HQ0858-20-R-0011 TN-WOI RFP Industry Comment Matrix.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TEAMS-Next Warfighter Operational Integration Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HQ0858-20-R-011
- Issued by
- DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
This solicitation requests proposals for Warfighter Operational Integration services under the Technical, Engineering, Advisory and Management Support-Next acquisition for the Missile Defense Agency. Key details include:
-
The cost-plus-fixed-fee level of effort contract will be set aside for a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business and is for a base period of three years with five one-to-two year option periods.
-
The services required include strategic and operational interface with warfighting stakeholders to manage operational and sustainment activities and assist with development of future missile defense capabilities and doctrine/policy activities. Support is also required for real-world events.
-
The solicitation number is HQ0858-20-R-011. Proposals must be submitted electronically by 4:00 pm on October 19, 2020 to the address in Section L.
-
Questions are due by September 25, 2020 to the identified email addresses.
-
The North American Industry Classification System code is 541330 for engineering services.
-
Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management database per FAR 4.1102 to be eligible for award.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 35
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
WOI
| # | Document | Page # | Paragraph /Figure | ||||
| Number | Comment/ Rationale | Proposed Resolution(s) | MDA Response | ||||
| 1 | SOW | 4 | 1.3 | Will a bidder's library be provided for the documents referenced in paragraph 1.3? | Make the documents available for download on the BETA.SAM site. | Yes | |
| 2 | SOW | 3 | 1.2.1 | Multiple references are made to both MDS and BMDS, which is the preferred name? | Revise the SOW to be consistent to eliminate confusion. | MDS refers to the Missile defense system. In some cases, when the term BMDS is used, it refers to the Ballistic MDS. In some contexts, these changes have not yet been made, especially to issuances and tools. The SOW is updated where applicable. | |
| 3 | SOW | 7; 29 | 3.1.2.a; | ||||
| 3.7.2.a | Despite a reference to the US Air Force and US Space Force in paragraph 3.1.2.a, there are no requirements in the SOW for interfacing with USSF to coordinate OPIR imagery for tests, wargames and exercises, and real-world events. We acknowledge that task 3.7 specifies an interface with USSF for Strategic Missile Defense Radars (SMDRs) and in 3.7.2.a requires integration of SMDR and MDA C2 systems capabilities to support Space Domain Awareness (SDA), Intelligence and Combat Identification and Space Control, however, the SOW does not specify which space systems/sensors. | Please clarify whether the WOI contractor is required to interface with space-based sensors, and if so, which ones, and which organizations are involved. | DW is the stakeholder for paragraph 3.1 tasks and SNR is the stakeholder for paragraph 3.7. Paragraph 3.2.1a is correct and has no relationship with 3.7.2a. Sensors include Long Range Discrimination Radar and potential future MDS radars that could be used for space domain awareness. | ||||
| 4 | SOW | 10 | 3.2.2.a | It is unclear whether the MOC at Redstone referenced in this paragraph is the HMOC | The Mission Operations Center (MOC) in Huntsville, AL is the Huntsville Mission Operations Center (HMOC). | ||
| 5 | SOW | 11 | 3.2.5.b | Requirement to participate in WIP forums. Could the Agency please elaborate on the various VIP forums, how often they meet, where they meet, and who attends? | Quarterly WIP Reviews are conducted. The schedule is determined by USSTRATCOM. More information on the WIP is located in the WIP Instruction, MDA Directive 5010.17, Warfighter Involvement Process. This is included in the bidder's library. | ||
| 6 | SOW | 11 | 3.2.5.c | Requirement to develop WIP products…to include translating, verifying and validating submitted warfighter requirements. Yet no reference to which tool the Agency uses for requirements management. | Please specify the requirements tool currently in use for this function. | There is a WIP database managed by JFCC-IMD. MDA has input access. | |
| 7 | SOW | 11 | 3.2.6.b | Requirement to assist with planning and execution of transferring mission capabilities between OSC on Schriever AFB and the Alternate Operating Location (AOL), yet there is no mention of where the AOL resides. | Please specify the location of the AOL, and identify the host organization. | This location is classified but is within the local commuting distance. | |
| 8 | SOW | 12 | 3.2.7.d | Last bullet requires coordination of network and server issues with network administrators, but does not specify which organization provides the network and server administration function. Is this a government organization or a contractor? If a contractor, is an Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA) required? | Please clarify this interface | The contractor is responsbile for providing support for the tools list in paragraph 3.2.7.a. These tools are provided by another Agency contractor. An ACA may be required IAW paragraph 2.1 of the SOW. | |
| 9 | SOW | 13 | 3.2.11.a | 2nd bullet references ATDs and LNOs with no definition of these acronyms. | Please provide definitions for all acronyms and abbreviations used in the SOW | Assistants to the Director (ATDs) and Liaison Officers (LNOs) | |
| 10 | SOW | 15 | 3.3.2.e | Requirement to provide cost, schedule, and performance data using Earned Value Management practices, yet a tool is not specified for this function. | Please specify which tool is used to provide EVM data and analysis. | Agency development contractor may use whatever EVM tools they choose. Reports are provided to the Government for analysis by the Warfighter support contractor. | |
| 11 | SOW | 15 | 3.3.3.a; | ||||
| 3.5.10.a | Requirement to liaise with Information Technology organizations (3.3.a) or IT Directorates (3.5.10.a). Which ones? Are these internal to MDA or those provided by host organization? | Please clarify which IT organizations are to be liaised with. | For 3.3a, these are all MDA organizations/ directorates (MDA/IC and MDA/FD). The specific directorate are dependent upon the project being coordinated. | ||||
| 12 | SOW | 15 | 3.3.3.d | Requirement to submit trouble tickets or work order requests, yet no tool/system is specified for the contractor to use to submit these items. | Please specify which tool or IT system is used to submit trouble tickets and work order requests. | The tool is the Agency's portal based system | |
| 13 | SOW | 17 | 3.4.2.c, f; | ||||
| 3.4.4.d | reference is made to providing subject matter expertise to radars and sensors (3.4.2.c), and operational sensor assets (3.4.2.f) yet these systems are nowhere defined, nor are they in 3.4.4.d and f. Are these ground-based radars, sea-based radars, or space-based sensors? | Please clarify the types of radars and sensors and which organization maintains them so that the contractor will know who to coordinate with to assess and report current MDS health and status, or to coordinate and transitionsensors between test, developmental and operational states. | SN's portfolio contains Ground-based sensors, which include, but are not limited in the future to, the following: AN/TPY-2, SBX, UEWR, Cobra Dane, LRDR, and future MDS radars which may be tasked to support the Space Domain Awareness (SDA) mission. |
| 14 | SOW | 19, 24 | 3.5.1.e; | ||||
| 3.6.1.d | Reference is made to the Agency's web-based workflow management tool, yet the tool is not specified. | Please specify the tool used by the Agency for web-based workflow management. | The name of the Agency system is: Task Management Tool (TMT) | ||||
| 15 | SOW | 20 | 3.5.2.a | Reference is made to BMDS vice MDS. Which is correct? | Please clarify. | The reference was updated to MDS. | |
| 16 | SOW | 21 | 3.5.5.a | Reference is made to supporting defensive cyber operations and reporting, however, the Agency has not defined what this support entails. | Please elaborate on the requirements to provide support to defensive cyber operations and reporting. What tools are used? Is this cyber policy development, cyber data analysis, mornitoring of systems, performing scans, assessing vulnerabilities, performing penetration tests, performing cyber forensics, investigating cyber incidents? | This reference only relates to operational reporting. MDA provides the defensive cyber operations information for operational assessment and reporting to the GM and the BWO. There is no requirement to monitor networks. No tools are required. | |
| 17 | SOW | 23 | 3.5.9.a | Requirement to assess RAM results, yet no tools or databases are specified for this function. Are these tools used by the prime contractor, host organization, the Agency or all of them? | Please specify the RAM tools, systems, and databases that produce the results to be assessed. Please also clarify which organization maintains the tools, systems, databases. | Data is provided to the government by its development contractor and the Warfighter support contractor then performs analysis of that data. | |
| 18 | SOW | 23, 24 | 3.5.9.c; |
3.5.11.b;
| 3.5.12.b | Requirement to translate operations and sustainment, and Warfighter requested requirements into readiness, operational availability, and engineering language for application within the program. It is not clear which program is required, whether it is a system/tool/database, and who mainatins it. | Please clarify the specifics of the program mentioned in this requirement, and which tool is used for requirements documentation and management. | The paragraph refers to GM. The only tools for this are the MS Office products. | ||||
| 19 | SOW | 25 | 3.6.2.c | Requirement to provide subject matter expertise on radar and sensor operations and employment, yet these systems are not defined. Are these Aegis ship-based radars and sensors, or Ashore-based systems? | Please specify which radars and sensors and which organization responsible for maintaining them. | See item 13 | |
| 20 | SOW | 26 | 3.6.4.c | Reference is made to the IMD Warfare Improvement Program (WIP). Is this the same as the Warfighter Involvement Process (WIP). | Please clarify. | Yes, corrected in PWS to Warfighter Involvement Process (WIP). | |
| 21 | SOW | 29 | 3.7.2.a | Reference is made to "DAF" for supporting strategic basing actions yet this acronym is not defined. | Please define this acronym. | Department of the Air Force (DAF) is spelled out in para 3.7. | |
| 22 | SOW | 30 | 3.7.4.c | It is not clear which WIP this requirement is referring to. | Please clarify whether WIP refers to Warfare Improvement Program or Warfighter Involvement Process. | Yes, corrected in PWS to Warfighter Involvement Process (WIP). | |
| 23 | SOW | 31; | |||||
| 48 | 4.1.1, 4.1.2; | ||||||
| 9.1 | Locations do not match the full list of Work Site Locations in the Draft RFP EPW Level of Effort worksheet. Excluded are San Diego and Jacksonville | Please clarify if support will be required in San Diego and Jacksonville. If support will be required at these locations, please specify whether workstations will be provided and update Table 9.0. | Support not required in San Diego or Jacksonville | ||||
| 24 | SOW | 33 | 4.3.1 | The Professional Labor Categories definitions and descriptions do not specify whether the Agency would consider substitutions of additional years of directly related experience in lieu of an advanced degree (e.g., BS/BA and 5 years additional experience may be substituted for the MS/MA degree). | Please clarify whether additional years of experience may be substitutes for an advanced degree requirement. | The labor category requirements identified in paragraph .4.3.1 are the Government's minimum requirements. | |
| 25 | SOW | 35 | 4.3.1.f; | ||||
| CPM table | CPM labor category requires experience supervising multiple contractor teams/team leads with 100+ personnel in a complex environment. The 100+ supervisory experience seems high, especially considering there are only 95 FTE required for the contract (excluding emergent requirements). An argument could be made (especially for a SB set-aside) that experience managing 50+ personnel is just as difficult as managing a 100+ team | Please consider revising this requirement. | Considering the geographic dispersion, diversity of stakeholder missions and requirements, and the complexity of the overall contract, this is the minimum Government requirement. | ||||
| 26 | SOW | 35 | 4.3.1.f; | ||||
| OSA (advanced) table | It is unclear whether the experience requirements in the bullets are concurrent with each other. | Please clarify. | Experience requirements for Operations Support analysts' corrected. | ||||
| 27 | SOW; | ||||||
| Draft RFP L, M | SOW p. 43; |
L p. 1;
M p. 3 7.0;
L.1.3;
| M.2.1 | Requirement specifies that contractor shall possess a Top Secret Facility Clearance at the end of the transition period; whereas, RFP Section L.1.3 and M.1.2 state that as a condition for award, the contractor shall have a Top Secret Facility Clearance in place prior to award. | Please clarify whether a Top Secret Facility Clearance is required at time of contract award or by the end of the transition period. It would seem logical that it be at end of the transition period to allow for new entities (e.g. Joint Ventures) to apply for the Facility Clearance based on award of this contract. Alternatively, the PCO could grant sponsorship to the entity to pursue FCL prior to award. | The SOW updated to remove "at the end of the transition period." The FCL is required prior to award. The PCO is not able to provide sponsorship for an FCL. | ||||
| 28 | SOW | 49 | 10.3; | ||||
| Table 10.1 | The term "Site Chiefs" are used in Table 10.1, but these are nowhere else defined, nor which sites require a Site Chief. | Please specify the labor category, quantity, and specific locations of Site Chiefs required to be in place at the start of the period of performance. | Site Chiefs are named by the awarded contractor as part of their own leadership team. They represent the Government's POC for each location as stated in para 10.3. | ||||
| 29 | Section L | 5 | 2.1; | ||||
| EPW | 2.1 specifies a period of performance consisting of a base period of three years with two 2-year options and one 1-yr option plus a 6-month option to extend services; however the EPW Level of Effort worksheet shows a base period with 71 days in GFY1, 365 days in GFY2, and 294 days in GFY3, which only totals to 2 years of performance. Additionally, the extension is defined as consisting of 365 days (12 months) in the EPW as opposed to the 6 month stated in L.2.1. | Please clarify the length of the base period and extension and update the documents accordingly. | EPW shows a 3 year PoP for the Base Period. EPW updated to remove ancillary information. | ||||
| 30 | Section L | 12 | 4.5 | Page size is defined as 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. It is not clear whether foldouts on 11 x 17 inch paper are permissible, and if so whether they count as one or two pages. | Please clarify whether foldouts may be used and if so how many pages they count as. | Section L will be updated to count 8.5 x 11 pages with foldouts as 2 pages. | |
| 31 | Section L | 17-18 | 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 | It is unclear which SOW requirements correlate with MCS2 Elements 1 and 2, MCS3 Elements 1 and 2, MCS4 Elements 1 and 2, and MCS5 Elements 1 and 2. | Please provide SOW references for each MCS Element. | Crosswalk included in Section L. | |
| 32 | Section L | 17-18 | 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 | It is unclear which CDRLs apply to the MCS Elements the offeror is required to address. | Please specify the applicable CDRLs, if any, that are required by each MCS Element. | None. | |
| 33 | Section L | 28 | 11.5 | Under the Labor Category worksheet heading it states that a description of the minimum average direct labor rate benchmarks and the approximate salary range inherent in the benchmark average is included. In the EPW, the Labor Category worksheet does contain a minimum direct labor rate benchmark, however, no approximate salary range is provided. | Please clarify whether salary ranges were intended to be provided, and if so, provide the ranges. | Final RFP updated remove language concerning salary ranges. | |
| 34 | Section L; |
Attach L1 and L2;
Section M PPI p. 2-3;
PPQ p. 3;
M p. 13 L.10.8;
PPI; PPQ;
| M.7.2 | The Mission Capability evaluation criteria on the PPQ form does not match the Mission Capability Subfactor Elements specified in L.10.8 and included on the PPI form. For example, the PPQ includes a criteria for "supporting operational watch standing functions..." which does not correlate with a MCS Element requirement (MCS1 Element 1 and 2 are not included in the List provided in L.10.8 and M.7.2 for which offerors are instructed to show relevancy). Also, the criteria "Ability to achieve timely recruiting and on-boarding..." does not correlate with the PPI and Relevancy criteria (MCS6 Element 1 is not included in the Relevancy criteria). Also the criteria "Ability to solve employee performance problems" does not correlate with PPI and Relevancy criteria (MCS6 Element 3 is not included in the Relevancy criteria defined in L.10.8 and M.7.2). It seems logical that the PPQ and PPI should be consistent. | Please revised the PPQ to be consistent with the PPI and Relevancy criteria set forth on L.10.8 and M.7.2. | PPQ revised to make consistent with L and M. |
| 35 | Section L; |
Attach L1 and L2;
Section M PPI p. 2-3;
PPQ p. 3;
M p. 13 L.10.8;
PPI; PPQ;
| M.7.2 | The Mission Capability evaluation criteria specified in L.10.8 does not match the criteria in the PPI form. For example, L.10.8 specifies MCS2 E1 and E2; MCS3 E1; MCS4 E2; MCS5 E1; and MCS6 E2. The PPI form in Attachment L1 includes criteria for "supporting operational watch standing functions..." (MCS1 Element 1 and 2 are not included in the List provided in L.10.8 and M.7.2 for which offerors are instructed to show relevancy). Also, the criteria "Ability to achieve timely recruiting and on-boarding..." correlates to MCS6 E1 whereas the criteria in 10.8 corresponds to MCS6 E2 "retain qualified personnel". It seems logical that the criteria in Section L, the PPI form, and Section M match. | Please make the criteria in Section L.10.8 consistent with Section M | RFP updated. |
| 36 | Section L; |
Attach L1 and L2;
Section M PPI p. 2-3;
PPQ p. 3;
M p. 13 L.10.8;
PPI; PPQ;
| M.7.2 | The Mission Capability evaluation criteria specified in L.10.8 does not match the criteria in M.7.2, in that L.10.8 requires relevancy with respect to MCS5 Element 1, whereas the criteria in M.7.2 does not have a relevancy criteria for MCS5 E1. Neither the PPI form or PPQ form have a criteria that corresponds to MCS5 Element 1. It seems logical that the criteria in Section L, the PPI and PPQ forms, and Section M must match. | Please revise Section M to correlate with the relevancy criteria defined in Section L and update the PPI and PPQ forms provided in Attachments L1 and L2. | RFP updated. | ||||
| 37 | Section M | 4 | 2.5 | Section M paragraph states that Mission Capability includes five (5) subfactors, however, there are 6 subfactors listed (MCS1 - MCS6). | Please revise to read six (6) subfactors. | Section M updated to reflect 6 subfactors. | |
| 38 | Section M | 5 | 2.5 | Section M specifies that all Mission Capability subfactors are of equal relative importance, however, the paragraph does not specify whether the Elements within each subfactor are also of equal relative importance. | Please clarify whether the Elements in each subfactor are of equal relative importance. It would seem that those Elements that are included in the Relevancy criteria and PPI form should be more important than those Elements that are not included. | The result of the evaluation of elements build to the subfactor ratings. You can get strengths wor weaknesses, etc. at the element level, but there are no color or adjectival ratings at the elements. | |
| 39 | Section M | 13 | 7.2 | Relevancy criteria in M.7.2.e (MCS6 Element 1) is inconsistent with L.10.8.f (MCS6 Element 2). | Please revise Section M to correlate with the relevancy criteria defined in Section L and update the PPI and PPQ forms provided in Attachments L1 and L2. | Section L updated to change to MCS6 Element 1 recruit qualified personnel. | |
| 40 | Att L-05; | ||||||
| Att J-01 SOW | L-05 Rates tab; | ||||||
| SOW pp 35-37 | MDA's T-N Warfighter salary benchmarks for the positions of Analyst, CPM, and Engineer labor categories are drastically lower than the benchmarks identified in the T-N Engineering dRFP. The LCAT definitions are the same in both opportunities but Warfighter's benchmarks are about 60% of the equivalent values in Engineering. Besides being unbalanced in the source selection, the result of this inconsistency will mean that the Engineering Prime contract holder will be able to lure successful analysts from the Warfighter contract by offering higher salaries for the same qualifications. Thus putting small businesses at a disadvantage to large businesses with MDA. | Review and revise the Benchmarks direct labor rates so that equivalent labor categories throughout the T-N portfolio are priced at equivalent values. | CPM and Engineer rates adjusted. No changes made to analyst rates. Rates are appropriate for the scope of effort. | ||||
| 41 | Att J-01; | ||||||
| HQ0858-20-R-0011+TN-WOI+Draft+Section+J+Attachments+Combined | J-01 SOW page 35 (p35/89 in pdf) | para 4.3.1 | The CPM Functional Description requires a BS or MS with 15+ years experience. Would a CPM with a PhD and 10+ years experience meet the qualifications? | Allow 10 years experience for a CPM with a PhD. |
OR
| Allow a PhD in lieu of 5 years' experience | Yes, that is acceptable. | ||||||
| 42 | Section L in HQ0858-20-R-0011 TN-WOI Draft Solicitation_L_ L Att_ M Combined | Section L, p11 (p103/161 in pdf); | |||||
| Section L, p20 (p112/161 in pdf) | Table L-1, describing Vol VI, Tab 1; | ||||||
| para 10.0 Factor 4 - subpart (b) | "Tab 1: Summary Page & List of Subcontractors/Joint Ventures (JVs) 5" | ||||||
| "b) Summary page (submitted as part of Volume VI Tab 1) describing the role of the Offeror and each subcontractor and teaming partner (for which the Offeror is required to provide Past Performance Information (PPI))." | Based on the page count allotted in the table on page 103, please confirm that the "Summary Page" may exceed one page. | Table L-1 provides 5 pages for Tab 1 of Volume VI Summary Page & List of Subcontractors/Joint Ventures (JVs). | |||||
| 43 | Section L in HQ0858-20-R-0011 TN-WOI Draft Solicitation_L_ L Att_ M Combined | Section L, p21 (p113/161 in pdf) | Section L, para 10.2 | "The Offeror shall identify the recent and relevant contracts to be used for past performance evaluation, and submit a PPI sheet (Attachment L1) for each contract identified." | Please confirm offerors may make minor formatting adjustments to Attachment L1 to best accommodate text. | Yes. | |
| 44 | Section M in HQ0858-20-R-0011 TN-WOI Draft Solicitation_L_ L Att_ M Combined | Section M, pp 4-5 (pp 148-149/161 in pdf) | Section M, para 2.5 | "Mission Capability includes five (5) subfactors: Ground-Based Weapon System Watch Efforts (MCS1); Asset and Configuration Management (MCS2); Strategic and Operational Integration (MCS3); Warfighter Processes (RFI/RFA/WIP) (MCS4); Risk Management Implementation (MCS5); and Human Capital Management (MCS6). All Mission Capability subfactors are of equal relative importance." | Please confirm that Mission Capability includes six subfactors and that offerors will be evaluated on all six. | Section M updated to reflect 6 subfactors. | |
| 45 | Section M in HQ0858-20-R-0011 TN-WOI Draft Solicitation_L_ L Att_ M Combined | Section M, p6 (p150/161 in pdf) | Section M, para 3.0 | "The Factor 1 Mission Capability subfactors (MCS1, MCS2, MCS3, MCS4, and MCS5) will be evaluated using the definitions at Table M-3 and the ratings at Table M-4." | Please confirm that all six Mission Capability subfactors will be evaluated using the definitions at Table M-3 and the ratings at Table M-4. | Section M updated to include MCS6. | |
| 46 | Att L1 & Section M in HQ0858-20-R-0011 TN-WOI Draft Solicitation_L_ L Att_ M Combined | Attachment L1 (PPQ) p3, (p132/161 in pdf); | |||||
| Section M p13 (p157/161 in pdf) | PPQ section V; | ||||||
| Section M para 7.2 | "Past Performance Questionnaire… ability to retain qualified personnel." |
"In assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to the following:
a) MCS2 Element #1: Asset Management
b) MCS2 Element #2: Configuration Management
c) MCS3 Element #1: Service, CCMD and Joint Staff Integration
d) MCS4 Element #2: Warfighter Involvement Program (WIP)
| e) MCS 6 Element #1 Recruit Qualified Personnel" | Given that past performance evaluators will be assessing offerors on their ability to retain qualified personnel through the Past Performance Questionnaire, recommend that the Government also include MCS 6 Element #2 Retain Qualified Personnel as part of the relevancy evaluation and as part of the PPI so that offerors are provided space to address retention strategies for each past performance reference. | RFP updated. | |
| 47 | Section M in HQ0858-20-R-0011 TN-WOI Draft Solicitation_L_ L Att_ M Combined | Attachment L1 (PPQ) p3, (p132/161 in pdf); | |
| Section M p13 (p157/161 in pdf) | PPQ section V; | ||
| Section M para 7.2 | "Past Performance Questionnaire… Ability to solve employee performance problems." |
"In assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to the following:
a) MCS2 Element #1: Asset Management
b) MCS2 Element #2: Configuration Management
c) MCS3 Element #1: Service, CCMD and Joint Staff Integration
d) MCS4 Element #2: Warfighter Involvement Program (WIP)
| e) MCS 6 Element #1 Recruit Qualified Personnel" | Given that past performance evaluators will be assessing offerors on their ability to solve employee performance problems through the Past Performance Questionnaire, recommend that the Government also include MCS 6 Element #3 Problem Resolution Strategy as part of the relevancy evaluation and as part of the PPI so that offerors are provided space to address problem resolution strategies for each past performance reference. | As written, the RFP reflects the Governments priorities. | |||||
| 48 | Section L in HQ0858-20-R-0011 TN-WOI Draft Solicitation_L_ L Att_ M Combined | Section L p12 (p104/161 in pdf) | Section L para 4.6 | "For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the font shall be no smaller than 8 point." | Please confirm offerors may use a font other than Times New Roman for tables, charts, graphics, and figures. | See Section L paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6. | |
| 49 | Section M in HQ0858-20-R-0011 TN-WOI Draft Solicitation_L_ L Att_ M Combined | Section M, p10 (p154/161 in pdf) | Section M, para 4.6 | "4.6 | Subfactor MCS6: Human Capital Management | ||
| The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Human Capital Management capability based on its approach to, and understanding of, the following MCS5 elements #1, #2 and #3" | Please confirm that offerors will be evaluated on their Human Capital Management capability based on MCS6 elements #1, #2, and #3. | Section M pargraph 4.6 was corrected to reflect "MCS6." | |||||
| 50 | Section L in HQ0858-20-R-0011 TN-WOI Draft Solicitation_L_ L Att_ M Combined | Section L p17 (p110/161 in pdf) | Section L para 7.7 | "7.7 | Subfactor MCS6: Human Capital Management |
The Offeror will be required to perform all SOW requirements. However, for proposal
| evaluation purposes, the Offeror shall propose its capability based on its approach to, and understanding of, the following MCS5 elements #1, #2 and #3" | Please confirm that offerors should propose their capability across MCS6 elements for Subfactor MCS6. | Section L paragraph 7.7 was corrected to reflect "MCS6." | ||||||
| 51 | Section L in HQ0858-20-R-0011 TN-WOI Draft Solicitation_L_ L Att_ M Combined | Section L p6 (p98/161 in pdf) | Section L para 2.4 | "Offerors are reminded that there is a continuing obligation to notify MDA of any changes to key personnel proposed in the FPR occurring after submission of the FPR but before announcement of an award decision." | Please confirm that offerors are not to include any key personnel resumes with their proposal submission. | Resumes are not required for the proposal. | ||
| 52 | Section L in HQ0858-20-R-0011 TN-WOI Draft Solicitation_L_ L Att_ M Combined | Section L p12 (p104/161 in pdf) | Section L para 4.5 | "4.5 | Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document and any non-narrative sections (e.g., tables, graphs, charts, figures), the text size shall be no less than Microsoft Word Times New Roman 12 point font, single-spaced. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume." | Please confirm that offerors should use standard 1 inch margins on all sides of each page. | Comply with the instructions of paragraph 4.5 in Section L. | |
| 53 | Section L in HQ0858-20-R-0011 TN-WOI Draft Solicitation_L_ L Att_ M Combined | Section L p12 (p104/161 in pdf) | Section L para 4.10 | "If provided, each volume shall contain a list of all tables and figures within that volume. The List of Tables and Figures will not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes." | Please confirm that offerors may refer to all tables and figures as "exhibits." | Comply with paragraph 4.10 of Section L. | ||
| 54 | Draft Solicitation Sections L&M | L - pg. 23 | ||||||
| M - pg. 13 | L.10.7 | |||||||
| M.7.1 | L.10.7 states recency of past performance as work performed during the three-year period preceding the date of the RFP. |
| M.7.1 states recent work as that performed during the five-year period preceding the date of the solicitation. | Will the Government please clarify what the time period for work performed prior to RFP release is correct to meet the recency requirement? | Section L 10.7 was updated to reflect a five-year period. |
| 55 | Draft Solicitation Sections L&M |
Draft Solicitation Attachment L1 PPI L - pg. 23
M - pg. 13
Att. L1 - pgs. 2 and 3 L.10.8
M.7.1
Att. L1 Sections F through K L.10.8 states that the Offeror’s PPI submissions should focus on the following:
MCS2 Elem. #1: Asset Management Procedures MCS2 Elem. #2: Configuration Management Procedures MCS3 Elem. #1: Service, CCMD and Joint Staff Integration MCS4 Elem. #2: Warfighter Involvement Program (WIP) MCS5 Elem. #1: Risk Identification, Mitigation, and Recommendations for Recovery MCS6 Elem. #2: Retain Qualified Personnel
M.7.1 states that when assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to the following:
a) MCS2 Elem. #1: Asset Management
b) MCS2 Elem. #2: Configuration Management
c) MCS3 Elem. #1: Service, CCMD and Joint Staff Integration
d) MCS4 Elem. #2: Warfighter Involvement Program (WIP)
e) MCS 6 Elem. #1 Recruit Qualified Personnel
Attachment L1 Section F through K request responses to:
MCS2 Elem. #1 MCS2 Elem. #2 MCS3 Elem. #1 MCS4 Elem. #2 MCS6 Elem. #1 MCS1 Elem. #1 Will the Government please confirm the elements required to show Past Performance relevancy? Section L updated to change to MCS6 Element 1 recruit qualified personnel.
Warfighter RFP HQ0858-20-R-0011 MDA Government Comment Matrix Compilation
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&10Approved for Public Release 20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) &"-,Regular"&11
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .