge, i.e. 20 pages for each Task for a total of 60 pages, or is that a total of 20 pages for all three Tasks? | ||
| 13 | L.1.3.5.1 | Contract | Page size is designated as 8.5 X 11 inches. Will the Government allow the use of fold-out pages (11 X 17 inches) for large tables and graphics? | ||
| 14 | L.2.7 | Contract | This paragraph states "The offeror’s facility should be able to store classified documents up to the SECRET level …". However, there is no facility requirement within this RFP. Does the Government intend to add a facility requirement to this RFP? | ||
| 15 | L.3.3.2.1 | Contract | L.3.3.2.1 Management Approach. Leadership Support: Demonstrates the approach, milestones and team leads to effectively work with RD leadership... and represent RD to the Congress, Department of Defense, other U. S. Government agencies, and leaders and representatives of foreign countries as well as help leaders at all organizational levels to achieve maximum effectiveness in their operations. Current wording (“and represent RD to…”) sounds like the contractor might be performing these functions. Will the Government revise this statement to clarify that contractor support is required for DTRA officials to represent RD to the Congress, Department of Defense…? | ||
| 16 | L.3.3.3.1 | Technical | RD A&AS, functioning as a "trusted agent" with the government must be able to successfully meet the requirements put forth in the PWS. Given that the "people are the product", will the Government request a staffing plan that will provide the ability of the government to determine if an offeror can effectively execute the contract, provide needed skills, experience and integration, and increase risk to both transition and execution. To reduce execution risk, would the government consider including a staffing plan that addresses degrees, years or relevant experience, description of experience and skills (etc.)? | ||
| 17 | L.3.3.3.1 | Technical | L 3.3.3.1 - Limiting Key Personnel to three does not provide the Government with an adequate understanding of how the offeror will "effectively implement the requirements of the contract PWS." Not requiring an Offeror to document their ability to provide key leaders and technical experts will increase the risk to both transition and execution. Will the Government increase Key Personnel to require that, as a minimum, the lead for each Department be considered Key and require that a resume be provided? | ||
| 18 | L.4.3 | Technical | Section L.4.3 allows past performance of up to 5 years old. Will the Government reduce this limit to 3 years to more accurately evaluate a company's capability and past performance relevancy since the CWMD mission space has changed significantly over the last 5 years and company corporate capability degrades significantly after 3 years? | ||
| 19 | L.4.3 and M.2.3 | Contract | Section M.2.3 states: "In determining relevance, consideration will be given to projects similar to this solicitation in scope, magnitude and complexity (including integration requirements and contract/subcontract management) to the range of services required by RD as described in the provided PWS." It will be difficult for SB prime, who is limited to $16.5M/year, to receive a very relevant and substantial confidence rating for their past performance evaluation. Will the Government consider an alternate NAICS code to enable a larger number of small businesses to compete? | ||
| 20 | L.5.3.3 | This paragraph states "The contractor will be responsible for printers, scanners and all other necessary peripheral devices necessary to operate the notebooks in the contractor’s facility." However, there is no requirement for a facility in this RFP. Does the Government intend to require a facility and IT capability from Offerors for this contract? | |||
| 21 | L.5.3.3; L.3.3.2.1 and PWS 9.1 | Contract | L.5.3.3 requires the PMO contractor to "obtaining SIPRNet approval, and complying with DTRA and DoD IA requirements as described in Section L.3.3.2.1." L.3.3.2.1 has no SIPRNet or DTRA/DoD IA requirements listed. PWS 9.1 only address UNET email accounts and makes no mention of internet access. Will the Government clarify what the network access requirements (both SIPRNet and NIPRNet) are for the PMO contractor and harmonize the cited paragraphs? | ||
| 22 | L.5.6.1 | Contract | L.5.6.1 Estimated A&AS, Workforce Program Management (PM)/Financial Management (FM) Support: "Technical Program, Management Program …". Will the Government add Foreign Military Sales expertise as a discipline here? | ||
| 23 | L.5.6.1 Estimated A&AS Workforce, first table Range of Value | Contract | At the lower end of the estimated Range of Value, the contract would appear to have an annual value of almost $47M. As a small business (SB) set aside, the SB prime contractor will graduate to a Large Business based on the current NAICS. Assuming the follow-on will also be a small business set aside, will the prime contractor then be precluded from competing? | ||
| 24 | L.5.6.1 Estimated A&AS Workforce, first table Range of Value | Contract | Given the size and scope of this effort (~$260M over 5 years (without Surge efforts) and approaching 200 FTE), there is a significant risk to the government putting an small company with no experience or past performance executing a contract of this size. Will the Government consider a NAICS code that allows for a larger cap? Will the government relook to align SME personnel assigned to PMO to the S&T SME contract to allow this effort to be more manageable for a SB to succeed? | ||
| 25 | L.5.6.1 Table 2 | Technical | This paragraph lists a range of values for Surge CLINs. Absent a definition of the nature of Surge CLIN requirements will the Government supply a single Surge CLIN plug number to be used for pricing purposes? | ||
| 26 | L.5.6.1 Table 6 | Technical | Table 6 (FTE of clearance types) shows 342 FTE, is this accurate for the PMO contract or does it cover both the SME and PMO? | ||
| 27 | L.5.6.1 Table 6 | Technical | Table 6 (FTE of clearance types) shows 77 FTE in CB, is this accurate for PMO only? | ||
| 28 | L.5.6.1 Table 6 | Contract | L.5.6.1 Estimated A&AS Workforce TS/SCI with Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph (CSP) at 63% for CX and 98% for EC does not seem to match current team configuration or requirements. Could these numbers be reappraised? | ||
| 29 | L.5.6.1 Table 6 | Technical | This paragraph requires a total of 55 individuals to have a TS/SCI CSP clearance which is 14-18% of the workforce. This is a significant increase over the historical 6-8% of the workforce, as shown in Table 5. Is this estimate accurate and is the Government willing to accept the additional cost of this level of clearance? | ||
| 30 | L.5.6; L.5.6.1; PWS 4.2 | Contract | L.5.6 states "assume that desk stations for 89 personnel will be located at the Defense Threat Reduction Center…" L.5.6.1 allocates 60 seats at multiple DTRA locations. PWS 4.2 references only 60 seats spread over multiple DTRA locations. L.5.6 does not address seating at Crystal City while PWS 4.2 references 71 seats. Will the Government clarify the number of seats at each location for planning and pricing purposes? | ||
| 31 | L.6.4 | Contract | Section L.6.4 indicates the offeror shall complete a proposal adequacy checklist. In accordance with DFARS 215.408 (5) the checklist shall be requested when certified cost and pricing data is required. Given that competition is anticipated can the Government confirm offerors are still required to include the checklist in their proposal submission? | ||
| 32 | L.6.6.1; HDTRA1-20-R-0002 DD 254 | Contract | L.6.6.1 Estimated A&AS Workforce indicates that 14-18% of the workforce will require TS/SCI CSP clearances. | ||
| DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DD) FORM 254 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. Will the Government modify the contract DD-254 to address the requirement for TS/SCI CSP clearances? | I don't see Section L.6.6.1 in the PMO RFP. There is a Section L.6.6.1 in the SME RFP. Should this be L.5.6.1? | ||||
| 33 | M.2.2.2.2.3 | Contract | This paragraph is titled Sample Challenge Task. It appears to also include the definitions of several evaluation factors and ratings. This last section should be applied to the entire M.2.2 Factor 1 - Mission Capability. Does the Government intend to insert a new section M.2.2.3 Evaluation Factors in order to indicate that it is applicable to the entire M.2.2 instead of placing the evaluation factor under paragraph M.2.2.2.2.3 Sample Challenge Task? | ||
| 34 | M.3.3 | Contract | This paragraph states "The Government anticipates awarding one contract under full and open competition." DTRA's MEMORANDUM TO OFFERORS, dated January 27, 2020 states ' It is DTRA’s intent at this time to conduct this selection as a small business set aside..." Will the Government clarify if this will be a small business set aside? | Do we need to ask this question it seems the Government has already indicated that is their intent? | |
| 35 | PWS 4.2 | Technical | Para 4.2 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE notes that the government will provide office space for 60 positions at Ft Belvoir and 71 positions at Crystal City. Given our understanding of the pending DTRA organizational changes in FY21 or 22, this allocation seems imbalanced (too heavy at Crystal City). Could this allocation be clarified? | ||
| 36 | PWS 4.2 and 9.0 | Technical | The PWS has no Facilities requirement. Very little detail (no detail) provided on the work site, work conditions for the PMO staff. Is it the intent of the Government that the PMO still collocated with the SME? If so, how many seats can the PMO contract expect to receive at the SME facility? | ||
| 37 | PWS 5.2 and 4.2 | Technical | 5.2 states "The contractor shall provide portfolio/programmatic management support, to include financial and policy personnel expertise as defined in PWS 4.2...". PWS 4.2 is "Place of Performance". What is the correct reference for the portfolio/programmatic management support expertise required by this paragraph? | ||
| 38 | PWS 9.1 | Contract | 9.1 indicates that email accounts will be provided "for the staff that will use the 67 DTRA-provided notebook computers." DTRA emails are currently provided to all A&AS contractors and many contractors have DTRA phone numbers associated with their emails as well. Will this be routine for all PMO contractors or only the 67 who are issued DTRA-provided notebook computers? | ||
| 39 | PWS 9.1 and L.5.3.3 | Contract | 9.0 FACILITIES/GOVERNMENT FURNISHED EQUIPMENT- 9.1 It is assumed that all necessary hardware and software to support the contract shall be installed on the DTRA-provided notebook computers, and DTRA shall provide UNET e-mail accounts for the staff that will use the 67 DTRA-provided notebook computers. Confusing, does this mean only 67 people will get DTRA IT accounts? Does this preclude use of contractor computers? This is in conflict with L.5.3.3 which states "Government intends to provide up to 200 Notebook computers and applicable peripherals". Can the Government clarify the number of notebook computers to be provided? | ||
| 40 | Section- H.1.b; L.2.11.b | Contract | L.2.11 PREAWARD ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCIs) AND OCI MITIGATION PLAN Should the RD A&AS Prime Contractor wish to utilize subcontractors who are not restricted by an IDIQ teaming prohibition, the A&AS Prime contractor shall notify and receive the approval of the DTRA Contracting Officer prior to utilizing any subcontractors in support of CWMD IDIQ evaluation and source selection support. Prior notification and approval is necessary so that the DTRA RFP to the IDIQ contractors can provide the appropriate notifications. Given that all PMO contractors, whether prime or subcontractor, are prohibited from competing on non-A&AS work across the Directorate, is this requirement/restriction necessary? | The prohibition applies to the prime contractor therefore I don't believe we need to ask this question. | |
| 41 | Section- H.1.b; L.2.11.b | Contract | L.2.11 PREAWARD ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCIs) AND OCI MITIGATION PLAN " For the purpose of this requirement, Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) services performed in support of the RD Directorate are considered to be non-A&AS services, and are acquired under separate contract vehicles. The DTRA SE&I support service is defined as the contractor’s capability to integrate diverse and emerging technologies to meet customer needs with a verified product via a systems engineering process." Given that all PMO contractors, whether prime or subcontractor, are prohibited from competing on non-A&AS work across the Directorate, is this requirement/restriction necessary? | I don't think we need to ask this question this was a clarification the Government was providing regarding SE&I services. | |
| 42 | Section K | Contract | The RFP includes FAR 52.222-56, Certification Regarding Trafficking in Persons Compliance Plan. Does the Government require a Plan to be submitted with the proposal? | ||
| 43 | Section-M.2.2.22 | Technical | Section M.2.2.22 The sample resumes evaluation does not adequately demonstrate a company's ability to recruit difficult skills by providing a sample resume that can be obtained off a current performer on the contract via Linked In or other means. A better measure of a company's ability to recruit would be identifying actual employees that have similar knowledge, skills, ability, and expertise at the company. Will the Government consider requiring actual resumes to properly assess an offeror's ability to properly staff the requirements? | ||
| 44 | Solicitation-252.215-9004 Key Personnel (pg. 34 of 71) | Contract | This clause does not limit the number of Key Personnel and says that they are "To be determined by the Government on review of Technical/Management Proposals". Sections L and M both restrict Key Personnel to "no more than three personnel". May Offerors propose more than three key personnel and allow the Government to determine who will be designated as Key Personnel or are Offerors restricted to only proposing three personnel as Key? | ||
| 45 | L.2.4 | In paragraph L.2.4, Government Offices the instructions require the offeror to provide information for their DCMA and DCAA offices to include the prime contractor and major subcontractors. Can the Government define what constitutes a major subcontractor? | |||
| 46 | One-on-One meeting | Based on the feedback from Offerors during the One-on-One meetings with DTRA, there may be significant changes to the Final RFP that will impact the offeror's teaming strategy and technical approach. In the event there are significant changes will the Government consider providing a revised draft RFP prior to the release of the final? |
1 L.1.1.3 Discrepancies Contract Section L.1.1.3 states "If an Offeror believes the solicitation, including the instructions to Offerors, contains an error, omission, or ambiguity, or is otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale at any point prior to the proposal submission deadline."
Q: Would DTRA consider revising "at any point prior to the proposal submission deadline" to a specific date to mitigate changes to the acquisition schedule?
2 Table L.1.2 – Proposal Organization and Section L.4.3 Present and Past Performance References Contract Section L.4.3 Present and Past Performance References reads "For each reference, the offeror shall provide a narrative describing the effort and the results of the Offeror’s performance. For each reference, the Offeror shall complete a Present and Past Performance Information Form (attachment L-1)."
Table L.1.2, Section III reads "5 pages per reference (Narrative and Attachment L-1)".
Q: Are Offerors limited to five (5) combined pages for the Narrative and Attachment L-1, or are Offerors permitted 5 pages each for the narrative and an additional 5 pages for the Attachment L-1?
3 Table L.1.2 – Proposal Organization Contract Table L.1.2, Section III reads "5 pages per reference (Narrative and Attachment L-1)"
Q: Is the page limit 5 pages total for the combination of the Narrative and Attachment L-1, or is the intent to have 5 pages each for the Narrative and an additional 5 pages for the Attachment L-1?
4 L.1.2 ORGANIZATION/DISTRIBUTION/NUMBER OF COPIES/PAGE LIMITS, Paragraph c Contract Paragraph C states "All proposal volumes shall be provided by mail or commercial express or ground carrier only as prescribed in above DTRA Clause 252.204-9000, “Notice to Potential Offerors – Official DTRA Addresses in the National Capital Region (NCR)”."
Q: Are prime offerors permitted to consolidate individual team member submissions within their mail submissions to ensure the complete proposal is provided within one mail carrier package?
5 L.1.2 ORGANIZATION/
DISTRIBUTION/
NUMBER OF COPIES/
| PAGE LIMITS | Contract | Table L.1.2 lists 30 pages next to Sub-Factor B - Technical Approach and then provides additional pages (e.g., 3 pages per resume for Key Personnel) for the subsections. Q: Please confirm that offerors are to provide a technical approach to the entire PWS as part of Sub-Factor B and that offerors have 30 pages to do so in addition to the pages allocated for resumes and the same challenge task(s). | ||
| 6 | L.1.3.5.1 Page Size | Contract | Section L.1.3.5.1 states "Pages shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. Font size shall be twelve (12) point Times New Roman. Lettering within tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be no smaller than ten (10) point Times New Roman. Margins on all four edges of each sheet will be at least one-inch. Proprietary statements, security markings, and page numbers shall be placed within the defined margin area. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. In the event discussions are held, these page format restrictions shall apply to the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs)." Q: Will DTRA allow fold out pages? | |
| 7 | L.1.3.5.1 Page Size | Contract | Section L.1.3.5.1 states "Pages shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. Font size shall be twelve (12) point Times New Roman. Lettering within tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be no smaller than ten (10) point Times New Roman. Margins on all four edges of each sheet will be at least one-inch. Proprietary statements, security markings, and page numbers shall be placed within the defined margin area. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. In the event discussions are held, these page format restrictions shall apply to the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs)." |
Q: Will DTRA allow landscape orientation?
8 L.1.3.5.3 Pages Counted Contract L.1.3.5.3 Pages Counted states "Each page shall be counted except the following:
•past performance questionnaires •past performance questionnaire point of contact list •cover pages •RFP cross-reference matrix •teaming arrangements •letters of commitment •past performance consent letters •client authorization letters •tables of contents •revision matrix •glossaries of abbreviations and acronyms •lists of figures, tables, or drawings •Performance Guarantees •blank pages
Q: Should all pages be numbered sequentially, including numbering of pages not counted?
9 L.1.3.7 Electronic Delivery Contract Paragraph B states "All cost information, with the exception of the cost narrative, must lend itself to review and analysis by the Government and must be submitted in Microsoft Excel format. Offerors shall include formulas and working links (within the workbook), and refrain from hidden columns and field protection (lock), to the maximum extent practicable."
Q: Would DTRA consider providing a cost template for standardization of offeror submissions?
10 L.2.6 TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS AND/OR LETTERS OF COMMITMENT & L.1.3.9 Volume Designation Contract L.1.3.9 states …"teaming arrangements, and letters of commitment which must be submitted in Volume I"; however L.2.6 instructs only that "The Offeror shall provide a matrix of all proposed subcontractors/team members and the specific areas within the PWS for which they will be utilized"
Q: L.2.6 does not provide instruction to include teaming agreements, teaming arrangements or letters of commitment within this section. Would DTRA please clarify the requirement in L.2.6 and L.1.3.9?
11 L.2.7 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DD) FORM 254 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS Contract L.2.7 states "Provide information relative to offeror’s facility clearance and the contact information for the offeror security office. Information relative to subcontractor security requirements shall also be included. Contractor information portions of DD254 should also be completed and included."
Q: Is the intent for offerors to provide the information for the contractor portions of the DD254 within this section of Volume I, or does DTRA expect the DD254 contractor information sections completed and the DD254 furnished in its entirety and incorporated into Volume I?
12 CDRL A008 Database and Source Code and PWS 5.0 Contract CDRL A008 requires delivery of databases, source code, installation packages, licenses and other technical information required to support the use of delivered technologies. CDRL A008 references PWS 5.0, however PWS 5.0 does not include a stated requirement for delivery of source code, installation packages, or licenses.
Q: Could DTRA clarify the requirement found within CDRL A008 as it pertains to source code, installation packages, and licenses?
13 L.2.13 SECTION 508 COMPLIANCE and A&AS CDRLs Attachment Contract CDRL A006 Payment History Report makes specific reference to supporting the requirements found in the Government Product Accessibility Template (GPAT) and meeting Section 508 compliance. CDRL A006 is the only CDRL which includes the GPAT reference and requirement.
L.2.13.2 Section 508 Service Requirements makes reference to "information content deliverables" and "anticipated labor hour deliverables" and further states "Solicitation respondents must describe how their proposed labor hour deliverables meet at least those requirements identified as applicable in the attached GPAT."
Q: Could DTRA please clarify the CDRLs and deliverables that need to meet Section 508 compliance and those that are required to be addressed within Volume I?
14 L.2.13 SECTION 508 COMPLIANCE and M 2.0 Evaluation Criteria Contract L.2.13.3 Section 508 Evaluation Factors states "Offerors shall submit adequate information to document their responsiveness to the Section 508 requirements (i.e. a completed GPAT or VPAT or equivalent). DTRA’s assessment of each offeror’s responsiveness to the Section 508 requirements will be included as part of the Factor 1, Mission Capability Sub Factor 1A evaluation rating."
The evaluation factors found at Section M 2.0 Factor 1,Sub-Factor A: Management Approach do not currently include reference to the evaluation of Section 508 requirements found at Section L.2.13.3.
Q: Could DTRA please clarify the evaluation of Section 508 compliance?
15 L.5.3.4.3 Accounting System Contract L.5.3.4.3 Accounting System requires DCAA audit and findings that the contractor’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to cost-reimbursable awards.
Q: May Offerors provide their DCAA audit report as a separate attachment to Volume IV or as an appendix within Volume IV?
16 L.5.3.3 Government Furnished Property (GFP)/Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Technical Final sentence of this section states: Additionally, the contractor will be responsible for providing sufficient Internet bandwidth for DTRA UNET access, for obtaining SIPRNet approval, and complying with DTRA and DoD IA…
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 .