Amd 01-HQ0858-20-R-0011 - TN-WOI Questions_Consolidated_Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TEAMS-Next Warfighter Operational Integration
- Solicitation number
- HQ0858-20-R-011
- Issued by
-
DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
This document summarizes questions and answers related to a solicitation for Warfighter Operational Integration services. The Missile Defense Agency is seeking these services under the Technical, Engineering, Advisory and Management Support-Next acquisition to assist the Warfighter Operational Integration Directorate. Key requirements include strategic and operational interface with warfighter stakeholders, operational and sustainment activities to ensure mission readiness, and support for real-world events. The solicitation is set aside for a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business and will result in a cost-plus-fixed-fee level of effort contract for a base period of three years with two two-year options, one one-year option, and one six-month option. Questions are due by September 25, 2020 and proposals are due by October 19, 2020, with an anticipated award date of June 22, 2021.
View the file
Other files
Show all 35
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
WOI
| # | Document | Page # | Paragraph /Figure | ||||
| Number | Comment/ Rationale | Proposed Resolution(s) | MDA Response | ||||
| 1 | Attachment L-05 Warfighter EPW 8-31-20 Updates | 3 Tabs: (1) Level of Effort; (2) Labor Resources; (3) Required LOE | The hours listed in the Section B do not tie to the hours listed in the Attachment L. Specifically CLINs 0001, 7010, 7027, 7030 & 7041. The Attachment L contains 109,100 more hours than the Section B. | Update Section B, CLINs 0001, 7010, 7027, 7030 & 7041 to equal the hours shown in Attachment L, Tabs (1) Level of Effort, (2) Labor Resources & (3) Required LOE. | The hours discrepancies will be corrected in Section B on the next solicitation amendment. | ||
| 2 | Section L- Warfighter Operational Integration Final 09.10.2020 | Page 10 | Table L-1, Proposal Organization and Content, Volume III - F1: Mission Capability page count | The page count listed does not allow for any introductory information regarding the team capability that may be helpful to the evaluators when reviewing the offeror's approach to performance. | Would the Government allow two pages for introductory information regarding the offering team and overall approach to performance at the beginning of the document, prior to addressing each MCS? | MDA reviewed the proposed resolution and determined the maximum number of pages will remain the same as those listed in Section L, Table L-1. | |
| 3 | Sections L&M - Warfighter Operational Integration Final 09.10.2020; Attachment L1 - PPI | Section L: Page 23; Section M: Page 13; PPI: Pages 2 and 3 | L.10.8 (f), M.7.2 | MCS5 Element #1: Risk Identification, Mitigation, and Recommendations for Recovery is identified as a Relevancy sub factor. MCS5 is not included as a sub factor in either Section M or the PPI. | Recommend removing the requirement for MCS5 Element#1 from Section L. | MDA reviewed the proposed resolution and determined the MCS5 sub factor will remain in the solicitation. MDA intends for the PPI to address MCS5 Element #1 (MCS5 #1). Section M will be amended to include MCS5 #1. Attachment L-01 (PPI form) will be amended to include a section saying, "Describe in detail, using specific examples, your past performance in identifying risk, mitigating risk, and specifically how you determined your recommendations for recovery actions. MCS5 Element 1." | |
| 4 | Sections L&M - Warfighter Operational Integration Final 09.10.2020; Attachment L-01 WOI - PPI Form | Section L: Page 23; Section M: Page 13; PPI: Pages 2 and 3 | L.10.8 (a), M.7.2; PPI Sections F-K | L.10.8(a) and M.7.2(a) do not align with the organization of PPI Sub factors/Elements. | |||
| Recommend organizing Sub factors/Elements in L&M as follows: |
a) MCS2 Element #1: Asset Management Procedures
b) MCS2 Element #2: Configuration Management Procedures
c) MCS3 Element #1: Service, CCMD and Joint Staff Integration
d) MCS4 Element #2: Warfighter Involvement Program (WIP)
e) MCS6 Element #1: Recruit Qualified Personnel
f) MCS1 Element #1: Ground-Based Weapon System Watch Efforts In concert with the answer to question 3, MDA will amend Section M 7.2 to read: a) MCS1 Element #1: Ground-Based Weapon System Watch Efforts
b) MCS2 Element #1: Asset Management Procedures
c) MCS2 Element #2: Configuration Management Procedures
d) MCS3 Element #1: Service, CCMD and Joint Staff Integration
e) MCS4 Element #2: Warfighter Involvement Program (WIP)
f) MCS5 Element #1: Risk Identification, Mitigation, and Recommendations for Recovery
g) MCS6 Element #1: Recruit Qualified Personnel
| 5 | Section M & Section L | 10 | Table L-1; M.4.1 | Table L-1 provides a 2 page limit for Volume III -Factor I: Mission Capability MCS1 Element 1. | |||
| Section M.4.1 for MCS1 Element 1 says: "Bulletized list no more than 1 page. | Update Section M.4.1 to "Bulletized list no more than 2 pages." | MDA will amend Section L, Table L-1, Volume III, Tab 1: MCS1 Ground-Based Weapon System Watch Efforts to reflect 1 page. | |||||
| 6 | Section M & Section L | 23 | L.10.8; M.7.2 | Discrepancy - Past performance MCS topics. Section M.7.2 provides evaluation of six MCS Element areas to assess relevancy. Section L.10.8 provides of seven MCS Elements, with the addition of "MCS5 Element #1: Risk Identification, Mitigation, and Recommendations for Recovery." | Delete requirement to write to MCS5E1 in Past performance from Section L. | This is fully addressed in the response to question #3 above. | |
| 7 | Section L- Warfighter Operational Integration Final 09.10.2020 | 19 | L.9.0(b) | Section L.9.0(b) "The plan to maintain and self-certify an OCI compliant environment during performance of the contract by ensuring that the Prime contractor and subcontractors at all tiers do not support any MDA-funded contract requirements (whether via MDA contracts, or other Government agency contracts which support MDA)." |
Is the assumption that the only way to maintain an OCI compliant environment is for the Prime and all Subcontractors to not hold any other contracts that support any MDA-funded requirements? This would contradict guidance in the TEAMS Next OCI Guiding Principles. Clarify conflict between L.9.0(b) and guidance in TEAMS Next OCI Guiding Principles. MDA disagrees that a contradiction exists between Section L.9.0(b) of this solicitation and the overall TEAMS-Next OCI Guiding Principles. The TEAMS-Next Warfighter contract is considered Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) and falls under the overall TEAMS-Next OCI Guiding Principles. MDA expects that contractors choose whether they wish to support the Agency in a MDS development role or as a support services contractor. MDA’s expectation is that offerors competing for TEAMS-Next SETA efforts will have no involvement in the development, production, or testing of the Missile Defense System (MDS) (MDA’s Category 1C Major Defense Acquisition Program) that could create an OCI consistent with DFARS 209.571-7. These restrictions will apply to the prime contractor as well as subcontractors at all tiers. In accordance with the solicitation, offerors are required to complete an OCI disclosure form if they determine there are conflicts within MDA.
For the purposes of this policy, MDS development activities are considered to include, but not necessarily, limited to the following activities (including MDA funded efforts awarded and administered by MDA or MDA funded efforts awarded and administered through other agencies (e.g. Inter-Agency Requirements (IAR)):
a)Development or production of any portion of the MDS.
b)Modeling & Simulation (M&S) activities performed by the MDS developer. An exception to this prohibition is M&S activities not directly related to MDS development or production in which non-developers support and facilitate the MDA M&S environment (e.g. WILMA-Sim, WILMA-Suite and Modeling and Simulation Contract for Truth Modeling and Elements, which provide modeling and analysis environments supporting the quantitative evaluation of MDS end-to-end architecture performance).
c)Technology development in support of future MDS capabilities, including Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase III and prototyping efforts (this does not include Phase I and II SBIR or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) efforts or Phase III efforts not related to development or production).
d)Testing of MDS capabilities performed by the MDS developer. Exceptions to this prohibition are test activities in which non-developers support and facilitate the MDA test environment (e.g. Advanced Research Center, Missile Defense Data Center, High Altitude Observatory (HALO) support, pre-test analysis of HWIL component testing, etc.).
e)Development or production of targets or countermeasures to support MDS testing.
f)Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Cooperative Development Programs; though not part of the MDS, these programs will be treated the same with respect to TEAMS-Next OCI restrictions.
| 8 | Attachment L-02 WOI - PPQ Form; | ||||||
| Section L- Warfighter Operational Integration Final 09.10.2020 | Section L Page 22; PPQ Page 1 | L.10.6; PPQ - Message to Assessor | L.10.6 identifies PPQ point of contact as Kyle Swift (kyle.swift@mda.mil). PPQ identifies point of contact as Mara Strobel (mara.strobel@mda.mil). | Update PPQ to reflect correct point of contact. | MDA recognizes that offerors may have already used the original past performance questionnaire (PPQ) and sent it to their past performance contacts. While the past performance questionnaire form will be updated to note the PPQ point of contact as Kyle Swift (kyle.swift@mda.mil), PPQs will also be accepted if they are sent to Mara Strobel (mara.strobel@mda.mil). | ||
| 9 | Section L | 75 | Clause 52.204-8 | Size standard listed as $16,500,000 for NAICS 541330. Shouldn't this be $41,500,000 for the Military and Aerospace exception? | Update Clause to reflect the higher size standard | Clause 52.204-8 will be updated on the next solicitation amendment to reflect the Military and Aerospace exception for NAICS 541330 which has a size standard of $41,500,000. | |
| 10 | SOW | 52 | 10.3, Table 10.1 | It is unclear whether the Watch Officers identified in the Transition and Staffing Timeline refer to each skill level of Watch Officer (advanced, intermediate, and basic) or if these are limited to just the advanced skill level | Please clarify which labor category skill levels are included in the Watch Officers identified in this table | This applies to all watch officer skill levels. | |
| 11 | Section L | 16-18 | 7.0 | The Draft RFP included the following text as applicable to all Sub factors: "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 each MCSN Element identified." However, the Final RFP shortened this to "The Offeror shall propose its approach to, and understanding of, the following MCSN Elements..." It is unclear whether MDA is expecting offerors to address the applicable SOW paragraphs in the proposal for each Sub factor and Element or not. | Please clarify whether offerors are to specifically address the SOW requirements applicable to each Sub factor and Element as noted in the Cross Reference Matrix in Table L-2. | Offerors shall propose their approach based on the Final RFP, Section L. | |
| 12 | Section L | 16-17 | 7.2, Table L-1 | Table L-1 specifies a 2 page limit for MCS1, however, paragraph 7.2 specifies a bulletized list no more than 1 page as a constraint. Is this constraint meant to apply to 1 page per location (California and Alaska), thus equating to two pages? | Please clarify the page limit for MCS1 | Please see answer to question 5 above. The limit is 1 page total within which both locations shall be addressed. | |
| 13 | Section L | 23 | 10.8.a | Final RFP added a relevancy criteria for Ground-Based Weapon System Watch Efforts, which was not included in the Draft. There are very few contracts that have a similar requirement, would the government consider changing the criterion since it gives considerable competitive advantage to the incumbent team? | Change or delete the relevancy criteria to level the playing field. | Specific attention was paid to developing a scenario that provides fair opportunity to compete. This is a new area that is not in the scope of the current contract or on past warfighter contracts. | |
| 14 | SOW | ||||||
| Section L | 52 | 10.3, Table 10.1; | |||||
| 11.0 | Table 10.1 indicates that the CPM, Site Chiefs, and Watch Officers must be in place "At start of Period of Performance." Section L paragraph 11.0 indicates a start date of 19 July 2021. What is unclear is how much time will be available between award announcement and the start date for the period of performance. | Please clarify when the expected contract award is to be announced or otherwise clarify a minimal timeframe between award and start of performance so that we can adequately address the transition timeline requirements. | The planned award date for the TEAMS-Next Warfighter contract is 22 June 2021. However, while MDA seeks to award on 22 June 2021, this shall be construed only as a target date for planning purposes. Actual award may take place before or after this date. | ||||
| 15 | TN-WOI Final Solicitation, RFP Section B | Pages 3-23 | CLINs | The hours shown for the Quantity (Hrs.) in CLINs 0001, 3010, 7010, 7027, 7030, and 7041 do not match the hours in the EPW. | Please provide an updated EPW and Schedule B that include hours that are the same in both documents. | Please see answer to question 1 above. | |
| 16 | Section L - Warfighter Operational Integration - Final | p. 10 and p. 17 | Table L-1 and Paragraph 7.2 | Table L-1 states that the response to MCS1 is limited to 2 pages. L.7.2 Sub factor MCS 1 states under "Constraints" that the response should be a bulletized list of no more than 1 page. | Please confirm that the response to Sub factor MCS1 is limited to a total of 2 pages, one of which contains a bulletized list of no more than 1 page. | Please see answer to question 5 above. | |
| 17 | Section L - Warfighter Operational Integration - Final | 15 | 6.2 | Table L-2: Proposal Cross Reference Matrix Format refers to SOW paragraph 3.6.11 as aligning with sections L-7.3/M-4.2 and L-7.4/M-4.3. There is no paragraph 3.6.11 in the SOW. | Please update Table L-2 and/or the SOW to identify the SOW paragraphs that align to L-7.3/M-4.2 and L-7.4/M-4.3. | MDA will delete references to "3.6.11" in Section L, Table L.2. | |
| 18 | Section L - Warfighter Operational Integration - Final | 23 | 10.6 | Paragraph 10.6 of Section L provides the email address "kyle.swift@mda.mil". The email address on the Past Performance Questionnaire is "mara.strobel@mda.mil". | Please verify that the PPQs should be emailed to kyle.swift@mda.mil. | Please see answer to question 8 above. | |
| 19 | Section L | ||||||
| and Section M - Warfighter Operational Integration - Final | 23 |
(Section L) (Section M 10.8 (Section L)
| 7.2 (Section M) | In discussing the evaluation of Past Performance relevancy, Section M does not state that consideration will be given to MCS5 Element #1. Section L, however, states that the Offeror's PPI submission should focus on MCS5 Element #1. Additionally, MCS5 Element 1 is not referenced on the PPI form. | Please update Sections M and L and the PPI Form (Attachment L-01) to provide consistency across the items the offer should address within its past performance response. | Please see answer to question 3 above. | ||||
| 20 | Att L-05 EPW | Labor Resources Tab | Worksheet cell D85 | The Labor Resources CLIN identified in cell D85 appears to be incorrect. We believe it should be CLIN 3010 instead of 3030, because the Operations Support Analyst (Advanced) appears to be missing from 3010. | Please review and confirm the hours in CLINs 3010 and 3030. When these hours are corrected/verified, please reflect the same quantities in Schedule B, CLINs 3010 and 3030. | In an amendment to the solicitation, the Operations Support Analyst (Advanced) Dahlgren, VA noted in Attachment L-05 (both the Labor Resources and Level of Effort tabs) will be moved from CLIN 3030 to CLIN 3010, and Section B will be updated accordingly. | |
| 21 | Att L-07 OCI Disclosure Form | OCI Attach-ment form (page 3 of L-07) | Item #2 | For Question 2, “What is the magnitude of this work compared to your company’s overall business?,” it is unclear what period of time is covered by the "Dollar Value" field and its representation as a percentage of overall business. | Please confirm that the dollar value and percentage to show the magnitude of the work compared to the company's overall business should reflect the annual contract revenue presented as a percentage of the company’s overall annual revenue (most recent 12-month reporting period). | The fields are not defined for the given form. Offerors should use their best judgment to determine the proper base and percentage on Page 3 of the OCI disclosure. | |
| 22 | Att L-07 OCI Disclosure Form | OCI Attachment form (page 4 of L-07) | Item #3 | Question 3 is identical to Question 2, except for the addition of the following parenthetical phrase: “(Whether performing as a prime or subcontractor).” | Please identify how the answer in Question 3 will differ from the answer provided in Question 2. | Question 3 in the OCI form (Attachment L-07) will be updated for clarity in a solicitation amendment. | |
| 23 | Att L-05; | ||||||
| Att J-01 SOW | L-05 Rates tab; | ||||||
| SOW pp 36-39 | Benchmark Rates for CPM, Engineer Adv., Analyst Adv. and Analyst Intermediate | The Warfighter Operational Integration (WOI) RFP DL rate benchmarks are significantly different than the Engineering (ENG) benchmarks for LCATs requiring essentially the same credentials. The disparity between these two contracts in benchmark rates on nearly identical LCATs presents a foundational disadvantage for staffing the SDVOSB WOI contract. The competitive environment requires offerors to bid close to the benchmarks, but bidding at or close to the benchmarks will provide the selected prime with ultimate contract rates that put that prime at a distinct disadvantage in attracting qualified personnel to WOI when the rates on ENG are so much higher. For example, the WOI Engineer Advanced (HSV) rate is $14.18 less than the ENG Engineer IV rate, a fact that will allow the large business ENG prime to pay a candidate nearly $30,000 more in salary than the SDVOSB prime for virtually the same position. The benchmark rates on the two RFPs reflect the following additional discrepancies: |
• The differences between the benchmarks for the ENG Analyst Adv. (HSV) ($158.8K) and WOI Analyst Adv. (HSV) ($114.0K) enable the ENG large business prime to offer a salary $44,000+ higher than the WOI SDVOSB prime.
• The differences between the benchmarks for ENG Dahlgren Analyst IV ($175.7K) and WOI Dahlgren Analyst Adv. ($133.3K) enable the ENG large business prime to offer a salary $42,000+ higher than the WOI SDVOSB prime.
• The differences between the benchmarks for the ENG Analyst III in FGA ($130.2K) and the WOI Analyst Adv. (Fairbanks) ($78.1K) enable the ENG large business prime to offer a salary $52,000+ higher than the WOI SDVOSB prime.
• Most significantly, the differences between the benchmarks for the ENG CPM ($272K) and the WOI CPM ($170.5K) enable the ENG large business prime to offer a salary $100,000+ higher than the WOI SDVOSB prime. Surprisingly, MDA reduced the WOI Benchmark for CPM in the final RFP in comparison to the draft. We request that MDA review the rates on the WOI contract and adjust benchmark rates for WOI and ENG LCATs requiring similar or identical experience, education, and qualifications to make them similar or identical. This adjustment will create a fair opportunity for the SDVOSB WOI prime to attract talent and appropriately level the playing field in an incredibly competitive job market by removing the SDVOSB's hurdle of lower salary levels that will be necessitated by much lower rates for the WOI prime. WOI primes must bid competitively, driving all bidders to use rates that reflect the MDA-defined benchmarks. Unfortunately, the use of these rates in execution will place the WOI SDVOSB prime at an immediate disadvantage in recruiting and retaining candidates needed for the WOI contract and will cause long-term staffing stability issues throughout performance. MDA has the opportunity at this time to avoid this issue by improving the similarity of rates on similar or identical LCATs on the WOI and ENG contracts.
Additionally, we recommend that MDA take this action across the TEAMS Next suite of contracts rather than placing the staffing of some contracts in an immediately compromised position created by establishment of uneven rates for LCATs with similar experience and education requirements that are only differentiated by their contract designation. The benchmark rate comparisons should consider the location of the position as well as the credentials associated with the LCAT. Without this type of review and adjustment, MDA will create attractive and unattractive contract options for qualified professionals, placing some contracts in a situation where staffing will always be problematic and unstable.
While the titles of the engineering labor categories between these two contracts involve engineering, the SOW requirements of the two contracts are different. Thus, the labor rates between solicitations are different. Please note the concentration of the required degrees are different on the two contracts, as well as the type of experience for each category. A similar comparison applies for the CPM positions. Offerors are reminded these are the minimum rates. Rates were set after extensive review with the functional manager of the current rates and applicable scope of work.
Warfighter RFP HQ0858-20-R-0011 MDA Government Comment Matrix mailto:Paragraph%2010.6%20of%20Section%20L%20provides%20the%20email%20address%20%22kyle.swift@mda.mil%22,%20however%20the%20email%20address%20on%20the%20Past%20Performance%20Questionnaire%20is%20mara.strobel@mda.milmailto:Please%20verify%20that%20the%20PPQs%20should%20be%20emailed%20to%20kyle.swift@mda.mil
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .