HQ0858-21-R-0010_TN-FLE Draft-RFP Industry Comment Matrix 02.03.2021.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TEAMS-Next Facilities, Logistics, Environmental (FLE) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HQ0858-21-R-0010
- Issued by
- DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
This document summarizes a comment matrix for a draft request for proposal for Facilities, Logistics, and Environmental services. The Missile Defense Agency is seeking these services on a single cost-plus-fixed-fee level of effort contract valued over $41.5 million awarded as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-aside. The contract would have a base period of three years and four one-year option periods to provide advisory and assistance services for facilities sustainment, logistics, and environmental management. Comments address revisions to labor categories, past performance evaluation criteria, and clarifying degree requirements, security clearances and identifying key personnel.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 27
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
FLE
| # | Document | Page # | Paragraph /Figure | ||||
| Number | Comment/ Rationale | Proposed Resolution(s) | MDA Response | ||||
| 1 | DRFP, Section I | 89 | FAR 52.216-11 | "Clause 52.216-11 Cost Contract - No Fee" is prescribed by FAR 16.307(e) for use on contracts that do not include fee. Considering that the FLE contract is expected to be CPFF, this clause is not applicable. | Remove clause 52.216-11 from the IBR clause list. | Solicitation updated to reflect removal of clause. | |
| 2 | DRFP, Section K | 121 | FAR 52.204-8 | The opportunity's NAICS code is identified as 541330 with a size standard of $16.5M. MDA routinely uses the Military and Aerospace exception under NAICS 541330, which carries a size standard of $41.5M. | Please revise the NAICS code to 541330 with the exception applied, and revise the size standard to $41.5M. | Solicitation updated to $41.5M. | |
| 3 | DRFP, Section L | 15 | 4.6 | Section L states, "For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the font shall be no smaller than 8 point." |
On a recent small business TEAMS-NEXT effort, the Government changed the 8-point font requirement for tables, charts, and graphics to 12-point font less than two weeks prior to the proposal due date. This unanticipated change led to significant proposal re-work late in the proposal development process, requiring unanticipated and significant expenditures of time and funds.
| Please confirm the Government does not intend to increase the minimum font requirement (i.e., to a size larger than 8-point font) in future iterations and/or amendments of the final RFP. | The Government has no intent to change this font requirement. | |||
| 4 | DRFP, Section L | 21-22 | 7.4-7.5 | "7.4 Subfactor MCS3: Environmental Management |
The Offeror propose its approach to and understanding of, support to the Government’s environmental management program, to accomplish the mission tasks: ..."
"7.5 Subfactor MCS4: Human Capital Management The Offeror shall propose its Human Capital Management capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach to, and understanding of, the following MCS4 elements #1, #2, #3, and #4..."
Subfactor MCS4 is the only subfactor that explicitly states that the offerors must propose (and be evaluated on) their understanding and approach to the "following MCS elements". Conversely, Subfactors MCS1, 2, and 3 state that offerors must propose (and be evaluated on) their understanding and approach to "accomplish the mission tasks."
| Recommend changing the words "mission tasks" to a specific listing of the Mission Capability Subfactor elements defined for each subfactor to make it clear that offerors are only required to respond to those elements. | Section L updated to include the word "following" prior to "mission tasks" for each MCS subfactor. | |||
| 5 | DRFP, Section L | 22 | 7.5 | "MCS4 Element #4: Key Staff Position defined as Contract Program Manager (CPM). The Government will evaluate the resume for the CPM…" |
Section L indicates that the CPM resume should be included within the page count for MCS4 Human Capital Management.
| Considering the criticality of adequately addressing each MCS4 element as well as the CPM's qualifications, recommend that the resume be excluded from the page count. | Page count for this element increased by 7 pages. | |||
| 6 | DRFP, Section L | 22 | 7.5 | "MCS4 Element #4: Key Staff Position defined as Contract Program Manager (CPM). The Government will evaluate the resume for the CPM…" |
| Section L only requires offerors to provide the resume of one key personnel (i.e., the CPM). | Recommend that offerors are required to provide resumes for all key personnel. | Proposal requirement is unchanged. | |||
| 7 | DRFP, Section L | 22 | 7.5 | "7.5 Subfactor MCS4: Human Capital Management |
The Offeror shall propose its Human Capital Management capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach to, and understanding of, the following MCS4 elements #1, #2, #3, and #4:"
Section L requires offerors to address all of these elements within 15 pages.
| Given that this effort is a consolidation of three different contracts, each with unique requirements and management challenges, recommend that the Government increase the total page count of MCS4 to 20 pages and exclude resumes from the page count. | Page count for this element increased by 7 pages. | |||
| 8 | DRFP, Section L and Attachment L-1 PPI Form | 27 | Section L | |
| 10.8 Relevancy and Attachment 1, PPI | Section L states that the offeror's PPI should focus on 15 different MCS Elements (a. through o.) in its PPI responses. The PPI form requests that the offeror describe how its experience applies to only four MCS Elements. In either case, individual contracts are unlikely to provide substantive relevance across mission capability subfactors that span facilities, logistics, and environmental elements. | Please revise the PPI instructions to allow the contractor to select the MCS elements from Section L that are relevant to the submitted contract and demonstrate the relevance of the experience reference to those elements. Also revise the language in Section L to state that offerors are responsible for showing how their collection of submitted contracts demonstrates relevance across all four MCSs. | Section L, Paragraph 10.8, and Section M, Paragraph 7.2, updated to include MCS1 Element #4, Facility Support and Services. Attachment L-01 updated to include "any of the following elements" and the titles of each MCS Element. |
| 9 | Attachment L-02 Past Performance Questionnaires | 2 | V. Performance Evaluation | The Performance Evaluation covers contracting policy, Source Selection advisory, cost/price analysis, and acquisition procurement operations rather than reflecting the requirements of the Facilities, Logistics, and Environmental (FLE) services procurement. | ||
| Update Attachment L-02 so the performance evaluation aligns with the evaluation requirements of the FLE procurement. | Attachment L-02 has been updated to reflect the Government performance considerations. | |||||
| 10 | SOW | 66 | Table 4.3.1.2.1 | The Environmental Contract Technical Lead degree requirements (MA/MS or BA/BS) in Table 4.3.1.2.1 on page 66 conflict with the Environmental Contract Technical Lead requirements (MA/MS in engineering) in the table on page 74 and the EPW's Labor Category tab. | ||
| Recommend requiring the Environmental Contract Technical Lead to possess an MA/MS in Engineering as stated on page 74. | Environmental Contract Technical Lead degree requirements located in SOW Table 4.3.1.2.1 on page 66 revised to read "MA/MS" rather than "MA/MS or BA/BS" to deconflict with information present in the Environmental Contract Technical Lead labor category description located on page 74 and within the EPW's Labor Category tab. | |||||
| 11 | SOW | 74 | Environmental Technical Lead box | On page 74, the requirements for the Environmental Contract Technical Lead include a Secret-level clearance, but SOW Table 7.1 on page 82 indicates that a Top Secret-level clearance is required. | Recommend clarifying the SOW to require a Top Secret-level clearance for this role. | No change to the Statement of Work required. There is no Top Secret level clearance requirement for the Environmental Contract Technical Lead position. Therefore, Table 7.1 will not be updated. |
| 12 | SOW | 74 | Environmental Specialist Advanced box | On page 74, the requirements for the Environmental Specialist (Advanced) include a Secret-level clearance, but SOW Table 7.1 on page 82 indicates Top Secret-level clearance is required. | ||
| Recommend clarifying the SOW to require a Top Secret-level clearance for this role. | Statement of Work updated on page 75 to include Top Secret level clearance requirement for the Enviornmnetal Specialist (Advanced) position, as reflected in Table 7.1 located on page 82. | |||||
| 13 | SOW |
DRFP section H 67-86
| 81 of 148 | 4.3.1.6 and Table 10.3 |
| H-14 | Throughout the SOW and DRFP clause H-14, there are conflicts regarding the personnel designated as key. Differing information on key designation exists for the Contract Program Manager (pg. 67, 86), Logistics SME (pg. 72, 86), Environmental Contract Technical Lead (pg. 74), two MSF SMEs (pg. 86), a NEPA Lead/Environmental SME (pg. 86), an Environmental Policy and Strategy Lead/Environmental SME (pg. 86), Test Environmental Lead/Specialist Advanced (pg. 86), and an Environmental Permitting Lead/Specialist Advanced (pg. 86). |
| Recommend revising the applicable SOW sections and Section H clause to state that all nine roles are key and that resumes are required and will be evaluated for each person designated as key. | Statement of Work (SOW), Table 10.3, updated to include Key Personnel identified. Solicitation, H-14 clause, updated to reflect the Key Personnel identified in the SOW, Table 10.3. The Contract Program Manager's resume is the only resume that will be reviewed. | |
| 14 | SOW and Attachment L-05 EPW | 86 |
LOE Tab/FBLR Tab
10.3 Key Personnel Table
| The Key Personnel Table in 10.3 of the SOW lists two (2) Subject Matter Experts in MSF, both in HSV. The FBLR Tab in the EPW matches the level of effort listed in the SOW, but the LOE Tab in the EPW only allocates hours for one (1) SME for MSF. | Please update the EPW LOE to match the Key Personnel requirements as listed in the SOW. | MSF Subject Matter Expert "Number of Key Positions" located in SOW Table 10.3 revised to read "1" rather than "2" to mitigate discrepancy. | |||
| 15 | Attachment L-05 EPW | LOE | There are hours allocated for FMS support for Logistics Analysts in the EPW, but no hours are allocated for Facilities FMS support. | Add hours for a Facilities Analyst labor category to the established FMS CLINs, or add an additional CLIN to include Facilities support for anticipated FMS support. | Proposal requirement is unchanged. There is no requirement for Facilities FMS support. |
| 16 | Attachment L-05 EPW | Rates | The Dahlgren rate for a Facilities Analyst (Intermediate) is lower than the Huntsville rate for the same LCAT. Given that Dahlgren is competing with the National Capital Region (NCR) in recruiting and retaining talented staff, Dahlgren should have rates comparable to and competitive with NCR rates. |
| Recommend increasing the Dahlgren rate to be equivalent with the NCR rate. | Error found in the EPW and corrected which increased the Dahlgren rate. | ||||
| 17 | Attachment L-05 EPW | LOE | Based on the hours in the EPW, it appears that Facilities support begins on 10 February 2022. Previous information provided by MDA indicated that each legacy contract would run to its natural completion. The current FLSM contract is scheduled to end on 8 November 2022. | Recommend making the start date for facilities FTEs 9 November 2022 and allow performance of the facilities FTEs to continue for the five-year period of performance, concluding on 8 November 2027. | EPW updated from Feburary 9, 2022 to November 9, 2022 for FLSM FTEs. |
| 18 | Attachment L-05 EPW | LOE | There is one Basic Analyst in the DE CLIN 0017. Matrixed CLINs that include only a single FTE often involve high-visibility/high priority activities overseen by senior-level leader within MDA. These types of roles are typically performed by individuals with more experience than the level possessed by a Basic Analyst (a junior role). |
| Recommend changing the LCAT in DE CLIN 0017 to either Intermediate or Advanced. | Proposal requirement is unchanged. | |||
| 19 | Attachment L-05 EPW | Labor Category Tab | Benchmark Average Labor Rate | The benchmark average labor rate for the Environmental Specialist Advanced and the Environmental SME are the same across locations, but the Environmental SME requires significantly more experience, a higher level of education, and more specialized qualifications than the Environmental Specialist Advanced. |
| Recommend increasing the benchmark average labor rate for Environmental SME by a minimum of 20% to reflect the more demanding requirements of this labor category. | EPW updated to include increasing the Enironmental SME position in Huntsville, AL to $75.00. | |||||
| 20 | Attachment L-05 EPW | Cost Roll-Up tab | Cell A3 | The solicitation number on the Cost Roll-Up tab is incorrect. This cell populates all EPW spreadsheets. | Correct cell A3 on the Cost Roll-Up tab to HQ0858-21-R-0010. | Updated the EPW to show HQ0858-21-R-0010. |
| 21 | Draft Solicitation | 101 | (g)(2)(3) | Under this clause, if an Offeror is bidding as a joint venture (JV) it states that if one member of the JV is a SDVOSB and SB under the applicable NAICS to meet the SDVOSB set-aside. Item (2) also states that the other concern in the JV also needs to be a SB under the applicable NAICS. However, item (3) states that the JV also needs to meet the requirements of 13 CFR 121.103(h). 13 CFR 121.103(h) states the requirement above regarding if two SBs have formed a JV but also allows for a JV comprised of a, "(ii) Two firms approved by SBA to be a mentor and protégé under § 125.9 of this chapter may joint venture as a small business for any Federal government prime contract or subcontract, provided the protégé qualifies as small for the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the procurement, and the joint venture meets the requirements of §§ 124.513 (c) and (d), §§ 125.8(b) and (c), §§ 125.18(b)(2) and (3), §§ 126.616(c) and (d), or §§ 127.506(c) and (d) of this chapter, as appropriate." This regulation also states, "iii) Two firms approved by SBA to be a mentor and protégé under § 124.520 of these regulations may joint venture as a small business for any Federal government prime contract or subcontract, provided the protégé qualifies as small for the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the procurement and, for purposes of 8(a) sole source requirements, has not reached the dollar limit set forth in § 124.519 of these regulations." Therefore, since Offerors are meeting the requirements of 13 CFR 121.103(h), Offeror's should be able to bid under this requirement as a JV that includes a mentor and protégé if one member of the JV is considered a small business under the applicable NAICS. | Revise (g)(2) to state that if using a mentor and protégé JV that only one of the JV entities is required to be a small business under the applicable NAICS. | Section L, paragraph 1.2, updated to include by reference, 13 CFR 125.18 Service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern (SDVO SBC). Additionally, paragraph 1.2 updated to include the following statement: "Joint ventures. An SDVO SBC may enter into a joint venture agreement with one or more other SBCs or its Small Business Administration (SBA)-approved mentor for the purpose of performing an SDVO contract." |
| 22 | SOW | 76 | 5.2 | The SOW states that, "Contractor shall develop and deliver a Monthly Status Report in accordance with CDRL A001, which includes the following separate enclosures: Quarterly Accomplishment Report…" It appears that the Quarterly Report should be an additional CDRL separate from the Monthly Reports CDRL. | Recommend making the Quarterly Report a separate CDRL from the Monthly Report CDRL. | Proposal requirement is unchanged. |
| 23 | SOW | 85 | 9.1.2 | For contractors located off-site, MDA will provide laptops for access to the unclassified MDA network. | Assuming some part of the workforce is authorized to telework from home, will MDA consider authorize providing phones? | Cell phones are provided when it is in the best interest of the Government, and that determination is made by individual program offices. All Government laptops come provisioned with Skype. |
| 24 | Solicitation | 65 | CLIN 0307 has a POP of 20 Dec 2021 – 31 Mar 2024. This CLIN’s PoP ends prior to the end of the Base period. | Is this an error or a reflection of this specific program’s end date? | This is when the FMS case ends. | |
| 25 | Solicitation | 66 | CLIN 1305 has a POP of 20 Dec 2024 – 30 Sep 2025. This CLIN’s PoP ends prior to the end of the option period. | Is this an error or a reflection of this specific program’s end date? | This is when the FMS case ends. | |
| 26 | Solicitation / SOW / Sec L | 82/ 86/ 22 | H-14 a./ Table 10.3/ Para 7.5 – MSC4 Element #4 | References to Key Personnel appear to conflict between the three cited references. The solicitation in para H-14 appears to only cite the CPM as a key personnel. The SOW and Section L requirements list several other key personnel but are not consistent between the two citations. | Can you please clarify the specific “key personnel” requirements? | Statement of Work (SOW), Table 10.3, updated to include Key Personnel identified. Solicitation, H-14 clause, updated to reflect the Key Personnel identified in the SOW, Table 10.3. |
| 27 | Section L | 5 | 6, 14 | Add all required files and click “Drop-off Files”. Document files names shall follow this example: “FLE HQ085821R0010 (Subcontractor Name if applicable) Volume # Title”. For clarity of submittals, should the Prime Offerors name be included in the naming convention? Also, the Section L instructions require two copies of each volume except for the EPW. Should the naming convention also include the copy number? | Recommend revising to Document files names shall follow this example: “FLE HQ085821R0010 (Prime Contractor Name and/or Subcontractor Name if applicable). | Section L updated to include revised document file name. |
| 28 | DRFP | Attachment J-18; Section L | Table L-1; Paragraph 5.7 (p18) | Attachment J-18 lists 54 positions as mission essential, including staff at numerous remote locations, e.g., Wake Island. Please provide additional 2-4 additional pages in the MESP so that offerors can adequately address plans to support this large number of positions and locations | Increase the page limit for the MESP from 4 to 8 pages. | Section L updated to include 4 page increase. |
| 29 | DRFP | Section L (pps24-25) | Para 10.1 and 10.2 | Section 10.1 and 10.2 are a bit contradictory – 10.1 contains language that only the prime, JV partners, and major subcontractors: “The PPI (Attachment L1) should be submitted only for the prime contractor and major subcontractors expected to perform aspects of the effort the Offeror considers critical to the overall successful performance” (emphasis added). Section 10.2 notes that “PPIs shall also be submitted for IWTA, joint ventures and teaming partners the Offeror considers critical to overall performance success” (emphasis added). Please confirm that non-major subs can supply past performance in areas the offeror deems critical. | Conform language in L-10.1 to L-10.2 to allow PPI submittals by any subcontractor which will perform critical aspects of the effort. | Section L 10.1 updated to identify critical versus major subcontractors. |
| 30 | DRFP | Section J-01 (SOW) | Pg 67 | Given the importance of the CPM position, would the government consider adding a requirement for “Program Management Professional (PMP)” from the Project Management Institute (PMI) certification or Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) Level III Program Management? PMP or DAWIA certification ensures strict adherence to cost, schedule and performance requirements and processes. | Suggest MDA require PMI PMP certification or DAWIA Level III Program Management as a required skill for the CPM. | Proposal requirement is unchanged. |
| 31 | DRFP | Section L (pg14) | Table L-1 | Would the government consider adding five additional pages to the MCS4 Human Capital Management? A limit of 15 pages to cover recruiting, retention, problem solving, and key staff positions with the inclusion of the CPM resume will severely limit bidders’ ability to explain their HCM approach and the government’s ability to discriminate between offerors. | Suggest MDA increase HCM page count to 20 and exclude the CPM resume from the HCM page count. | Page count for this element increased to 22 pages. |
| 32 | DRFP | Draft Solicitation (pps 85-86) | Clause H-42 | The US citizenship requirement appears to apply to all employees of all entities which make up the contractor’s team. | Clarify that US citizenship requirements apply only to individuals directly working on the contract. | These requirements apply to the FTE provided in the contract. |
| 33 | DRFP | Draft Solicitation, Contract Clauses 52.204-8 (p121) | Section I, para 2 | The size standard listed is $16,500,000. This is not consistent with the MDA TEAMS Next Industry Day which advertised the size standard for NAICS 541330 with Exception of $41,500,000. | Update Solicitation Clause 52.204-8 to reflect correct size standard of $41,500.000. | Solicitation updated to $41.5M. |
| 34 | DRFP | Section L (p12) | Para 4.0 | The DRFP does not address page margins for the proposal. Historically, MDA has required 1” margins all around. | Suggest MDA require all submitters to use 1” margins. | There are no page margin requirements for this solicitation. |
| 35 | DRFP | Section M (p14) Revelency Assessment and Attachment L-01 PPI | Paragraph 7.2 | Paragraph 7.2 of Section M in the DRFP lists all MCS Elements for relevancy consideration, but is missing MCS1 Element #4. In addition, the list of Elements in Section F of Attachment L-01 - PPI Form does not include all of the revelency assessment elements listed in paragraph 7.2 of Section M. | Request the Government add the missing MCS1 Element #4 to Section M 7.2 and expand the list of Elements in Section F of Attachment L-01, PPI Form, to include all the Section M 7.2 relevancy assessment elements. | Section L, Paragraph 10.8, and Section M, Paragraph 7.2, updated to include MCS1 Element #4, Facility Support and Services. Attachment L-01 updated to include "any of the following elements" and the titles of each MCS Element. |
| 36 | DRFP | Attachment J-01, SOW, page 66 | Section 4.3.1.2 | Table 4.3.1.2.1 lists degree requirements for various labor categories. We note that the logistics labor categories mandate both higher educational achievement and experience than similar categories in environmental or facilities domains. Is this the government’s intent? | Suggest revising labor category educational requirements and experience/education trade-offs by adding equivalencies for experience. | Statement of Work, Paragraph 4.3.1.6, updated to include educational and experience requirements updates for logistics labor categories. |
| 37 | DRFP | Are the travel and ODC amounts in the TERP inclusive of all upcoming acitivities within the agency? | Bid to the ODC and travel rates listed in the EPW and Section B of the solicitation. | |||
| 38 | DRFP | Please consider changing the degree requirements to any field rather than specifically the logisitics acquisition, operation, and sustainment for the logisitics labor categories. | Statement of Work is unchanged. | |||
| 39 | DRFP | Can the Government discuss any key upcoming logistics challenges the successful offeror may be asked to support on the FLE contract. | Some of the biggest challenges are MSL property accountability and product support management. | |||
| 40 | DRFP | It would be helpful if the Government could provide feedback, prior to final RFP release, to address the differences between the Past Performance Information (PPI) form and the Past Performance requirements in Sections L and M. | Attachment L-01, PPI Form, and Attachment L-02, PPQ Form, have been updated. | |||
| 41 | DRFP | For each PPI, would the Government consider allowing the Offeror to determine which MCS Elements are relevant to individual reference as long as Offerors ensure that all four MCS Elements are covered in our collection of contract references? | Yes. | |||
| 42 | DRFP | Does MDA foresee any changes to the IMCP requirements for FLE? | No. |
FLE Draft RFP HQ0147-21-R-0010 MDA Government Comment Matrix Compilation
Approved for Public Release 21-MDA-10725 (4 Mar 21)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .