HQ0858-21-R-0016_TN-FLCM RFP Industry Comment Matrix.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HQ085821R0016
- Issued by
-
DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
This solicitation notice seeks proposals for a Facilities Lifecycle Management (FLCM) services contract to support the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The FLCM requirement includes facility and infrastructure planning, design, construction oversight, sustainment, demolition and disposal, deployment, and integration for geographically dispersed MDA locations. The cost-plus-fixed-fee level of effort contract will have a base period of three years, with two one-year options and one six-month option. Proposals are due by September 17, 2021. The North American Industry Classification System code is 541330 for Engineering Services. Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management database. Questions about the solicitation are due by August 25, 2021 and must be emailed to the addresses provided.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 54 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
FLCM
| # | Document | Page # | Paragraph /Figure | ||||
| Number | Comment/ Rationale | Proposed Resolution(s) | MDA Response | ||||
| 1 | Section L | n/a | n/a | As this is a F&O solicitation, is a Small Business Participation Plan and Subcontracting Plan required with this proposal submission? | Update Section L to include a Small Business Participation Plan and Subcontracting Plan. | L-8.0 and M-5.0 updated to include Small Business Participation as an evaluated factor. | |
| 2 | Section L | 10 | 2.10 | Section 2.10 includes the directions to request an Offeror's library. Is this library different than the Bidder's Library provided with the Draft RFP posting? | Provide clarification of Offeror's Library vs. Bidder's Library. | The Bidder's Library is the same document as the Offeror's Library. | |
| 3 | Section L | 12 | 3.3 | Section L 3.3 states "Offerors are advised that, should it be awarded a contract, the Government may incorporate into the final contract enhancing features included in the successful Offeror’s proposal deemed beneficial to the Government." | Does this confirm that elements of offerors proposal will only be considered a "strength" if able to be incorporated into award? | No. The Factor 1 Mission Capability Subfactors (MCS1 and MCS2) will be evaluated using the definitions at Table M-2. | |
| 4 | Section L | 18 | 6.3 | Is the Limitations on Subcontracting section required only for small businesses? | Consider updating the "Limitations on Subcontracting" to clarify. | L-8.0 and M-5.0 updated to include Small Business Participation as an evaluated factor. | |
| 5 | Statement of Work | 15-18 | 3.1.3 | The draft SOW section 3.1.3 appears to have mis-numbered subparagraphs: d through m; no a, b or c subparagraphs; there are two i and j paragraphs. | Will the Government please clarify what the subparagraphs numbering should be? | This typing error has been corrected. | |
| 6 | Section L | 13 | Table L-1 | Volume III Factor 1: Mission Capability / Tab 1: MCS1 Technical Expertise/Approach contains 8 evaluated sub elements but limits the page count to 20 pages. |
Paragraph 3.2 on page 11 states " Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror's experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal."
The 20 page count limitation is not sufficient to properly inform the Government per their direction in Section L, Paragraph 3.2 as stated above.
| Increase the MCS1 page count to 40 pages to allow offerors the opportunity to provide sufficient evidence of a low risk technical solution. | Page count for MCS1 increased to 30 pages. | |||||
| 7 | RFP Section L | 13 | Section 4.4, Table L-1 | The proposal's organization and content table (L-1) does not include a Small Business Utilization or Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Since this is a Full & Open unrestricted procurement, it seems peculiar MDA is not inclduing a SB Utilization or Subcontract Plan in its Section L or M. Additionally, the PWS includes (on page 32) a Small Business Utilization requirement to implement a Small Business Participation Plan (Attachment J-20). Can the Government verify if a Small Business Utilization Plan is required as part of the proposal and if so, how it will be evaluated relative to the evaluation factors cited in the Draft RFP? | L-8.0 and M-5.0 updated to include Small Business Participation as an evaluated factor. | |
| 8 | PWS | 40 | Table 10.1 | In Table 10.1 - Transition and Staffing Timeline, there are two Contract Progrma Managers cited - one is a CPM Advanced, and the other is a CPM Intermediate. However, the Labor Category Descriptions under section 4.3.1.6 on page 25 indicates a single Contract Program Manager position. Similarly, Attachment L-05 FLCM Draft EPW shows a single Contract Program Management position. Can the Government verify that the CPM is an Advanced or Intermediate position, and that Table 10.1 incorrectly shows a second CPM Transitioning in "NLT 5 Work Days After start of Period of Performance?" | Corrected. There is only one Contract Program Manger required at the start of the period of performance. | |
| 9 | PWS | 36 | Table 7.10 | Table 7.10 - Individual Top Secret Clearance Requirements cites an Engineer (Advanced) located in Suffolk, VA. However, the RFP and PWS do not show Suffolk, VA as a place of performance and Attachement L-05 FLCM Draft EPW also does not show an Engineer (Advanced) Labor Category located in Suffolk, VA. Can the Government clarify this requirement? | Corrected. Requirement is TS clearance for advanced engineer located at Ft. Belvoir, VA. | |
| 10 | PWS | What are the key challenges faced by the MDA Real Property Investments and Deployments (MSR) organization? | MDA has numerous world-wide BMDS deployments where reliability and survivability are issues. Specific issues include deployments in high seismic areas, HEMP requirements and redundant power systems. | |||
| 11 | Section M | 13 | 8.2 | How is the past performance relevancy assessment related to mission capability elements and to the SOW? Paragraph 8.2 states "In assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to the following: | ||
| a) Experience in facilities life-cycle management, siting, site activation planning and programming, design, engineering, construction oversight, sustainment, demolition and disposal, deployment, and integration for geographically dispersed locations. b) Management" | While both were developed based on the SOW, the mission capability elements and past performance relevancy evaluations will be conducted independently, and solely in accordance with the terms of Sections L and M. | |||||
| 12 | Section M | 9 | 4.1 | How are the mission capability elements (MCS1) related to the SOW? | While the mission capability elements were developed based on the SOW, evaluations of proposals will be conducted solely based on the criteria specified in Section M. | |
| 13 | Solicitation | 3 | CLIN 0001 | How confident are you that the workforce specified can cover emerging requirements? | MDA leadership approved the inclusion of a Emerging Requirements Option CLIN of 40% of the total hours of the contract based on previous history with MiDAESS and TEAMS. | |
| 14 | Attachment J-21 | 4,5 | Tables 2.0, 3.0 | We're trying to understand whether FLCM is encompassed in any of the restrictions (i.e., on the chart) for Table 2.0 on page 4 or Table 3.0 on page 5. I have highlighted the reference in the attachment. Facilities, Lifecycle Management is not named specifically but does it fall under Facilities, Logistics and Environmental? | No. | |
| 15 | ||||||
| 16 | ||||||
| 17 | ||||||
| 18 | ||||||
| 19 | ||||||
| 20 |
| TEAMS-Next FLCM RFP HQ0858-21-R-0016 | MDA Government Comment Matrix Compilation |
| Approved for Public Release |
21-MDA-10882 (11 JUL 21)
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&10 &"-,Regular"&11
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .