Attachment 10 Amendment 01 Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RDT&E Research, Engineering, and Technical Services (RETS) IDIQ Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HQ003420R0129
- Issued by
- DOD Washington Headquarters Service
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for research, engineering, and technical services to support the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. The solicitation will result in multiple IDIQ contract awards to small businesses to provide services such as studies, analyses, evaluations, recommendations, program reviews, data analytics, and technical assessments. Awardees will support various directorates focused on advanced capabilities, research and technology, and modernization. One task order will be awarded concurrently with the IDIQ contracts for an initial seed task involving three discrete study tasks to be completed within five months of award. Offerors are advised to review requirements for organizational conflict of interest disclosures and mitigation plans as part of their proposals.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 18
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
| RETS Solicitation Number: | HQ003420R0129 | |||
| Questions and Answers: | ||||
| Item Number | Reference Location | Reference Page | Reference Section | Question |
| Q1. | C.6.1 | 12 of 62 | Travel and Other Direct Costs | Section C.6.1 states that “The contractor shall be reimbursed for actual, allowable, allocable, and reasonable travel costs incurred during performance of this effort in accordance with FAR 31.205-46 “Travel Costs” and DFARS 252.317-7000 “Supplemental Cost Principles.” Question: Please confirm that travel costs will include indirect burdens consistent with treatment of cost as defined in the offeror's disclosure statement. |
| A1. | Confirmed. However, no fee will be allowed on Travel or ODCs. | |||
| Q2. | L.1.2 | 46 of 62 | Proposal Submission | In a FFP competitive environment with no cost narrative required, please clarify what a subcontractor proposal content should contain. |
| A2. | It is at the Offeror's discretion to decide what to include in the required price narrative. If the Sub-Contractor wants to submit information they can do so directly. Refer to Section L.2.4.1. of the RFP. | |||
| Q3. | L.1.3 | 46 of 62 | Text | Will the Government allow landscape and/or 11x17 pages for tables and graphics? |
| A3. | No. | |||
| Q4. | L.1.3 | 46 of 62 | Font Size | The instructions provide that "graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text that is easily readable." Can graphics use font other than Times New Roman provided that the text is easily readable? |
| A4. | Yes. | |||
| Q5. | L.1.5 | 46 of 62 | Page Limitations | Please confirm that for Volumes I, 2, 3, and 4, front matter consisting of volume covers, lists of abbreviations and acronyms, and compliance matrices are not counted in the page limitations. |
| A5. | Affirmative. The front matter for Volumes 1-4 does not count towards page limitations. | |||
| Q6. | L.1.6 | 47 of 62 | Transmittal Letter | In terms of "Name of Offeror’s Contract Administration Office," please confirm that the focus of this item is the DCMA ACO. |
| A6. | Yes, the focus of this item is the DCMA ACO. | |||
| Q7. | L.2.1.1 | 48 of 62 | Volume 1 Submission Requirements | Regarding the letter from DCSA as evidence of Top Secret Facility Clearance: DCSA no longer issues such letters. In lieu of the DCSA letter, will a NISS Facilty Clearance Validation memo be acceptable to fulfill this requirement? |
| A7. | Yes. See revised Section L.2.1.1 of the RFP. | |||
| Q8. | L.2.1.5 | Attachment 02 | OCI Analysis Form | The L.2.1.5 requirement to "Identify any current OCI that will occur as a result of this IDIQ award", as well as the pre-populated Program Title field of Attachment 02 ("RDT&E Technical Support (RETS) IDIQ"), both suggest that the Government intends to review OCI at the IDIQ level. L.2.1.5 separately requires a plan to address potential OCI on Task Order 001 and future task orders, if applicable. Please clarify the requirement to identify IDIQ-level OCI, and provide examples of the kinds of efforts within OUSD(R&E) and WHS that would constitute an IDIQ-level OCI. |
| A8. | Offerors should disclose any potential OCIs, at the IDIQ or at the Task Order level. For TO 0001, the Government has assessed current OCI and identified known conflicts in "Use of Non-Gov Advisors" p. 51 of the RFP. This does not alleviate vendors from performing their own conflict assessment when preparing proposed responses, and submitting mitigation plans as appropriate. | |||
| Q9. | L.2.1.5 | 49 of 62 | Volume 1 Submission Requirements | Attachment 03 is stated as a requirement "for each person planning to work on the contract." This appears to be an IDIQ-level requirement, vice a Task Order 0001 requirement. Does the Government intend to have every individual across all Task Orders sign this NDA? |
| A9. | This is a Task Order level requirement. Each person supporting a Task Order must sign an NDA. Except for the IDIQ PM, who must execute an NDA at the time of the IDIQ award. | |||
| Q10. | L.2.1.5 | 49 of 62 | Volume 1 Submission Requirements | Does a subcontractor that bids on and/or wins an R&E BAA create a current OCI requiring exclusion from any participation in Task Order 0001? If not, can such a subcontractor contribute to Task Order 0001 by avoiding any Task Order 0001 role in evaluating or assessing any of subcontractor's BAA work content or other BAA responses in the same functional area? |
| A10. | OCI analysis and mitigation is very fact-specific. As such, we cannot opine on the appropriate course of action with the facts provided. Offerors should submit a mitigation plan raising any potential OCI concerns. | |||
| Q11. | L.2.2.1 | 49 of 62 | Volume 2 - Technical | Section L.2.2.1 requires "the specific and actual means and methodology that will be used to satisfy the requirements of the Task Order 0001 PWS”; however, Section M.1.2.1.1 does not refer to evaluation of means and methodology. Please clarify the evaluation of these required elements of the Task Order 0001 response. |
| A11. | Requirement removed. | |||
| Q12. | L.2.2.1 [sic] | 51 of 62 | Volume 3 - Price | There is no clear requirement for a cost narrative. Please confirm that the only Volume 3 Price requirements are submittal of the completed Attachment 7. |
| A12. | Refer to Answer to Question 12. | ||||
| Q13. | L.2.2.1 [sic] | ||||
| Attachment 07 | 51 of 62 | Volume 3 - Price | Attachment 7 TO 0001 Labor Qualification Matrix KP identifier and Pricing Template includes column H for Rate, column I for Discount and column J for Rate/w Discount. Question: the order type is FFP and not labor hour or T&M. Are these columns part of the template to be removed as not applicable? If they are applicable, are we to provide a full set of ceiling rates for each labor category to be discounted when pricing all task orders? If so where should these rates be included? | ||
| A13. | Column removed. | ||||
| Q14. | L.2.2.1 [sic] | ||||
| Attachment 07 | 51 of 62 | Volume 3 - Price | The format of Attachment 7 TO 0001 Labor Qualification Matrix KP identifier and Pricing Template requires an individual name to be entered in Column A that is mapped to the labor category defined in column F. Question: please confirm that rate for each labor category as noted in Column H should be consistent for each labor category. | ||
| A14. | The proposed rates could vary at the discretion of the Offeror. | ||||
| Q15. | L.2.2.1; Attachment 04 | 49 and 50 of 62 | Figure 1 Resume Format | On page 49 the instructions indicate that resumes are limited to three pages, not inclusive of commitment letters. On page 50, the resume format includes a requirement for an "Attestation" at the end of the page of the resume or footer regarding work commitment. Does this attestation meet the requirements for a commitment letter, or is a separate letter required? Please clarify. | |
| A15. | No, a separate commitment letter is required. | ||||
| Q16. | L.2.2.1 [sic]; Attachment 04 | 51 of 62; 5 of 5, respectively | Volume 3 - Price | Paragraph L.2.2.1 [sic; should be L.2.4.1?] directs that the contractor "shall complete each of the three discrete study tasks within 5 months from Task Order award." In the Schedule paragraph of Att. 04, the TO directs "Within the period of performance, the contractor shall complete each of the three discrete study tasks within 5 months." Please clarify the timeline for completing the 3 discrete study tasks. | |
| A16. | Renumbered and edited. See revised Section L.2.4.1. | ||||
| Q17. | M.1 | 58 of 62 | Evaluation Factors for Award | The 5th and 6th paragraphs of the introductory M.1 sections appear to be mostly duplicative. Each references the methodogy for selecting the awardee for Task Order 0001 and begins with the sentence: "From the pool of vendors, the Government will select one (1) awardee for Task Order 0001." This appears to be an error since the section does not address the specific methodology for selecting the IDIQ awardees. Please clarify. | |
| A17. | Refer to revised Section M.1. p. 58 of the RFP. | ||||
| Q18. | M.1.2.1.1 | 59 of 62 | Sub-Factor 1.1 | The last sentence of the paragraph requires that the offeror provide a "timeline plan after award and approach to transition and startup." Where in the seed task order are the transition requirements identified, and what work is transitioning to the Task Order 0001? | |
| A18. | Refer to revised Section L.2.2 p. 49 and M.1.2.1.1 p. 50 of the RFP. | ||||
| Q19. | M.2.0 | 60 of 62 | Factor 2 - Past Performance | Would the Government please define “magnitude of effort” and how it will be assessed as part of the past performance relevancy ratings? | |
| A19. | See revised Section M.2.0. | ||||
| Q20. | M.2.0 | 60 of 62 | Factor 2 - Past Performance | Would the Government please clarify “greater consideration” in the context of scoring SB Prime past performance submissions vs large business subcontractors and teaming partner submissions? For example, will a “very relevant” subcontractor past performance submission score the same or better than a “relevant” SB Prime past performance submission? | |
| A20. | See revised Section M.2.0. | ||||
| Q21. | M.2.0 | 60 of 62 | Factor 2 - Past Performance | Please define the recency criteria for past performance references. | |
| A21. | See Section L.2.3. | ||||
| Q22. | Attachment 03 | NDA Form | The NDA appears to limit the scope to information applicable to Advanced Electronic Warfare Capabilities Broad Agency Announcement AWEC BAA information. Is it the Government’s intent to broaden the scope of the NDA to include other OUSD R&E acquisition activity? | ||
| A22. | Refer to revised NDA at Attachment 03. | ||||
| Q23. | Attachment 05 | IDIQ Sample Problems | In the prior RETS Synopsis, Sample Problems #2 and #3 referred to "the defined 2028 mission areas." In the Final RFP, both Sample Problems refer only to "each mission". Please provide the Government's list of intended missions, or confirm that identifying the relevant missions is an embedded requirement within the Sample Problems. | ||
| A23. | Yes, Identifying the relevant missions is required for the sample problems. | ||||
| Q24. | Attachment 07 | Min Qualifications Tab | Row 13 | The 'Estimated Hours' total does not seem to include those allocated to the IDIQ Program Manager (<1920). Please confirm that the IDIQ PM hours and costs are allowable in the overall total. | |
| A24. | Yes. | ||||
| Q25. | Attachment 07 | Min Qualifications Tab | Columns B and C: Degree and Years of Experience Requirements | Are degree and years of experience substitutions or equivalents allowed? If so, can they be provided? | |
| A25. | No, substitutions are not permitted. | ||||
| Q26. | Attachment 07 | Price Proposal Tab | Column E: PWS Section | Does PWS Section refer to the Seed TO PWS? If so, what level of Specificity is required (e.g., Part A and Part B, or at the sub task level?) Please clarify. | |
| A26. | Yes. References should be sufficiently detailed to allow the Government to identify duties and responsibilities of the proposed personnel. | ||||
| Q27. | Solicitation | Page 58 of 62 | “Overall, the Government will give higher preference to proposers who demonstrate ability to perform on all Task Areas of the IDIQ PWS as primes as opposed to proposers who will rely heavily on their team (teaming partners and subcontractors)." a. Under what evaluation criteria will the preference be established? | ||
| A27. | See Answer to Question 19. | ||||
| Q28. | b. If the evaluation criteria chosen is technical/risk, then does it also flow that the price evaluation of Task Order 0001 will also include an assessment of the prime-subcontractor split? | ||||
| A28. | See Answer to Question 19. | ||||
| Q29. | c. Since the FARs hold that past performance evaluations should take into account the past performance of subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of a requirement, does this preference affect the distribution of the six possible past performance evaluations? | ||||
| A29. | Sub-contractor's Past Performance will be considered as prescribed in Section M.2.0. | ||||
| Q30. | d. Given recent GAO decisions, isn’t this preference actually unreasonable? | ||||
| A30. | See Answer to Question 29. | ||||
| Q31. | e. Should the government consider the preference reasonable, would not it also be reasonable to clarify or extend the preference to a prime offeror with a demonstrated past performance to deliver services on all Task Areas as a prime contractor and not as a subcontractor? | ||||
| A31. | See Answer to Question 29. | ||||
| Q32. | f. Furthermore, would not that preference apply to a demonstrated ability to manage a complex technical team as a prime on a IDIQ similar to the RFP requirements? | ||||
| A32. | See Answer to Question 29. | ||||
| Q33. | 1. Can the Government define the term “mission area” as discussed in the PWS and in Sample Problem #2? | ||||
| A33. | See response to question number 23. | ||||
| Q34. | 2. In order to compare contractor approaches and cost estimates, would the Government consider providing an estimated level of effort for the Seed Task Order? | ||||
| A34. | See Tab B of attachment 7. | ||||
| Q35. | 3. For the Seed Task Order requirement for key personnel to provide daily or persistent presence at the Mark Center or Pentagon, will the Government furnish work spaces or computing resources? | ||||
| A35. | Refer to "Place of Performance" p.5 of Attachment 04. | ||||
| Q36. | 4. Sections L and M state “Each Offeror will provide a proposal that addresses the overarching IDIQ as well as Task Order 0001 and all Sample Problems.” However, there are no directions or evaluation criteria to address the Offeror's approach to the IDIQ. Can the Government provide expectations for addressing and evaluating the IDIQ approach, particularly how Offerors will be evaluated for an IDIQ award if not awarded the Seed Task Order? | ||||
| A36. | Refer to revised Section M.1. of the RFP. | ||||
| Q37. | 5. Will the Contractor-furnished SCIF require certification/accreditation at the time of award, or will a grace period be allowed to meet accreditation standards in accordance with an awarded DD254? | ||||
| A37. | Awardee must have accredited SCIF at the time of seed task award. | ||||
| Q38. | 6. Can the Government clarify that the Contractor SCIF does not require access to the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS)? | ||||
| A38. | There is no requirement for the Seed TO to have JWICS. | ||||
| Q39. | 7. Given the extent of questions and that the contractor workforce is all teleworking, would the Government consider a two week extension for proposal submission? | ||||
| A39. | No. | ||||
| Q40. | IDIQ RFP | 50 | L.2.3 | For Contract Summaries, the Government states that "For each contract submitted, the Offeror shall summarize the following information, not to exceed one (2) pages for each contract:" Will the Government consider increasing the number of Past Performance pages, not to exceed one (4) pages for each to allow Government to better evaluate offer submissions, contract to read as follows: For each contract submitted, the Offeror shall summarize the following information, not to exceed one (4) pages for each contract. | |
| A40. | No | ||||
| Q41. | Attachment 4 | 5 | Licenses | For Seed Task 0001, the Government states that the "contractor may be required to procure software licenses for tools to perform the tasking of the PWS". Is the $10,000 Other Direct Costs (ODC) plug meant to cover costs such as the licenses described or would they be over and above that $10,000 ODC plug amount? If a contractor has a technical solution with ODCs that exceed the $10,000 amount, does the Government expect those costs to be included as part of the FFP labor pricing? | |
| A41. | See answer to Question 82. | ||||
| Q42. | Attachment 7 | NA | Price Proposal Tab | The Government has columns for Discount and Rate w/ Discount, however there is no IDIQ schedule of rates for Offerors to discount off of for TO 0001. Request that the Government remove the columns for Discount and Rate w/ Discount in Attachment 7. | |
| A42. | See answer to Question 13. | ||||
| Q43. | General Question | NA | NA | Nowhere in the RFP documents does the Government explain the payment terms for TO 0001. Does the Government anticipate a monthly FFP billing structure for the labor based on the total labor price proposed divided by 12? | |
| A43. | Yes, monthly FFP billing structure is anticipated. | ||||
| Q44. | IDIQ RFP | 49, 51 | L.2.2 Volume 2 Technical and Price | The Government references Attachment 7 as being required for both the Technical and Price Volumes. Attachment 7 will contain price information in it. Is it the Government's intention for technical evaluators to be able to see the price when doing their evaluation of Attachment 7? If this is not the case, recommend that the Government provide two separate Excel file attachments with one being for the Technical Volume (not requiring rates and prices) and the other being for the Price Volume (requiring rates and prices). | |
| A44. | Attachment 07 has been separated. Refer to Attachment 07 Price Template and Attachment 09 Minimum KP Qualifications and LOE. | ||||
| Q45. | IDIQ RFP | 49 | L.2.2 Volume 2 Technical | Would the Government please confirm that Attachment 7 is required for the Technical Volume and that it will be outside of the 35 page limitation for Task Order 0001. | |
| A45. | Attachment 7 - Minimum Qualifications Tab is part of the Technical Volume. Price Proposal Tab is part of Volume 4 - Price. Technical evaluators will not have access to any pricing information. | ||||
| Q46. | IDIQ RFP | 14 | 6.8.1 Performance | The Government states "each task order will dictate the number, type and essential skills for contractor personnel". Does that mean for TO 0001 that the Government requires that the total hours of 46,893 be bid and at the amounts prescribed for each labor category in Attachment 7? Given the FFP contract type and the nature of the work scope being highly specialized with much of it against more discrete engineering and analysis studies and tasks, would the Government allow Offerors to bid their own staffing solution in terms of the hours proposed outside of those required for the 8 Key Personnel as long as all labor categories are used in the staffing solution? | |
| A46. | Attachment 09 represents the Government best estimate of labor categories and LOE to accomplish TO 0001 PWS. Offerors should use their best judgement when preparing their response. Adherence to the labor categories for the Key Personnel as defined in Attachment 7 is required. | ||||
| Q47. | RFP | 49 | L.2.2.1 | Will the government please clarify the difference between Scheduled Position and Proposal Position? | |
| A47. | Reference to Scheduled Position removed. Refer to revised Section L.2.2.1. | ||||
| Q48. | IDIQ RFP | 49, 59 | L.2.2.1, and M.1.2.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1 – Task Order 0001 | The Task Order 0001 instructions state that: "Offerors shall provide the specific and actual means and methodology that will be used to satisfy the requirements of the Task Order 0001 PWS.". However M.1.2.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1 – Task Order 0001 provides only evaluation specifics on the staffing plan, proposed personnel, timeline plan, and approach to transition and start-up. The Evaluation criteria is silent on methodology used to satisfy the PWS requirements. Will the Government be evaluating our "specific and proposed methodology to satisfy the PWS requirements"? If so, can the Government please provide evaluation criteria for this section L requirement? | |
| A48. | See Question 11. | ||||
| Q49. | IDIQ RFP | 59 | M.1.2.1.2 Sub-Factor 1.2 - Sample Problems 01-05 | Will government evaluators of the 5 sample problems be reviewing all sample problems or will some evaluators only read a subset of the 5 sample problems? | |
| A49. | Offerors are to structure responses to sample problems as they see fit. All responses will be evaluated. Offerors should not assume that the same or different evaluators will read each sample problem result. | ||||
| Q50. | IDIQ RFP | 59 | M.1.2.1.2 Sub-Factor 1.2 - Sample Problems 01-05 | If our 5 sample problems include an introduction, will each sample problem evaluator read the introduction as well as their sample problem response? | |
| A50. | See Answer to Question 49. | ||||
| Q51. | Attachment 05 RETS IDIQ Sample Problems | 1 | Sample Problem #4 | The first line of the problem statement is not a sentence. Should the word "what" be removed therefore making a statement "Identify the quality of the Department's Research and Engineering Enterprise (sic research capability)? Or is something else missing from the line? | |
| A51. | The word "What" was be deleted in the first sentence. Refer to revised Attachment 5. | ||||
| Q52. | Attachment 1 | 1 | System Criteria | For Offerors without a DCCA-approved accounting system, the Accounting System Checklist is simply a list of items that the accounting system shall provide for but not a list of hard data requirements. We recommend that for companies without a DCAA-approved accounting system that this Attachment 1 checklist be revised to state under paragraph (c) that “The Contractor’s accounting system shall provide proof via financial statements, accounting ledgers, Cost Type invoices, and any other pertinent data for the following list of items in order to demonstrate the ability to have a DCAA-approved accounting system.” Without asking for this data more explicitly, it puts the Government at risk of awarding to a contractor without a DCAA-approved accounting system that cannot properly and adequately account for Cost Type Task Orders under the IDIQ. | |
| A52. | Attachment 01 is adequate for the assurance sought by the Government at the IDIQ level. | ||||
| Q53. | IDIQ RFP | 59 | M.1.2.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1 – Task Order 0001 | The evaluation criteria states that: "The proposed personnel (key and non-key) will be evaluated for suitability for the proposed position(s) based on demonstrated experience in performing work similar in size and complexity to the individual’s proposed duties and responsibilities in the PWS, and qualifications (e.g. education, certifications, licenses) as presented in the resumes and the staffing plan. The evaluation will assess the depth and appropriateness of the experience of the Offeror’s proposed Key personnel. " |
It appears the government will be evaluating the suitability of the people for the positions they are in, and in alignment with the PWS. Can the government clarify if they will also be evaluating our workforce design - specifically which labor categories we have aligned to which PWS elements?
| A53. | Yes, the Government will evaluate workforce design IAW Section L.2.2.1 of the Solicitation "The Offeror’s Staffing Plan shall include tables and data that identify the fulltime and fractional equivalent staff being proposed mapped to the PWS of Task Order 0001" which will be evaluated IAW Section M.1.2.1.1 "The Offeror’s Staffing Plan shall include tables and data that identify the fulltime and fractional equivalent staff being proposed mapped to the PWS of Task Order 0001" | |||
| Q54. | Attachment 05 RET IDIQ Sample Problems | 1 | Sample Problem #2 | Sample problem 2 states: " Describe the approach to define each mission area and required modernization areas for the mission to be successful and prioritize by magnitude of impact." There is some ambiguity around the term “mission area”. In the Draft RFP the government used the term “2028 Mission Areas” and RFP also references Joint Mission Areas. Can the Government please clarify the term “mission area”? If the Government has a current list of “mission areas” can it provide them? Can the Government identify and/or provide any relevant reference documents that define the term mission area in the context of the Government's use? |
| A54. | See answer to questions 23. | |||
| Q55. | IDIQ RFP | 49 | L.2.2.1 | The government states that: " These tables and data shall clearly detail the names of all Key and Non Key staff proposed, matrix labor category fit…" Can the government please clarify what it means by Matrix Labor Category 'Fit'? Is it simply the assigned labor category or additional information relating to "fit"? |
| A55. | The Government has revised the language to read "assigned labor category." Please see revised Section L.2.2.1. | |||
| Q56. | 49, 59 | L.2.2 M.1.2.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1 – Task Order 0001 | Is the government seeking “the specific and actual means and methodology that will be used to satisfy the requirements of Task Order 0001 PWS” with respect to the staffing plan, resumes of Key personnel, subcontracting approach, and a timeline plan after award and approach to transition and start-up (per M.1.2.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1 – Task Order 0001)? | |
| A56. | Refer to Question 11. | |||
| Q57. | 49, 59 | L.2.2.1 Task Order 0001 M.1.2.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1 – Task Order 0001 | L.2.2.1 Task Order 0001 states: The Offeror shall submit a proposal to meet or exceed the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements of Task Order 0001 which shall include, a staffing plan and resumes of proposed Key personnel, and subcontracting approach. Offerors shall provide “the specific and actual means and methodology that will be used to satisfy the requirements of the Task Order 0001 PWS.” However, in section M.1.2.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1 – Task Order 0001, the government does not cite the Offeror’s approach to satisfying “the specific and actual means and methodology for the task order” in the evaluation criteria. Will the government evaluate these specific and actual means and methodologies that will be used to satisfy the requirements for the Task Order 0001? If so, how? | |
| A57. | Refer to Question 11. | |||
| Q58. | 50 | L.2.2.1—Figure 1. Resume Format | L.2.2.1 Figure 1 stipulates the resume format and information required .Is the government requiring that Offerors follow that format exactly, or is contractor resume format acceptable as long as it includes all required information as note in L.2.2.1—Figure 1? | |
| A58. | Follow the order as presented in the RFP. | |||
| Q59. | 49 | L2.2.1—Figure 1 Resume Format | L2.2.1 Figure 1 states that Offerors must “insert at the end of page of the resume or footer: ‘Attestation: We attest to the accuracy of the information contained herein and that an agreement has been reached regarding salary, position and work commitment.’” Is the government requiring the referenced statement included at the end of each page of a proposed individual’s resume, or is it acceptable to the government to include the referenced statement at the bottom of the final page of a proposed individual’s resume? | |
| A59. | Yes it is acceptable to include at the bottom of the final page. | |||
| Q60. | 52, 61 | L.2.2.1 Task Order 0001;M3.1 | Per L.2.2.1, the solicitation states: “The offeror must use Attachment 7 as the basis for forming the price proposal. Lack of detail may result in a rating of a higher risk by the Selection Authority in the selection process.” This task order is being priced, per government instruction (L.2.2.1) on a Firm Fixed Price basis. Could the government please clarify, aside from detail requested in Attachment 7, what additional detail it may be seeking on an FFP quotation (and therefore what detail, if omitted from offeror response, may result in a rating of a higher risk by the Selection Authority)? Additionally, how will any such required additional information be evaluated? | |
| A60. | Refer to Section L.2.4. | |||
| Q61. | 52, 61 | L2.2.1 Task Order 0001; M3.1 | Per L.2.2.1, the solicitation states: “The offeror shall provide a basis for the price, identifying all prospective labor categories, showing labor hours and rates for all labor categories, and any materials or supplies to be used.” However, M.3.1 instructs that: “The Offerors are not to change the Travel and Other Direct Costs plug numbers in the pricing template.” Could the government please clarify if the Travel and Other Direct Costs plug numbers identified in Section M.3.1 for pricing actual use in accounting for materials or supplies referenced in L.2.2.1, or are the plug numbers including for evaluation purposes only? | |
| A61. | See answer to Question 82. | |||
| Q62. | 1 | Attachment 05 RETS Sample Problems | Per Attachment 05 RETS Sample Problems: According to Attachment 05 RETS Sample Problems, Sample #04: “Identify what the quality (research quality, impact, outcomes, etc.) of the Department’s Research and Engineering Enterprise consisting of the In-house laboratories, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, and University Affiliated Research Centers. “ Could the government please clarify the wording of the first sentence of Sample Problem 04 as the intent is ambiguous. | |
| A62. | See answer to question 51. | |||
| Q63. | What is the minimum validity period of an Offeror’s proposal? | |||
| A63. | Refer to revised Section L.1.0 of the Solicitation. | |||
| Q64. | 48 | L.2.1.1.2 | When discussing “teaming arrangements” is the government referring to prime/sub relationships? Is the governments intent to have Offerors submit TA’s for reach teaming arrangement they have for this solicitation as part of this volume? | |
| A64. | See edit in Section L.2.1.2 and L.1.6 | |||
| Q65. | 48 | L.2.1.4 | Can the government please clarify the intended offeror validity period? | |
| A65. | See Answer to Question 63. | |||
| Q66. | 48 | L.2.1.5 | Is it the governments intent to have the offeror submit Attachment 03 NDA for each proposed personnel at time of proposal submission? | |
| A66. | No. NDAs are executed after Task Order award. NDA for the IDIQ PM due 5 days after IDIQ award. NDAs for TO staff due 5 days after TO 0001 award (reference Deliverables Section A.4 of Attachment 04) | |||
| Q67. | RFP, Section I Contract Clauses | Given that small subcontractors with contracts less than $7.5 million are supporting the Prime, while these small businesses will complete Attachment 1, the following cost accounting standard exclusion should be stated in Section I (7) Contracts or subcontracts of less than $7.5 million, provided that, at the time of award, the business unit of the contractor or subcontractor is not currently performing any CAS-covered contracts or subcontracts valued at $7.5 million or greater. | ||
| A67. | Exemptions will be applied as applicable at the Task Order level. | |||
| Q68. | RFP, IDIQ PWS 5.3 | Use of "Any" as in "Any other day/time…Presidential Proclamation" such as when extra Holidays are granted prior to major holiday, will impact labor rates if contractors are not authorized to work in accordance with their policies. We request that "any" be added to the following: The contractor may be required or authorized to work any other day/time..." | ||
| A68. | Section 5.3 conveys that same intent. | |||
| Q69. | RFP IDIQ PWS 5.4.2, Task 2 | What is the physical Infrastructure that the contractor is responsible for providing to rapidly formulate, integrate, demonstrate and test developmental and experimental concepts with planned transition to end-users. | ||
| A69. | Requirements will be specified in the individual task orders. | |||
| Q70. | RFP IDIQ PWS 5.4.3, Task 3 | The RFP is inconsistent in defining who the task area supports, defining the specific required tasks, and the analyses/techniques conducted for the M&S Contractor. Please clarify. | ||
| A70. | See answer to question 69. | |||
| Q71. | RFP IDIQ PWS, Subtask 6.1 Data Management | What data systems are the contractors responsible for implementing and managing. | ||
| A71. | Defining sample data systems at this time would be premature and could be mislead especially if forthcoming TO’s (which are TBD) do not require them. The sample list may not be representative of future task orders. | |||
| Q72. | Section F Deliveries or Performance, CLIN X0001 p. 22 | Can the Government confirm that the expected PoP start date for TO 0001 is 30 Sep, the same as the start of the IDIQ program? | ||
| A72. | The Government anticipates an award date of not later than 30 September 2020. | |||
| Q73. | RFP, Section B Supplies or Services and Prices; x0002 RETS IDIQ - Travel, p. 2; Attachment 04 Mission Engineering Seed Task, p. 5 | Can the Government provide any planned OCONUS travel locations for TO 0001 if any are anticipated? | ||
| A73. | No OCONUS travel anticipated. | |||
| Q74. | RFP Section L.2.2.1 Task Order 0001, p.51; Attachment 04, Mission Engineering Seed Task Section B, p. 2 | Can the Government describe the specific missions areas and associated study topics to be performed? | ||
| A74. | See answer to question 23. | |||
| Q75. | RFP, Section L.2.2.1 | Last sentence states, the lack of detail may result in higher risk. Can additional columns be used in the pricing template to add the required detail? | ||
| A75. | Refer to RFP Section L.2.4. and M.3.0. | |||
| Q76. | RFP, Section L.1.2, p. 46 | The RFP states, "Subcontractors not submitting proposals through the prime contractor shall submit proposals and informationthat is proprietary directly to the Government via e-mail to the Contract Specialist, sharon.a.hilton.civ@mail.mil. All subcontractor proposals shall clearly indicate the Prime Contractor for which they are proposing withinthe proposal and file name. File names shall be formatted as: PRIME-subcontractor-Volume XX. The subject line of the email(s) shall read as follows: “HQ0034-20-R-0129 – [Prime Contractor Name]-subcontractor”. Prime contractors are responsible for ensuring their subcontractors submit timely proposals." |
Question: Can the Government please confirm that subcontractors are not required to submit sealed packages but may do so depending on their subcontract type and need to protect any proprietary information?
| A76. | Confirmed | |
| Q77. | RFP, Section L.2.2.1 Task Order 0001, p.49 |
This section states, "The Offeror’s Staffing Plan shall include tables and data that identify the fulltime and fractional equivalent staff being proposed mapped to the PWS of Task Order 0001. These tables and data shall clearly detail the names of all Key and Non Key staff proposed" This section appears to suggest the Government wants to see named individuals for all Key and Non-Key Personnel. Can the Government confirm that Offerors are required to name all key personnel but for non-key can name those that are known and describe the capabilities of non-key staff positions where a named individual is not known and their alignment to the requirements as described in section L?
| A77. | Government wants to see named individuals for all key and non-key personnel. | |
| Q78. | RFP, Section L.2.2.1 Task Order 0001, p.49 |
RFP, Section M.1.2.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1, p.59 L.2.2.1 Task Order 0001: The Offeror shall submit a proposal to meet or exceed the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements of Task Order 0001 (Attachment 4) which shall include, a staffing plan M.1.2.1.1The government will evaluate the Offeror’s Staffing Plan to ensure that the Offeror can adequately provide support for the task stated in the PWS for Task Order 0001 Question: Section L suggests that the Government wants to see a technical response to the TO 0001 requirements in addition to the staffing elements; Section M appears primarily focused around the staffing plan. Can the Government clarify if Offerors are expected to provide a technical solution for TO 0001?
| A78. | There is no requirement for a technical solution to be proposed. | |
| Q79. | Attachment 7, TO 0001, L.2.2 Volume 3 Price, p. 51 | In the instructions for Technical (L.2.2) and Price (L.2.2), the Government indicates that the offeror is to propose Key Personnel based on the labor categories in Attachment 07. Attachment 07 already has key personnel aligned to labor categories and hours for each category. Is the Government requiring that the labor/hour mix within Attachmnent 07 be the basis for the staffing and price proposal or are those representative alignments that the offeror may deviate from? |
| A79. | See Question 46. | |
| Q80. | RFP, Section L.2.2 Volume 3 - Price, p. 51 | Can the Government confirm that the pricing section on p. 51 currently labeled L.2.2 should be labeled at L.2.4 and extended to subpargraphs in this section? If yes, can the Govenrment please provide a modified RFP document with this change? |
| Q80. | See answer to Question 16. | |
| Q81. | Attachment 7 - Pricing Template | The Pricing Template provides example paragraph numbers from the PWS. Given that the tasks in the Seed task are not directly aligned to the PWS, Should Column E in the pricing template map to the PWS or the Seed Task? |
| A81. | Should map to Task Order 0001 PWS - Attachment 04. | |
| Q82. | Other Direct Cost (Plug) | The other direct cost plug of $10,000 will not cover the necessary mission engineering and digital engineering tools needed to perform the analysis. Will the Government furnished tools be provided for work performed at the government locations on government equipment? |
| A82. | Plug number for ODCs removed. Proposal should reflect all costs anticipated to be incurred to meet the requirements of the PWS. Travel plug number must not be changed. | |
| Q83. | Other Direct Cost (Plug) | Results shall be presented in a computational tool of choice (Ref: Seed Task B.6. ). To bid a FFP seed task, with the cost of appropriate tools well over the $10,000 plug does this imply that a contractor provides their own tools as part of their overhead rate structure? |
| A83. | See Question 82. | |
| Q84. | RFP Section M.1 Evaluation Factors for Award | How will the Sample Problems and Task Order be evaluated (e.g., Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price? |
| A84. | Refer to Section M.1 of the RFP. | |
| Q85. | RFP, Section M.1.2.1.2, Sub-Factor 1.2 - Sample Problems 01- 05 | Are each of the 5 sample problems equal in weight in evaluation? Will all five be reviewed separately then combined into a single score? Or will each sample problem be given its own score? Will these scores be available at a debrief? |
| A85. | See M.1.2.1 and M.1.2.1.2. | |
| Q86. | Attachement 04 - Seed Task Order. Section 4. Knowledge Management | Is this a government owned and contractor operated cloud-based knowledge management system? |
| A86. | Yes. |
| Q87. | Attachment 04 - Seed Task Order. Section 6. Mission Engineering War Room | How much of the staff will be required to physically work at the Mission Engineering workspace in the Mark Center vs. the contractor facility. | |
| A87. | See TO 0001 PWS, Place of performance. | ||
| Q88. | Attachement04 - Seed Task Order. Section B.4. Analysis and Synthesis | What type of models, data, and simulations is the Contractor responsible for developing/acquiring? | |
| A88. | The contractor is responsible for determining and developing/acquiring the necessary models, data and simulations. | ||
| Q89. | |||
| Attachement 04 - Seed Task Order. Place of performance, pg. 5 | The Place of Performance section states, "the contractor shall supply all facility, workspace, and computing resources up to TS/TK/SCI needed to accomplish the task independent of government facilities." Will CAC-enabled government computers be provided GFE? Access to NIPR/SIPR? JWICS and others? | ||
| A89. | Yes. The Government will furnish computing resources for the mission engineering war room in the MC. | ||
| Q90. | Attachement 04 - Seed Task Order. | ||
| Licenses pg. 5 | What/how many software licenses and tools may the contractor be required to procure? What software will be provided GFE (e.g., OneSAF)? | ||
| A90. | The contractor is responsible for determining and acquiring the necessary software licenses. Refer to TO 0001 Seed Task, Place of performance. The government will furnish computing resources for the War Room. | ||
| Q91. | Attachment 04 - Seed Task | The Seed Task requires 8 key resumes (up to 3 pages) which could potentially only leave 11 pages to respond. Should the page count for the Seed task exclude key resumes? | |
| A91. | No. | ||
| Q92. | Attachment 04 - Seed Task Deliverable A.1. | PWS requirements for Deliverable A.1 "Mission engineering community map" are not provided. Provide the requirements that define the scope and content of a "community map". | |
| A92. | Requirements for this deliverable are in paragraph A.1. Mission Engineering Activity. | ||
| Q93. | Attachment 04, Mission Engineering Seed Task, p. 5 | Will the government consider priced options for TO 0001? | |
| A93. | No | ||
| Q94. | Attachment 05 - Sample Problems, #1 | An adequate response requires the identification of "mission-specific" instances, which will make the response classified (especially because the DD254 recognizes the level of security required). Given that both offensive and defensive solutions are required, how can this be adequately addressed if classified answers to problem #1 cannot be submitted? | |
| A94. | All elements of this proposal are unclassified and need to remain unclassified. The sample problems were developed with this in mind. We are not seeking answers for a specific mission(s), instead the general approach (engineering methods, tools, etc.) that they propose to solve these problems which are unclassified. | ||
| Q95. | Attachment 05 - Sample Problems, #2 | While modernization areas are clearly defined, mission areas are not defined in the PWS. How will offerors be evaluated consistently if a list of mission areas is not provided? The problem also states "The Mission to be successful", what is "The" Mission? | |
| A95. | See answer to question A94. | ||
| Q96. | Attachment 05 - Sample Problems, #2 | "Leap Ahead Technology" is not a modernization area. To determine if a mission is successful, and to prioritize by magnitude of impact, will make the response classified. How can this be adequately addressed if classified answers to problem #3 cannot be submitted? | |
| A96. | See answer to question A94. | ||
| Q97. | Attachment 05 - Sample Problems, #3 | "Potential countermeasures an adversary would employ" is classified. How can this be adequately addressed if classified answers to problem #3 cannot be submitted? | |
| A97. | See answer to question A94. | ||
| Q98. | Attachment 05 - Sample Problems, #4 | The last sentence has three separate prepositional phrases that do not clearly request an answer, which will result in an inconsistent evaluation of the offeror responses. For example: Who will the terms of reference be developed for? The alignment of the R&E Enterprise will be assessed against what? As written, it states to describe how to address the Department's challenges in modernization which is different than assessing the R&E enterprise, if that is the intent, the Departments challenges (if any) in modernization are not public knowledge, and would result in a classified response. How can these challenges (if any) be addressed at the unclassified level? | |
| A98. | See answer to question A94. | ||
| Q99. | Attachment 05 - Sample Problems, #1, 2, and 3 | Missions are referenced in Problems 1, 2, and 3. Answers to each problem will be different based on the mission(s) selected or assumed. Will a list of missions be provided to ensure a consistent "apples to apples" evaluation? | |
| A99. | See answer to question 23 and 94. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
ESRI_MAPINFO_SHEET
DO NOT EDIT
For Esri use only
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .