Test_Exercise_ _Wargames_Q As_August_26 _2015.pdf

Test Exercise and Wargames Industry Questions Responses

Subject Location Reference Question Response 1 General This contract is similar to the Business Operations contract, in that several current Task Orders have been combined into a single contract; and the procurement transitioned from Full-n-Open as MiDAESS Task Orders to Small Business Set Aside as a TEAMS contract. The combination of these two factors represents a significant change, justifying a thorough assessment of offerors’ capabilities as demonstrated with past performance and provision of substantive information to source selection officials.

Would the government consider applying the same evaluation criterion structure as in the Business Operations procurement to enable a more thorough evaluation of the offerors’ past performance?

No, theGovernment does not intend to make this requested change. The evaluation criteria for past performance will remain as stated in Section "M-3.0 EVALUATION

METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA, TABLE M-1:

ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE FACTORS, Factor F5:Past Performance"

2 PWS PWS Attachment J-01 There is no mention of any effort required to support Deployment or the Test Registration Database (TRD) for Flight and/or Ground Test events. Will this scope be added to the final RFP?

No, the current PWS and Product Table specifically name the Test Deployment plan and Roster, no other requirements pertaining to this issue will be added.

3 PWS PWS Table 3.0 of the TEAMS Test, Exercises and Wargames PWS lists Vandenberg Air Force Base as a location for GMT. Table

8.1 does not show VAFB as a location for the GM Stakeholder.

Is the workstation at VAFB for GMT while performing tasks at TDY location? Or, should GM have VAFB added to their list of locations in table 8.1?

In the Final RFP, VAFB will be added into table 8.1 as a location for GMT.

4 PWS PWS Each PWS paragraph indicated the MDA 3-lettter organizations requiring the work described in that paragraph.

Are the listed organizations in parentheses that follow the task details in section J-01 (PWS) the only ones having requirements associated with the paragraph? (e.g. 1). Section 3.2.a.24: Is GMT the only pertinent organization for this requirement? And 2). 3.1.b.7 only ABT and DTF are assigned; should GMT, SNT, THT, and BCT be included?).

The parentheses that follow the Task Requirements indicate the organization that request support for that specific paragraph. 1)GMT is the only organization to request support under that specific section (3.2.a.24) 2)ABT and DTF are the only organizations to request support under that specific section (3.1.b.7).

5 PWS PWS We have compared the three previous PWSs to the current PWS and while it is restructured, we do not find a reduction in the scope or content with respect to requirements. Attachment L-09 indicates an 18% annual reduction in “associated requirements” for DT and 10% for C2BMC.

Could the government better define the “reduction in requirements” so offerors can propose accordingly?

The PWS has no reduction in scope rather a reduction in stakeholders for specific PWS tasks.

6 RFP Section H-31a. Page 47 of 76 Technical Cognizance reads: “The Add Technical Office is the cognizant government technical organization for this contract………herein.”

Should the word “Add” be deleted and should the spaces before and after “Technical Office” be removed?

In the Final RFP, the word "Add Technical Office" and the spaces before and after will be removed, and will be replaced with "a. The Directorate of Test (DT) is the cognizant Government technical organization…."

7 RFP Section H- Clause H-

TEAMS-01

H-TEAMS-01: COST PLUS FIXED FEE, COMPLETION CLINs

– FEE DETERMINATION (Mar 2015)

How will the Government determine contract completion? Contract Completion will be based on the performance of non-severable services within the scope of the PWS that constitutes a single undertaking with a defined end-product and that cannot feasibily be subdivided for performance.

8 Section J Attachment J-02 Attachment J-02 TEAMS_QASP_Test Exercise Wargames 2015- 06-18 includes 2 tables describing the Small business Utilization Rating Structure (Table A1-2 and Table A1-4).

These seem to have different performance ratings for the same activities. Can the Government confirm if both tables apply to the solicitation or whether or not one supersedes the other?

A revised Attachment J-02 will be issued in the Final RFP.

9 Section L L-1.2 Section L-1.2 states "Major subcontractor ……….who’s proposed effort provides at least 10% of the proposed total price of the contract……” and Section L-14.1 states “the term Major subcontractor is defined as and includes any subcontractor at any tier that contributes more than 10% of the hours as proposed by the offeror for all CLINS combined.

Which one of these statements is correct? A "Major" Subcontractor is described as performing 10% or greater of proposed hours. The change will be reflected in the Final RFP.

10 Section L L-4.4 Table L-1 restricts Tab 1, Volume VIII, Technical to 30 pages which, when compared to the magnitude of Section J, PWS, seems to be severely page limited given the requirement to address Capabilities, Understanding and Approach for the entire

PWS.

Will the Government increase the page count to 50 pages? No - In the Final RFP, the Government will increase Tab 1, Volume VIII, Technical to 45 pages.

11 Section L L-10.2 “Offerors shall include a “roadmap” describing all changes in the organization of the offeror and any teaming partners.“

Can the Government confirm the "roadmap" shall include a Prime and subcontractor change history?

This requirement applies only to the "offeror and any teaming partners"

12 Section L L-10.7 “Each offeror, subcontractor, and/or joint venture shall execute a Client Authorization Letter for commercial customers authorizing release to the Government of requested information on their respective performance using the format provided at Attachment L- 04, Client Authorization Letter.

Please define what is included in the Government’s definition of a “commercial” customer.

The definition of "commercial customer" is in the context of those providing commercial items/services, as defined by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101 Definitions (b) "Commercial item" means-(6) "Services of a type offered and sold competitively in substancial quantities in the commercial marketplace based on established catalog or market prices for specific tasks performed or specific outcomes to be achieved and under standard commercial terms and conditions."

13 Section L L-12.2 Section L-12.2 has been edited to read Technical Lead (singular).

H-14 reiterates a single Technical Lead.

Please confirm the government’s intent – do you want offerors to merely bid one Technical Lead?

Staffing is based on the offeror's approach on how to best support the Government's requirement, it is not the intent of the Government to limit or direct a specific solution.

The offeror may propose whatever key personnel they deem necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS to include multiple Technical Leads.

14 Section L L-14.0 Section L-14.0 and attachments: The Tabs on the Excel Pricing template include a Tab QS, however the Section B of the RFP does not have a CLIN for QS, can you please clarify?

A revised Excel Pricing Workbook and Section L Pricing Instructions will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP that will address this issue.

15 Section L L-14.0 Section L-14.0 and attachments: Will the Government provide an all-inclusive list of stakeholders? PWS paragraph 1.2. Organizational Description lists the stakeholders within this requirement/scope.

16 Section L L-14.0 Section L-14.0 and attachments: Will contractors be allowed to add additional Tabs to the pricing template for additional clarity and detail?

Yes; Offerors, IWTAs and major subcontractors must correct and tailor the Excel Pricing Workbook to eliminate errors and conform to their estimating and accounting systems.

17 Section L L-14.0 Section L-14.0 and attachments: The pricing template is not formatted for a joint venture. Will the Government make this correction or will the contractor be required to make all necessary changes?

A revised Excel Pricing Workbook will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP. Offerors, IWTAs and major subcontractors must correct and tailor the Excel Pricing Workbook to eliminate errors and conform to their estimating and accounting systems.

18 Section L L-14.0 Section L-14.0 and attachments: At final RFP, will contractors be required to fill in the cost template with no changes to the template except for adding or deleting lines or columns?

A revised Excel Pricing Workbook will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP. Offerors, IWTAs and major subcontractors must correct and tailor the Excel Pricing Workbook to eliminate errors and conform to their estimating and accounting systems.

19 Section L L-14.0 Section L-14.0 and attachments: In the current cost template there is a Tab for DTW, however in Attachment 9 of historical Information there are hours distributed to DT and DTW. Will the Government add a Tab for DT or should the bidder combine these two for proposal purposes?

A revised Excel Pricing Workbook and Section L Pricing Instructions will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP that will address this issue.

20 Section L Attachment L-09 Attachment L-09 TEAMS Test, Exercise and Wargames Historical Information – provides office facilities, equipment, and materials for daily business use information.

Does the number of these ‘work stations’ include work stations at TDY locations that are not used except during TDY.

No, all the work stations provided as historical Information have requirements associated with them.

21 Section L Attachment L-10 Attachment L-10 Labor Competency Descriptions for TEWG lists only 4 labor categories.

Since this list does not include engineers or SMEs, is the table incomplete? Are these the only labor categories we are expected to propose to? If incomplete, a corrected copy of the labor categories is requested as soon as possible.

A revised Excel Pricing Workbook and Section L Pricing Instructions will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP that will address this issue.

22 Section L Page 10 TABLE L-1 Proposal Organizatoin and Content

In this table, Volume III is listed as RESERVED. In the majority of released TEAMS Draft RFPs and Final RFPs this Volume was addressed as “Cybersecurity Risk Management Plan.”

What is meant by RESERVED? Volume III is listed as "RESERVED" to preserve the integrity of the numbering system and to allow flexibity should any new Volume be required.

23 Section L Page 15, Proposal Organization and Content, Paragraph L-7.0

Paragraph L-7.0 Volume III Cybersecurity Risk Management Plan discusses a detailed plan based on DFARS Clause 252.204- 7012 and which requires a detailed plan to be submitted.

Will a “Cybersecurity Risk Management Plan” be required for this proposal?

In the Final RFP, Volume III Cybersecurity Risk Management Plan and the associated evaluation criteria will be removed.

24 Section L Table L-1 TABLE L-1:

Proposal Organization and Content

Given the complexity and magnitude of this effort, Would the government consider increasing the page count for the Technical Expertise / Approach (Tab 1 of the Technical Volume) from 30 pages to 60 pages?

Yes-In the Final RFP, the Government will increase Tab 1, Volume VIII, Technical to 45 pages.

25 Section L Attachment L-10 “Attachment L-10 Test, Exercise and Wargames Labor Competencies” lists 4 Labor Competencies. However, Tab:

“Direct Labor Benchmarks” of “Attachment L-07 TEAMS Excel Pricing Workbook 2-3-15 PM” lists 13 Government Labor Competency Level Descriptions. Further, Tabs QS through FMS and Labor Resources and Subcontracts list “Tier 2, Tier 3, Program Manager (HSV), Administrative Support, and Software Engineer as “Direct Labor” Categories.

Is there a mapping between these various categories or is one of these the intended for use throughout the proposal response?

A revised Excel Pricing Workbook and Section L Pricing Instructions will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP that will address this issue.

26 Section L Section L: Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

Section L: Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, Pivot Table Tabs, page 25, implies that “Pivot Tabs” are supplied by the government in Attachment L-07 TEAMS Excel Pricing Workbook 2-3-15 PM.

Will this be the case or are contractors expected to supply their own pivot tables?

A revised Excel Pricing Workbook and Section L Pricing Instructions will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP that will address this issue.

27 Section L Section L-10.2 Regarding Organizational Structure Change History, section L-

10.2 says that “Offerors shall include a “roadmap” describing all changes in the organization of the offeror and any teaming partners”. L-10.2 concludes with, “This information will facilitate relevancy determination for contracts submitted for past performance.”

Does the Government require a roadmap for all teaming partners or only those for which contracts are submitted for past performance?

The roadmap requirement applies to the "offeror and any teaming partners".

28 Section L Attachment L-06 Attachment L-06 TEAMS Resume Format Please provide Attachment L-06 TEAMS Resume Format in an editable Microsoft Word format to facilitate Offerors’ responses.

In the Final RFP, Attachment L-06 TEAMS Resume Format will be included in an editable Microsoft Word format to facilitate Offeror's response.

29 Section L Section L-4.17 (page 13) Section L-4.17 (page 13) Please confirm that Offerors’ may submit Volumes I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX & X (Cost Narratives only) in Adobe .pdf format.

The Government confirms that Volumes I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX & X (Cost Narratives only) may be submitted in Adobe .pdf format.

30 Section L Section L-4.14 Government requests that “original” hardcopy volume be submitted unbound and printed head-to-foot so that each page can be read when placed in a standard 2-hole file folder (we interpret this as having 2 holes at the top). If the original hardcopy is to be submitted unbound, how should we package the proposal hardcopy so that it doesn’t get unorganized? Also, if the Government plans to 2-hole punch the original at the top of the proposal, 11”x17” foldouts will not “unfold” for review without removing the folded section from the binder clips. With multiple 11”x17” foldouts, as we anticipate with cost spreadsheets, the potential to damage the hardcopy may be significant and review may be difficult.

If the original hardcopy is intended to be 2-hole file folder punched, how do we accommodate review of 11”x17” foldouts?

Section L:Instructions, Conditions, and Notice to Offerors, section L-4 PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION defines the offeror's requirement for proposal submission which, if followed, will allow for the Government review process.

31 Section L Section L-6.0 OCI Plan Section L.6.0 refers to “the MDA-OCI Manual 5013.78”. Can MDA provide a copy of the referenced Manual? Yes, MDA-OCI Manual 5013.78 will be included in the Bidders Library Disk and will be released upon request by interested offerors after Final RFP release in FBO.

32 Section L Section L-1.5.e.3). OCI Mitigation Plan

Section L-1.5.e.3). OCI Mitigation Plan Should this be submitted as part of the OCI Management Volume? Yes, however Volume II-OCI Management Plan is a stand alone volume and should address those requirements specified in L-6.0 VOLUME II:ORGANIZATIONAL

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) MANAGEMENT

PLAN.

33 Section L L-14.3 The RFP suggests that Prime offerors, IWTAs and major subcontractors should comment on the ERI Salary Assessor labor categories selected as the closest match to the RFP Labor Categories during the draft RFP phase. However – the “Direct Labor Benchmarks” tab in the Excel Pricing Workbook does not appear to be populated with the data from the ERI Salary Assessor.

Will the Contractors have an opportunity to comment on the labor categories selected and the associated Benchmarks before the final RFP is released? When will the populated “Direct Labor Benchmarks” tab in the Excel Pricing Workbook be available for contractor review?

No. A revised Excel Pricing Workbook and Section L Pricing Instructions will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP that will address this issue.

34 Section L L-14.4 Excel Pricing Workbook

The “Indirect Rate Build-up Tab” instruction implies that if you provide a DCAA/DCMA letter approving provisional billing rates you do not have to complete the History and Projections table in the “Indirect Rate Build-up” tab.

Is this a correct interpretation? Yes, in the absence of a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) or DCAA/DCMA provisional billing rate agreement, the prime contractor and each known subcontractor or IWTA will populate the Indirect Rate Build-up tab to show the indirect rate build-up for their company.

35 Section L L-14.4 Excel Pricing Workbook

The “Rates” tab refers to a “FBLR” tab and there is a section in L-

14.4 providing instructions for populating the “FBLR” tab”. The “FBLR” tab appears to be missing from the Excel Pricing Workbook.

Should this tab be added by the Offeror? A revised Excel Pricing Workbook and Section L Pricing Instructions will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP that will address this issue.

36 Section L L-14.4 Excel Pricing Workbook

The “Labor Resources Tab – Prime” instructions indicates the Tab should list all the Labor Hours proposed and the associated fully-burdened labor cost. Based on the instruction for the “Labor Resources Tab – Subcontracts and IWTAs” and the “Contract Staffing Summary” it appears that the “Labor Resources Tab – Prime” should only include the hours and cost proposed for the Prime.

Is this a correct interpretation? A revised Excel Pricing Workbook and Section L Pricing Instructions will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP that will address this issue.

37 Section L L-14.4 Excel Pricing Workbook

There is not a “Labor Resources Tab – Subcontracts and IWTAs” in the Excel Pricing Workbook. There is a “Subcontracts Tab”, but this only collects cost information.

Will the Excel Pricing Workbook be expanded to add a “Labor Resources Tab – Subcontracts and IWTAs”? The “Subcontracts” tab only includes dollars. Should this also include hours proposed for the Subcontractors?

A revised Excel Pricing Workbook and Section L Pricing Instructions will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP that will address this issue.

38 Section L L-14.4 Excel Pricing Workbook

The “Contract Staffing Summary Tab” states “The prime contractor will populate this tab by combining the proposed labor hours from the Labor Resources Tab - Prime and Labor Resources Tab – Subcontracts and IWTAs.

Is this correct or should the “Contract Staffing Summary Tab” be completed first and broken down into the hours in the other two Tabs?

The instruction for the “Contract Staffing Summary Tab” also indicates the contractor will add BOE in Column Q. Is this correct and does this means the contractor will modify the Tab in the Excel Pricing Workbook?

A revised Excel Pricing Workbook and Section L Pricing Instructions will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP that will address this issue.

39 Section L L-14.4 Excel Pricing Workbook

The instructions in this section include “Pivot Table Tabs”. The workbook does not contain Pivot Table Tabs.

Are the Pivot Tables to be constructed by the Contractor? A revised Excel Pricing Workbook and Section L Pricing Instructions will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP that will address this issue.

40 Section L L-14.4 Excel Pricing Workbook

The instructions in this section include a “Labor Categories Tab”.

This Tab Does not appear in the workbook. There is a “Direct Labor Benchmarks Tab” but it is not completely populated.

Are the labor categories identified in the “Direct Labor Benchmarks Tab” the correct labor categories and correct descriptions for this solicitation?

A revised Excel Pricing Workbook and Section L Pricing Instructions will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP that will address this issue.

41 Section L L-14.4 Excel Pricing Workbook

The Pricing Tabs associated with Stakeholders appears to include Subcontractor Fee as a “fee Bearing” Cost. We expected this cost to be eliminated from the Fee calculation.

Is this a correct assumption and will the “Stakeholder Tabs” in the Excel Pricing Workbook be corrected?

A revised Excel Pricing Workbook and Section L Pricing Instructions will be issued with the forthcoming Final RFP that will address this issue.

42 Section L Attachment L-01 Past Performance Information

(PPI), HQ0147-15-R-0027

Attachment L-01. Past Performance (PPI), HQ0147-15-R-0027 contains instructions which limit the spacing for past performance text.

Can the instructions be removed prior to submission;opening instructions, instructions in #6, #8, and #9.

No, Attachment L-01 Past Performance Information (PPI), HQ0147-15-R-0027 will remain unchanged.

43 Section L Attachment L-2.10 Bidders' Documents Library

Would like to request a copy of the Bidders' Documentation CD. To whom should I send for a request for a copy of the Bidders' Documentation CD.

Section L-2.10 Bidders" Documents Library provides guidance on the process for requesting a copy of the Bidders' Documents Library CD once the Final RFP is posted on FBO.

44 Section M M-9.1 This Section includes the statement “Capability to perform PWS requirements for development of the activities for the Directorate of Test: Systems and Component Flight Test; and Wargames and Exercises.

Please define what activities the government is interested in. "…development of the activities…" should be read as all the requirements and scope specified within the PWS.

45 Section M Section M Evaluation Criteria.pdf

TABLE M-1 implies the plan will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable.

The evaluation criteria for past performance will remain as stated in Section "M-3.0 EVALUATION

METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA, TABLE M-1:

ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE FACTORS, Factor F5:Past Performance"

Sheet1