Draft RFP QandAs.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 60 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DTRA - Assessment, Exercise, and Modeling & Simulation Support Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HDTRA120R0006
- Issued by
- Defense Threat Reduction Agency
About this file
This document outlines questions and responses related to a draft request for proposals for Assessment, Exercise, and Modeling & Simulation Support. Key details include that the opportunity includes two pools, one for large businesses and one set aside for small businesses. Task orders valued at $4 million or less per year will be competed in the small business pool, while those over $4 million will be in the large business pool. The anticipated final RFP release date is end of November 2020, with an award date of mid-September 2021. The total contract ceiling of $850 million will be shared across both pools. A facility security clearance of Top Secret is required for both pools at time of award.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 30
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
HDTRA1R0006
| Assessment Exercise and Modeling & Simulation Support (AEMSS) | |||||||
| Q# | Reference RFP Section | Paragraph No. | Page No.(s) | Question | DTRA Response | ||
| General | 1 | L2.9 Security Requirements – Department of Defense Form 254 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Does DTRA have a position or opinion (formal or informal) regarding facility security clearance requirements of a joint venture (JV) bidding on an opportunity? | In order to be determined to be responsive to the requirements, the Offeror must be compliant with the facility security clearance requirements as stated in the solicitation. | |
| General | 2 | L2.9 Security Requirements – Department of Defense Form 254 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will DTRA consider a JV to have met the minimum facility security clearance requirements if each of the JV members holds the required facility clearance? | The JV's CAGE code must match the CAGE code for the facility clearance. So long as the CAGE code has the appropriate facility clearance, the Offeror will be deemed to possess the required facility clearance. | |
| General | 3 | L2.9 Security Requirements – Department of Defense Form 254 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will DTRA exclude a joint venture from competition based on the JV entity itself lacking a facility clearance even if all member entities of the JV individually hold the appropriate facility clearance? | If the JV entity does not have a TS facility clearance at time of award, the entity will be not be eligible for award. | |
| General | 4 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | What is the purpose of the two pools? | Based on market research, it appears that large businesses are fully capable of performing the entirety of the scope of the SOO. The purpose of the carving out a second pool is to provide a mechanism to set aside requirements for small businesses. DTRA's intention is to also identify a pool of small business that is able to provide effective yet affordable solutions to meet DTRA's requirements. | |
| General | 5 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will all anticipated task orders be competed in both pools or will there be specific task orders competed in each pool? If the latter is the case, please provide an anticipated list of the task orders that will competed in each pool. | Task orders will be competed among the pools based on estimated dollar value of the requirement. Requirements estimated to be $4 million or less per year will be competed among the small pool awardees, whereas, requirements estimated to be greater than $4 million per year will be competed among the large pool awardees. | |
| General | 6 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | Which pool will the following current DTRA task orders fall under? a. PMO b. JMAA c. BSA d. Red Team | The examples in the question represent each different division within the NE-MA Department of the Nuclear Enterprise Directorate and do not represent individual contracts. Current requirements are highly subject to change; therefore, it is not certain as to which pool the requirements will fall under. | |
| General | 7 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | What is the anticipated Final RFP release date and anticipated award date? | The anticipated final RFP release date is the end of November 2020. The anticipated award date is mid September 2021. However, all dates are notional and are subject to change. Please frequently consult Contract Opportunities (beta.sam.gov) for updates of the schedule. | |
| General | 8 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | If you are considered a small business can you compete and be awarded as a Prime for both pools? | Yes | |
| General | 9 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | Can you be a prime in one pool and a sub in another pool? | Yes; however, large businesses may NOT be a prime in the small pool. | |
| General | 10 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | How will the ceiling be divided among the pools? | The ceiling will be shared. As requirements arise, the requirement will be competed among the appropriate pool based on the estimated dollar value of the requirement, and once the requirement is awarded, the ceiling will be decremented by the awarded value including options. The ceiling is decremented as requirements are awarded without regard to which pool the requirement was awarded under. | |
| General | 11 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | Is the requirement for the FCL to be TS or TS with an SCI caveat? | After more discussions with our Security Department, our original plan for the facility security clearance requirements has changed slightly. Contractors proposing under the Large Pool AND Small Pool must have a TS Facility Clearance at time of award. | |
| General | 12 | Small Business Set Aside Procurement | Not Provided | Not Provided | Of the $850M proposed contract ceiling, what is the Governments estimated amount being set aside for small business, 30%, 40%, or 50%? | See Answer to Question #10. | |
| General | 13 | Small Business Set Aside Procurement | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will the Government allow Small Businesses to offer against Large Business Task Order Request for Proposals? | Small Businesses may submit a proposal for the Small Business Pool and the Large Business Pool. However, once the IDIQ contracts have been awarded, the Small Business Pool awardees will not generally be invited to compete for requirements that are being solicited under the Large Business Pool and vice versa. The ordering Contracting Officer may choose to solicit proposals from both pools should special circumstances arise that would warrant such an approach. | |
| General | 14 | General Procurement | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will the Government provide a sample listing of Labor Categories anticipated for this procurement? | DTRA will post samples of previous/current contract PWSes in a Bidder's Library. Please check Contract Opportunities (beta.sam.gov) often for updates. | |
| General | 15 | Volume III IDIQ Past Performance | L4.2 | 34 | Since this Volume is focused on IDIQ Past Performance, recommend the Government clarify that a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) past performance citations provided by the small business prime must all be Multiple Award Task Order IDIQ Contracts (MATOCs). | Past Performance portions of the RFP will be revised completely and will invite submission of no more than (3) Past Performance Questionnaires per subject area identified. There will be seven (7) subject areas/categories assessed for past performance. See sample PPQs (to be posted in Contract Opportunities). | |
| General | 16 | General Procurement | Not Provided | Not Provided | What is the dollar threshold that differentiates between a small and large business task order? | See Answer to Question #5. | |
| General | 17 | Contract Scope | Not Provided | Not Provided | The Government references scope nine (9) times within the draft solicitation, e.g., L.4.2, M1.6, M4.2, etc., will the Government clearly articulate the scope of this procurement? | The scope is delineated in the SOO. All of the descriptions in the SOO are considered to be part of the scope. | |
| General | 18 | SOO-8.31 | 2 | 6 | The location of work to be performed will be in the United States and its outlying areas. Additionally, work may be performed in the following countries: XXXXXXX Will the government please specify the countries work will potentially be performed? | The potential exists for work to be performed in any country. | |
| General | 19 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | Are incumbent or representative labor categories available for review and analysis? | See Answer to Question #14. | |
| General | 20 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will small businesses be eligible to submit offers in the large business pool? | Yes. See Answer to Question #13. | |
| General | 21 | Small Business Set Aside Procurement | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will the Government allow Small Businesses to offer against Large Business Task Order Request for Proposals? | See Answer to Question #13. | |
| General | 22 | General Procurement | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will the Government provide a sample listing of Labor Categories anticipated for this procurement? | See Answer to Question #14. | |
| General | 23 | Contract Scope | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will the Government clearly articulate the scope of this procurement? | See Answer to Question #17. | |
| General | 24 | Volume III IDIQ Past Performance | L4.2 | 34 | Since Volume III is focused on IDIQ Past Performance, recommend the Government clarify that a minimum of three and a maximum of five past performance citations provided by the small business prime must all be Multiple Award Task Order IDIQ Contracts (MATOCs). | See Answer to Question #15. | |
| General | 25 | General Procurement | Not Provided | Not Provided | What is the dollar threshold that differentiates between a small and large business task order? | See Answer to Question #5. | |
| General | 26 | SOO-8.31 | 4 | 4 | Will there be any off site, non government cleared facility requirements? | There is always a potential for the work to be performed at the Contractor's facility (vice Government facility); however, that will be stipulated at the task order level. For example, in the Sample Task 01 - Cyber Assessments, we anticipate including an option CLIN for Offerors to propose an approach and associated costs with performing work at the Contractor's site. At this time, the Government anticipates requiring the Contractor facility where performance will occur to be cleared at the Secret level. | |
| General | 27 | SOO-8.31 | 4 | 4 | The Government mentions the contractor shall possess a DOD TOP SECRET clearance with SCI Caveat. I believe this is incorrect and needs to be edited removing the SCI caveat Facility Clearance. While employees can obtain SCI eligibility, a cleared company cannot. | The first sentence of paragraph 4 of the SOO will be revised to read, "The Contractor shall possess a DoD Top Secret Facility Clearance." | |
| General | 28 | SOO-8.31 | 4 | 4 | Will there be a breakdown of security clearance's required? Eligible for: SECRET, TOP SECRET, TOP SECRET (SCI), etc. | See Answer to Question #11. | |
| General | 29 | 14Nov19 Industry Slide deck | Not Provided | ppt page 7 | Will the Government describe in detail specific OCI considerations? Does OCI relate to NE Directorate or DTRA all? | OCIs are determined on a case by case basis and in accordance with FAR Parts 3, 9, 11, and 37. Conflict questions are highly dependent on the facts of each situation and are considered from multiple perspectives. It is recommended that any interested parties with specific questions about conflicts address the question(s) to the Contracting Officer. | |
| General | 30 | Small Business Set Aside Procurement | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will small businesses be authorized to bid on unrestricted task orders? | See Answer to Question #13. | |
| General | 31 | Contract Scope | Not Provided | Not Provided | The Government references scope nine (9) times within the draft solicitation, e.g., L.4.2, M1.6, M4.2, etc., will the Government clearly articulate the scope of this procurement? | See Answer to Question #17. | |
| General | 32 | Specifications | 2 | 6 | The location of work to be performed will be in the United States and its outlying areas. Additionally, work may be performed in the following countries: XXXXXXX. Will the government please specify the countries work will potentially be performed? | See Answer to Question #18. | |
| General | 33 | General Procurement | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will the Government provide a sample listing of Labor Categories anticipated for this procurement? | See Answer to Question #14. | |
| General | 34 | Volume III IDIQ Past Performance | L4.2 | 34 | Since this Volume is focused on IDIQ Past Performance, recommend the Government clarify that a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) past performance citations provided by the small business prime must all be Multiple Award Task Order IDIQ Contracts (MATOCs). | See Answer to Question #15. | |
| General | 35 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | Are key personnel resumes required? | Key personnel are NOT required. Resumes are NOT required. | |
| General | 36 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | Is Top Secret clearance required upon proposal submission? Or will USG sponsor clearance for an otherwise winning offeror? | See Answer to Question #11. | |
| General | 37 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | Are there incumbent SB contractors that currently provide these services to USG? | The cyber assessment sample task and the HW/SW sample task are new requirements for DTRA and there are no incumbents for these requirements. Currently and previously DTRA has purchased similar capabilities through various contracts and interagency agreements. | |
| General | 38 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | For OCI, will there be different mitigation strategies for Primes or subs for AMESS and other efforts such as DTRA NE A&AS? | Mitigation strategies are tailored to each specific situation. It won't be one blanket response for everyone. The mitigation will address each company's specific situation and potential areas of conflict. | |
| General | 39 | Cost Volume - IDIQ | Not Provided | Not Provided | Would you consider adding a cost volume requirement at the IDIQ level? It would provide DTRA with a way with measuring a broader cost base between companies and may assist in the board’s final decision making as the technical capabilities of many companies are very similar. I realize that the TO cost volume is intended to do this in part. But the TO cost volume will evaluate cost in niche areas only. I would propose something on a larger scale at the IDIQ level. | With respect to the Large Pool, we believe the costs submitted in response to the Cyber Assessment Sample Task will be appropriately weighted relative to the importance of the technical sections. | |
| General | 40 | H2 Ramp-on/Ramp-Off Procedures | |||||
| DTRA may elect to Ramp-Off a contractor. | Special Contract Requirements | Not Provided | Is there a certain percentage of task orders that the awardees will be expected to bid on in order to maintain their positions on the contract vehicle? | No, there will NOT be a percentage of task orders the awardees will be expected to bid on in order to maintain their position on the contract vehicle. | |||
| General | 41 | L1.4, Pages Counted | |||||
| Each page shall be counted except the following: Cover pages, Tab/Dividers, Table of Contents, List of Figures, Tables or Drawings, Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms, RFP Cross-Reference Matrix | Instructions, Proposal Structure | Not Provided | Because this is an electronic submission, will the tabs/dividers language be removed in the final solicitation? | No. Language regarding tabs/dividers will remain, despite the submissions being only electronic. If an offeror decides to use pages within their electronic files that serve as divider pages, they will not be counted. | |||
| General | 42 | L1.4, Pages Counted | |||||
| Each page shall be counted except the following: Cover pages, Tab/Dividers, Table of Contents, List of Figures, Tables or Drawings, Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms, RFP Cross-Reference Matrix | Instructions, Proposal Structure | Not Provided | Are all of these items expected to be in the front matter of the proposal for each volume? | Cover pages are typically in the front of any volume, and the remainder of the items listed under the "Reference RFQ Section" column should be included in the proposal volumes in the order as stipulated in Section L for each volume. For example, see paragraph L.3.1 Volume Organization for Volume II. It explains that Volume II shall include two (2) sections: Section 1 and Section 2. It then shows a table that lists the items that should be included in Section 1 and those that should be included in Section 2. It lists the items in the order in which they should be included in the section. For example, in Section 1 it lists Table of Contents, List of Tables and Drawings, Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms, and RFP Cross-Reference Matrix. Please follow the individual volume organization instructions in Section L for each volume. | |||
| General | 43 | L1.4, Indexing | |||||
| Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the sections within that volume. | Instructions, Proposal Structure | Not Provided | When the Government says a "more detailed table of contents" it sounds as though we are to include more than one table of contents. Please clarify this statement. | Each volume shall contain its own table of contents that is specific to that volume. Offerors submitting proposals under the Large Pool are required to submit six (6) separate volumes; therefore, there is a requirement to submit more than one table of contents. The same is true for offerors submitting proposals under the Small Pool. The Small Pool RFP requires five (5) separate volumes; therefore, there is a requirement to submit more than one table of contents. See the volume organization paragraph for each volume. The sentence will be revised to read "Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the sections within that volume." | |||
| General | 44 | L1.8 RFP Cross-Reference Matrix | |||||
| The Offeror shall complete an RFP Cross-Reference (RCRM) for volumes II and IV indicating where the proposal addresses the solicitation requirements. | Instructions, Proposal Structure | Not Provided | L1.4 indicates that a cross-reference matrix is required for all volumes. For which volumes is a cross-reference matrix required? | L1.4 does NOT indicate that a cross-reference matrix is required for all volumes. Instead, in paragraph L1.8 of the Large Pool RFP, it states that "The Offeror shall complete an RFP Cross-Reference Matrix (RCRM) for volumes II and V indicating where the proposal addresses the solicitation requirements." In paragraph L1.8 of the Small Pool RFP, it states that "The Offeror shall complete an RFP Cross-Reference Matrix (RCRM) for volumes II and IV indicating where the proposal addresses the solicitation requirements." | |||
| General | 45 | L2.1 Volume Organization | |||||
| As identified below, Volume I shall include two (2) sections. Offerors shall submit each section in a separate document… | Instructions, Proposal Structure | Not Provided | Why is the Government asking the volume to be included in two separate files? | The Government will remove the language requiring the sections to be submitted as separate documents/files. | |||
| General | 46 | L3.4 Subfactor B – Technical Approach | |||||
| The offeror shall describe its capability, capacity, and relevant experience in meeting the objectives referenced in the SOO Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4. | Instructions, Technical Approach | Not Provided | Section 2.1–2.1.6, General, of the SOO also contains contractor objectives. Will the Government be adding 2.1 to this sentence to provide us with the opportunity to address mobilization, project management, subcontractor management, equipment/materials, and logistics? | The Government will NOT be adding 2.1 to the referenced sentence in the Technical Approach. Rather, please see RFP Section Section L3.3 where it states that 2.1 is to be addressed as part of Subfactor A - Management Approach. | |||
| General | 47 | L4.2 Past Performance | |||||
| The Offeror shall complete the Past Performance Questionnaire Inventory, provided as Attachment XX in Section J, and submit as part of its Volume III proposal. | Instructions, Past Performance | Not Provided | Should the Past Performance Questionnaire Inventory be embedded within a Microsoft Word file (submitted in Adobe PDF) that contains both the inventory and consent and authorization letters? | The Past Performance Questionnaire Inventory (PPQI) should NOT be embedded within a Microsft Word or PDF File. The PPQI is an Excel file, and instructions will be added to the RFP requiring it to be submitted as an Excel file. | |||
| General | 48 | L4.3 Consent and Client Authorization Letters | |||||
| The Offeror shall submit a consent letter, executed by each team member listed in the Teaming Arrangement Matrix in Volume I, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information. | Instructions, Past Performance | Not Provided | Would the Government like all of these letters in one Microsoft Word file, submitted in Adobe PDF. | Offerors should combine all of the Consent and Client Authorization letters in one PDF file. | |||
| General | 49 | Not Provided | General | Not Provided | Will the Red Team Assessment contract come out on the AEMSS? If so, will it come out on the Small Business Pool? | See Answer to Question #87. Based on Industry Day feedback and internal discussions, DTRA will be revising the scope of the Small Business pool and will be removing the Vulnerability Assessments and Red Team Assessments from the scope of the SOO. | |
| General | 50 | Not Provided | General | Not Provided | Will the Blue Team Assessment contract come out on the AEMSS? If so, will it come out on the Small Business Pool? | See Answer to Question #87. Based on Industry Day feedback and internal discussions, DTRA will be revising the scope of the Small Business pool and will be removing the Vulnerability Assessments and Red Team Assessments from the scope of the SOO. | |
| General | 51 | Not Provided | General | Not Provided | Does the Government expect any of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Support Contract (CTRIC III) task orders to move over the AEMSS vehicle? If so, which ones? | DTRA's Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Directorate was queried at the onset of the AEMSS procurement to determine if they would be interested in using the vehicle for any of CTR's requirements that would fit within the scope of the AEMSS SOO. CTR does not have any immediate plans to use AEMSS, but if in the future CTR has a requirement that falls within the scope of AEMSS, they could potentially use it. However, there is no plan at this time for any of CTR's requirements to shift to the AEMSS vehicle. | |
| General | 52 | Draft Solicitation HDTRA120R0076, M3. EVALUATION OF VOLUME II – FACTOR 1: IDIQ MISSION CAPABILITY, Pages 39-40 | M4. EVALUATION OF VOLUME III – FACTOR 2: IDIQ PAST PERFORMANCE | 39-40 | Please confirm that an offeror may use a Department Wide Acquisition Contract (DWAC) and the supporting task orders as one past performance. | If the reviewer submits one past performance assessment that applies to the DWAC as a whole, it would be considered one past performance submission. If the reviewer submits individual ratings or separate assessments for each task order under the DWAC, each assessment would be counted as an individual submission. |
General 53 Draft Solicitation HDTRA120R0076, L2. VOLUME I – IDIQ PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATION, L2.11 Pre-Award Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs), Pages 32-33 L2.11 Pre-Award Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) 32-33 Please confirm that potential offerors may submit for an OCI determination at any time before RFP release. Yes, offerors may submit a request for an OCI determination at any time before release of the Final RFP. In fact, it is encouraged to submit a request for a determination as soon as one is believed to exist. Please reference FAR 9.504 Contracting officer responsibilities:
"(a) Using the general rules, procedures, and examples in this subpart, contracting officers shall analyze planned acquisitions in order to . . . (1) Identify and evaluate potential organizational conflicts of interest as early in the acquisition process as possible . . ."
| General | 54 | Solicitation, L2.5, Company Information, pg.34 | Contract | 34 | Given that the subject paragraph calls for both the offeror company's CAGE code and DUNS number, would the Government please clarify what additional information they seek by way of the "facility code?" | The term "facility code" will be removed from the RFP. |
| General | 55 | Solicitation, L2.13, Contractor Systems, pg.35 | Contract | 35 | Would the Government please clarify whether evidence of acceptable accounting and estimating systems must be provided with the proposal submission, or is an offeror statement/assertion to that effect acceptable? | Yes, a statement/assertion to that effect is acceptable. The Offeror may also choose to include the DCMA or DCAA letter indicating the acceptability of the accounting system. The requirement for an acceptable estimating system will be removed. Please note the Government will conduct its own inquiry with DCMA to validate the acceptability of the Offeror's accounting system. |
| General | 56 | Solicitation, Evaluation section M4.2, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), p.44 | Contract | 44 | The evaluation criteria for Past Performance Questionnaires states, "The magnitude of previous contracts should be $10M or more and should be similar to the scope of work identified in the SOO…" As past performance references are required of all subcontractor partners of prime offerors in the large business solicitation pool, would the Government consider either applying the $10M value standard to only the large business primes and any large business subcontractors, or providing a lower minimum value standard for small business teaming partners? | In M4.2, the sentence that reads "The magnitude of previous contracts should be $10M or more and should be similar to the scope of work identified in the SOO, including past performance that relates to cyber assessments" will be revised to clarify that the magnitude requirement applies only to the Offeror that is proposing as the Prime. There will NOT be a magnitude requirement for past performance submissions for the subcontractors. |
| General | 57 | Solicitation, Evaluation section M4.2, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), p.44 | Contract | 44 | The evaluation criteria for Past Performance Questionnaires further states, "Additionally, note that the Past Performance reference will be rated as less relevant if the entity is not identified as a team member with the same NAME, CAGE, and DUNS as reported in the Teaming Arrangement Matrix or if an explanation is not provided to further explain the relationship between the team member and the past performance reference." As it appears that the Government will be comparing the NAME, CAGE and DUNS of the prime offeror's teaming partners in the Teaming Arrangement Matrix to those reported on the returned PPQs, will the Government please clarify if they will consider past performance information as relevant if submitted by a prime offeror's business unit or subsidiary with a differing NAME, CAGE and DUNS from the actual prime's bidding entity? | The referenced sentence from section M4.2 will be revised to read, "[a]dditionally, note that the Past Performance references will be rated as less relevant if the entity is not identified as the prime or a team member with the same NAME, CAGE, and DUNS as reported in the Teaming Arrangement Matrix or if an explanation is not provided to further explain the relationship between the prime or other team member and the past performance reference." |
| General | 58 | RFP L1.3, L2.1, L3.1, L5.1, L6.1 | RFP | Not Provided | L1.3 indicates proposals will be organized into five volumes of one soft copy each. L2.1, L3.1, L5.1, and L6.1 state volumes will include two sections, and those sections will be submitted as separate documents. Will the Government clarify this apparent conflicting direction? | The Government will revise the language in L2.1, L3.1, L6.1, and L7.1 of the Large Pool RFP and L2.1, L3.1, L5.1 and L6.1 of the Small Pool RFP to remove the language "Offerors shall submit each section in a separate document...". |
| General | 59 | General | Labor Laws | Not Provided | Is this procurement subject to the Service Contract Act? | Whether the Service Contract Act (SCA) applies or not will be decided at the task order level. Neither of the sample tasks under each respective RFP are subject to the SCA. |
| General | 60 | Section 6 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY | Contract, Technical, and Pricing Related | Not Provided | Although it may be standard language, the Gov may choose to inform the Contracting partner of examples how the Contractor can accomplish 'exceeding' the performance threshold "minimum acceptable level of service required" for the "Performance Threshold - Tasks and deliverables are completed and submitted in accordance with DTRA NE-MA SOPs & CDRLs 100% of the time with accurate and complete information", as pertains to the chart's Incentive/Disincentive section ("meets or 'exceeds' the performance threshold")? | Meeting the threshold would be completing tasks and submitting deliverables in accordance with DTRA NE-MA SOPs & CDRLS 100% of the time with accurate and complete information on the due date of the tasks or deliverables. Exceeding the threshold would be completing tasks and submitting deliverables in accordance with DTRA NE-MA SOPs & CDRLS 100% of the time with accurate and complete information ahead of the due date of the tasks or deliverables. |
| General | 61 | General Question | Not Provided | Not Provided | Can a SB pursue the Small Pool and Subcontract on the Large Pool | See Answer to Question #13. |
| General | 62 | General Question / Sample Task Order | Not Provided | Not Provided | On the Sample Task Order are you looking for only companies that can act as a Value-Added Reseller (VAR) of the IT hardware/Software? | No. The Sample Task 02 PWS requires more than a VAR. The PWS requires managing and tracking all of the acquired hardware and software to include life-cycle planning/management. In addition, Contractors submitting offers under the Small Pool solicitation must show they are capable of performing the full scope of the work in the SOO because there is the potential for any of the work described in the SOO to be competed against the Small Pool awardees since the decision to compete among the two pools is based on estimated value rather than type of work. |
| General | 63 | SOO Section 4 | Not Provided | Not Provided | "The Contractor shall possess a DOD TOP SECRET clearance with an SCI caveat Facility Clearance." Question: Does the company receive the SCI Caveat upon award or is this something that is obtain prior to award? | Contractors proposing under either the Large Pool or the Small Pool must have a DoD Top Secret Facility Clearance at time of award. The language "with an SCI caveat" will be revised in the SOO to indicate that the Government may request an additional clearance with the SCI caveat, and the Contractor will be required to work with the Government to obtain an SCI caveat to cover the work under the IDIQ and/or task order. |
| General | 64 | RFP DRAFT_HDTRA120R0006, L1.4 Page Format Requirements and Limitations, pg. 31 | Administrative | 31 | Will the Government permit 11 x 17 pages? | The Government will permit 11 x 17 pages. |
| General | 65 | RFP DRAFT_HDTRA120R0006, L1.4 Page Format Requirements and Limitations, pg. 31 | Administrative | 31 | If the Government permits 11 x 17 pages will they count as one page? | The Government will count 11 x 17 pages as two pages. |
| General | 66 | RFP DRAFT_HDTRA120R0006, L1.5 Submission Instructions, pg. 32 and L1.3 Proposal Organization, pg. 31 | Administrative | 31 | The section states – “electronic files shall be clearly identified for each volume, section, and item. Per the table in L1.3 offerors are to provide a soft copy of each volume.” Please clarify what is meant by for each… section, and item. | If, for example, an Offeror submits Sections 1 and 2 of Volume I in two separate electronic files, the separate files should be clearly identified (named) accordingly. (e.g. - Volume I - Section 1 and Volume I - Section 2) |
| General | 67 | RFP DRAFT_HDTRA120R0006, L1.5 Submission Instructions, pg. 32 and L1.3 Proposal Organization, pg. 31 | Past Performance | 44 | This section states – “The magnitude of previous contracts should be $10M or more and should be similar to the scope of work identified in the SOO.” A magnitude of previous contracts of $10M or more is not representative of the total contract value for small businesses that provide relevant, niche capabilities as subcontractors. This unrealistic contract value will limit competition and the ability of prime contractors to provide the depth of experience requested in the RFP. For subcontractor past performance request the magnitude not be limited to any minimum amount but focus on similarity to the scope of work identified |
in the SOO.
The magnitude requirement only applies to past performance references from the prime in the Large Pool. The magnitude requirement does NOT apply to past performance references for the subcontractors in the Large Pool. This will be annotated in the final RFP.
The magnitude requirement for the Small Pool will be removed. The final RFP for the Small Pool will not stipulate a magnitude requirement for previous contracts.
| General | 68 | RFP DRAFT_HDTRA120R0006, M4.2 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), 7th paragraph, pg. 44 | Past Performance | 44 | The sections states – “the Government may include relevant present and past performance for efforts performed by other divisions and/or teaming partners if such resources significantly influence the effort’s proposed performance.” Should this read Offerors vice the Government may… | Yes. The final RFP will be revised to read "The Offeror may include relevant present and past performance for efforts performed by other divisions and/or teaming partners if such resources significantly influence the effort’s proposed performance". |
| General | 69 | Industry Day | General | N/A | Please provide a list of participants from both the LB and SB Industry Days. | A list of interested vendors, who consented to having their contact information shared, was posted on the Contract Opportunities site on 22 October 2020. |
| General | 70 | DTRA-provided slide deck titled AEMSS Industry Day Sep 2020 (Large)-Final. Slide 23. | General | Slide 23 | What decision criteria will the Government use in determining whether AEMSS is the "best vehicle to fulfill the requirement" for future potential tasks? | In order to determine if AEMSS is the best vehicle to use in fulfilling a requirement, the Government will take into consideration scope, procurement lead time, IGCEs, small business considerations, performance of the AEMSS awardees, and any additional factors that exist at the time of requirement. |
| General | 71 | DTRA-provided slide deck titled AEMSS Industry Day Sep 2020 (Large)-Final. Slides 9 and 23. | General | Slides 9 & 23 | Since the AEMSS Small Business pool will be used for Task Orders less than $4M/yr, will ongoing NE efforts with small business primes that exceed an average of $4M/yr, if any, be recompeted in the AEMSS Large Business pool? | Yes. If requirements are estimated to be greater than $4 million per year, they will be competed under the Large Business Pool. DTRA has not identified any efforts currently being performed by small businesses that are anticipated to be competed by the Large Business Pool. |
| General | 72 | RFP, H2. Ramp-On/Ramp-Off Procedures (pg. 13, second paragraph) | Contract | Not Provided | The RFP states “If a small business contractor from the small business pool exceeds its size standard during the life of this IDIQ, DTRA may transfer the small business contractor from the small business pool to the large business pool…”. How does an increase in size standard alone qualify a business to be a large business pool prime contractor? | If the small business was an IDIQ contract holder in the Small Business Pool, they will have already been vetted for management and technical capability from the initial source selection. Please reference the slides from the industry days. Prior to transitioning the small business pool to the large business pool, the contractor must also meet security and business system requirements. |
| General | 73 | RFP, L1.4 Proposal Format (pg. 31, fourth paragraph - Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms) | Proposal Format | Not Provided | Can Offerors provide a single glossary, placed in each volume of the proposal, that includes explanations for all abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the proposal? Or must glossaries be specific to that proposal volume? | Offerors may provide a single glossary that is placed in each volume of the proposal. |
| General | 74 | RFP, L1.4 Proposal Format (pg. 31, fifth paragraph - Page Format Requirements and Limitations) | Proposal Format | Not Provided | Please allow fonts other than Times New Roman and as small as 9pt for tables, charts, graphs and figures. San Serif fonts are easier to read in a graphic than Times New Roman. | Thank you for your suggestion. The requirements for the font remains unchanged because it is more disruptive to change a long-standing instruction with no tangible benefits to the Government. |
| General | 75 | RFP, L1.4 Proposal Format (pg. 31, fifth paragraph - Page Format Requirements and Limitations) | Proposal Format | Not Provided | Please allow 11x17 for large charts or figures and count as one (1) page for organization charts. | See Answers to Questions #64 and #65. |
| General | 76 | RFP, L2.1 Volume Organization (pg.33); L.3.1 Volume Organization (pg. 35); L.6.1 Volume Organization (pg. 37-38); L.7.1 Volume Organization (pg. 38) | Proposal Format | 38 | Suggest combining Section 1 and Section 2 of each volume to minimize the number of documents required to be submitted. | See Answer to Question #45. |
| General | 77 | RFP, L.2.7 Teaming Arrangement Matrix (pg. 34) and L.3.4 Subfactor B – Technical Approach (pg. 36) | Proposal Format | 36 | Section L.3.4 requires a discussion of teaming structure and team member roles that must be consistent with the teaming arrangement matrix, Would the Government consider moving the requirement for a teaming arrangement matrix from Volume I to Volume II to facilitate clearer discussion and, most likely, easier evaluation of the requirement for the discussion and matrix to match? | The Teaming Arrangement Matrix requirement will remain in Volume I; however, Offerors are free to include the matrix in their Volume II as well. The page count has been increased to 30 pages for Volume II thereby allowing an Offeror more room to also include a Teaming Arrangement Matrix in Volume II if it so wishes. |
| General | 78 | RFP, L2.8 Government Offices (pg. 34) | Proposal Documentation | 34 | Does the Government desire DCAA and DCMA information for the prime only or all team members? | The Government would like for the DCAA and DCMA information for the Prime. DCAA/DCMA information may be included for the subcontractor(s) if the Prime intends on issuing a cost type contract to the subcontractor(s). |
| General | 79 | RFP, L2.9 Security Requirements – Department of Defense Form 254 (pg. 34) | Proposal Documentation | 34 | What information is to be provided in response to the requirement “Information relative to subcontractor security requirements shall also be included”? Subcontractor secure facility assets? Subcontractor’s Security Office? | The Offeror shall provide the information required in Block 7 of the DD254. |
| General | 80 | RFP, L2.12 Pre-Award Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) (pg. 34, first paragraph under L2.12) | Proposal Documentation | 34 | Reference: "…Additionally, Offerors, shall submit…" Please confirm that only Offerors who believe they have a potential conflict of interest have to submit a statement identifying all DTRA contracts for it and teaming partners. | Confirmed - only Offerors who believe they have a potential conflict of interest shall submit information regarding the potential OCI to the CS and CO. |
| General | 81 | RFP, L2.12 Pre-Award Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) (pg. 35, second paragraph under L2.12) | Proposal Documentation | 35 | Please confirm when Offerors are required to submit "a statement to certify" no potential OCIs exist. | If an Offeror believes that no potential OCIs exist, they are required to submit a certification statement to that effect in Volume I of its proposal as instructed by L2.12. |
| General | 82 | RFP, L4.2, Past Performance Questionnaire Inventory (pg. 36-37) | Past Performance | 36-37 | Will the Government allow Offerors to submit relevant PPQ that have been completed in the previous five (5) years rather than requesting new forms? It is a burden on client to complete forms multiple times. | The Government will accept past performance references in any form, but the form must be submitted directly from the reviewer and not the Offeror itself. Please note that the PPQs issued under this RFP will be tailored to this RFP. The matrix that DTRA intends to use is unique to this RFP. |
| General | 83 | RFP, L4.2 Past Performance Questionnaire Inventory (pg. 36, first paragraph under L4.2) | Past Performance | 36 | Will the Government post a draft version of the Past Performance Questionnaire Inventory attachment prior to final RFP release? It will be helpful to see the form and format of the attachment. | Yes, the Government intends to post a draft of the PPQ prior to final RFP release. |
| General | 84 | RFP, M4.2 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) (pg. 44, sixth paragraph) | Proposal Format | 44 | Section M4.2 states "... if an explanation is not provided to further explain the relationship between the team member and the past performance reference." Please identify where the explanation should be placed within the proposal (Volume, Section, etc.) | Offerors should explain the relationship in Volume I. Language will be added to the RFP to instruct Offerors to include the information in the Teaming Arrangement Matrix. |
| General | 85 | SOO - From the draft SOO, pg 4: |
“4. Security. The Contractor shall possess a DOD TOP SECRET clearance with an SCI caveat Facility Clearance. Contractor employees working on this program must be U.S. citizens and will require a DOD TOP SECRET clearance with an SCI caveat granted by the Defense Security Service (DSS). A facility clearance must be in place prior to contract award.”
| 4 | 4 | During Industry Day session, there was discussion about companies without a current Top Secret FCL being able to bid on this work. Given the nature of the DTRA mission and risks (including FCL processing time delay) in a contractor obtaining a Top Secret FCL after bid submission, this seems likely to create selected awardees who will not be capable of actually receiving an award. Would the Government consider requiring a TS FCL at time of bid? Or at a minimum a Secret FCL with at least one of the company’s Key Management Personnel holding a valid Top Secret clearance? This would reduce award risk including potentially significant delay to determine if a company will be able to qualify for award. | DTRA concurs. After re-visiting the requirements with our Security Department, DTRA will require a Top Secret Facility Clearance at time of award. Please reference Question/Answer #87. Because DTRA anticipates that there will be more than one requirement under the Small Business Pool to require a Top Secret Facility Clearance, DTRA will need to require a Top Secret Facility Clearance at the IDIQ level at time of award to ensure that the Small Business Pool is able to perform and execute requirements that require a Top Secret clearance. | |||
| General | 86 | Industry Day Brief, Acquisition Approach – SB Pool, slide 8 | Not Provided | slide 8 | Current planning is to solicit all requirements under $4M/year in the SB Pool. Given that this is a relatively small dollar value, especially considering the NAICS 541330 ($41.5 M), this may discourage participation by businesses with significant past performance and potential value to DTRA. Would the Government consider increasing the annual dollar value SB Pool ceiling from $4M/yr to $10M/yr? And/or, would the Government consider soliciting requirements within a range (e.g. $4.1M/yr to $20M/yr) within both pools? That is both companies in the Small and Large Pool could bid on those requirements. This would increase competition and also prepare SB pool members for transition to the LB pool. | The historical estimated value of DTRA's requirements helped drive the decision for the $4 million per year or less for the Small Pool and conversely greater than $4 million per year for the Large Pool. Based on our review we do not anticipate having any requirements that are valued at $20 million per year. |
DTRA has considered an approach that sets aside two of the awards to small businesses, but there would only be one pool and all contractors within the pool would be allowed to compete for task orders equally. However, the disadvantage in that approach is that small businesses would be competing with large businesses, which renders the set-asides rather pointless.
General 87 Industry Day Brief, Previous Contracts – slide 22 Not Provided 22 This slide provides a listing of potential contracts/work that may be procured under AEMSS. After contract award, to facilitate best competition, would the Govt consider providing TO forecasts when they become known? Forecast of requirements within first year of IDIQ:
LB Pool (all TS required): Cyber Assessment, BSA Blue Assessment, Red Team - Ground Support SB Pool: HW/SW purchase (unclassified); Technical Writing (TS); SOFT SB (TS); FoF (Secret)
Yes, to the best of our ability we will try to forecasts requirements as they become known. DTRA Contracting Officers are highly encouraged to engage the contractors and hold mini-industry days prior to release of a Task Order Request for Proposal.
General 88 From draft RFP, pg 32, L2.11 Pre-Award Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) “If the Offeror believes it has a potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI), then not later than seven (7)calendar days after the RFP issuance, the offeror shall submit information regarding the potential OCI to the CS and CO.”
Not Provided 32 Given that the SOO of objectives includes Assessment requirements, it could lead to quite a few submissions for OCI review. This could potentially lead to a significant workload for DTRA contracting and significant delay in contract award. Is it possible for the Government to provide a listing of DTRA contracts that are of concern for potential OCI issues? That way, the Govt and the companies that hold those contracts could focus on those specifically. The Government indicated during industry day and on the publicly posted industry day slides that if a contractor holds an Advisory and Assistance Services contract, a Budget/Finance/Accounting Support contract, or an acquisition support type contract then there is a potential for an OCI. The Government trusts that Offerors are capable of knowing if they are a contract holder (prime or sub) for one of these type contracts and would know to act accordingly.
If there is any doubt, please submit the request for us to review your potential OCIs.
General 89 From draft RFP, pg 33.
“The CO will use all relevant information submitted by the offeror, and any other relevant information known to DTRA, to determine whether a potential conflict exists. If the CO determines that a potential conflict exists, the conflict must be avoided or otherwise resolved or mitigated through the inclusion of a special contract clause or other appropriate means.”
| Not Provided | 33 | Please confirm, there are no potential OCI issues that cannot be resolved or mitigated sufficiently by the methods described such that contract award is not impacted? | The Government cannot confirm this without the full details of the potential OCI. | ||||
| General | 90 | Solicitation, L1.4 Proposal Format, Page Format Requirements and Limitations, page 29 | Proposal Instructions | Not Provided | Recommend placing the Proprietary statements, security markings, and page numbers be placed in a header and footer instead of within the defined margin area to allow more space within the margin for evaluatable content. | Headers and footers are contained within the one-inch margin area. The Government believes that we are allowing more space for content by stipulating "Proprietary statements, security markings, and page numbers shall be placed within the defined margin area." | |
| General | 91 | Solicitation, L.2-L.6 Volume I, II, II, IV, V, and VI, Tables - Section 1, pages 31-35 | Proposal Instructions | Not Provided | Recommend the Cover page be included in Section 1 for each Volume to align all Volume Section 1 content? | Cover pages are not required, but if the Offeror desires to insert a cover page, it may do so. Please note the exceptions to pages counted in section L1.4 of the draft RFP. | |
| General | 92 | L2.11 Pre-Award Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs), page 32 | OCI | Not Provided | L2.11 states, "If the Offeror believes it has a potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI), then not later than seven (7) calendar days after the RFP issuance, the offeror shall submit information regarding the potential OCI to the CS and CO." We request that government formally define a process - and associated due date(s) - through which offerors may revise this OCI-related information (e.g., in the event that a partner is added to or removed from an offeror's team) beyond seven (7) calendar days following the final RFP release. | If more time is needed to submit your OCI disclosures, please submit the disclosures pursuant to L2.10, Exceptions to Terms and Conditions with an explanation of the circumstances. | |
| General | 93 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will the government confirm the final RFP will be published on 30 November with a due date of 22 January? | The Government cannot confirm the final RFP will be published on 30 November with a due date of 22 January. As noted in the industry day slides, and as it was pointed out during each of the seven industry day sessions, the dates of the acquisition timeline schedule are notional and subject to change. Also, as stated in each of the industry day sessions, if the date of the issuance of the final RFP slips, the due date for the proposals will slip also. The Government intends to allow approximately 45 days for proposal preparation. | |
| General | 94 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will the government provide written responses to all questions asked and answered during the Industry Days? | All questions from the Industry Day sessions have been addressed in this Q&A document. | |
| General | 95 | Not Provided | Not Provided | Not Provided | Will the BLUE Information Operations (Black Rhino) and RED Offensive Cyber Operations be consolidated under one Cyber Division? | The new NE-MA Cyber Division will be responsible for executing and managing cyber assessments. All current work will be re-organized under the new NE-MA Cyber Division. Future cyber assessment requirements assigned to NE-MA will be executed and managed by the new Cyber Division. |
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 .