TN-Test Support Industry Comment Matrix 11.05.2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TEAMS-Next Test Support Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HQ0858-21-R-0012
- Issued by
- DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
This document includes a pre-solicitation notice and statement of work for test support services for the Missile Defense Agency's TEAMS-Next program. The Missile Defense Agency intends to issue a solicitation seeking cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for test support services including program management, staffing, budgeting, and execution oversight of the Missile Defense System comprehensive test program. The contract will have a four-year base period, one two-year option, and one six-month option. The solicitation is designated as a 100% small business set-aside for North American Industry Classification System code 541715 with a small business size standard of 1,250 employees. Offerors should monitor the beta.SAM.gov website for solicitation posting anticipated around 60 days from the date of this pre-solicitation notice, with proposals due 30 days after posting. The primary places of performance will be in Albuquerque, NM; Bedford, MA; Colorado Springs, CO; Dahlgren, VA; Honolulu, HI; Huntsville, AL; Kauai, HI; Kwajalein Atoll; and Vandenberg AFB, CA.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 33
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
Test Support
| # | Document | Page # | Paragraph /Figure | ||||
| Number | Comment/ Rationale | Proposed Resolution(s) | MDA Response | ||||
| 1 | TN-Test Support HQ0858-21-R-0012 Draft Solicitation 10.01.202.pdf | all | There is no indication on the payment terms for CLIN payouts. i.e. when should a small business expect to receive payment for services after submission? | Please add payment terms, the faster the better for small business | Pursuant to FAR clause 52.216-7, cost vouchers should be submitted, and these are typically paid within 30 days by DFAS. | ||
| 2 | Attachment J01- SOW | all | The SOW does not specify a schedule for when on-site personnel must reach the on-site destinations | Please allow time for small business to hire and possibly clear new employees | Pursuant to paragraph 10 of the SOW, transition period of 28 days is authorized. | ||
| 3 | Attachment J01- SOW | What is the process to obtain clearances for employees | Please specify process, cost , schedule, etc.. | The Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO), which is part of the Defense Security Service (DSS), is an agency of the Department of Defense (DOD) that processes and adjudicates Personnel Clearances (PCL) and Facility Clearances (FCL) for defense contractor personnel and defense contractor facilities. It is one of eight Central Adjudication Facilities (CAF) within DOD. For additional information on how to obtain a security clearance, offerors should approach the DOD Security Services Center at 1-888- 282-7682. They can be found on the web at https://www.dss.mil/GW/ShowBinary/DSS/about_dss/contact_dss/dod_sec_serv....html. | |||
| 4 | SOW | 20 | 4.3.1.6 | Labor category degree/experience substitution language is inconsistent. When a MA/MS degree is required and 10 years relevant experience, and then a BA/BS with 15 years of relevant experience is provided as a substition for the MA/MS degree, does the Government mean that an individual with a BA/BS degree and 15 years relevant experience meets the requirement or is it a BA/BS degree and 25 years experience (15 + 10)? | Clarify that the lower level degree plus XX years of relevant experience can be substitute for the higher level degree and experience requirement. | SOW updated. | |
| 5 | SOW | 20-26 | 4.3.1.6 | Engineering labor category education requirement are inconsistent. The Engineer (Advanced) education requirement states 'engineering field' while the Intermediate and Basic labor education requirement states 'engineering degree'. | Provide consistent definitions of the education requirements across the engineering labor categoies if consistent requirements are the Government's intent. | SOW updated. | |
| 6 | SOW | 20-26 | 4.3.1.2, 4.3.1.6 | Section L, paragraph 4.3.1.2 states "All degrees shall be obtained from an 'accredited college or university' as recognized by the U.S. Department of Education"; however, the labor category education requirements in 4.3.1.6 state that degrees shall be "from an ABET accredited program". These requirements are vastly different and may impose restrictions on many well-qualified, experienced personnel. In addition, regarding the Cyber test engineer and test analyst labor categories, many technical fields related to cyber testing are not ABET accredited programs. | Can the Government provide clarification on the education requriements for the various labor categories? Recommend updating the education requirement to remove the ABET requirement. | SOW updated. | |
| 7 | Section L, Section M | n/a | n/a | Currently, Past Performance is not listed as an Evaluation Factor in Section L or M. Note that TEAMS-Next Quality and Mission Assurance, Safety, and Warfighter Integration RFPs require detailed Past Performance submissions. | |||
| Past Performance should be evaluated for size, scope, and complexity to demonstrate the offeror's ability to manage similar work. | Incorporate Past Performance as a scored evaluation factor to bring the source selection in alignment with the other TEAMS-Next RFPs and reduce an enormous and real risk in ensuring that the offeror has the proven experience to support the offer. | Past Performance is not an evaluation factor for this requirement. | |||||
| 8 | Draft Solicitation, SOW, Section L | 54 of RFP; 37 of SOW; 8 of L | H-14; SOW 10.; L.2.4 | H-14 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS (MAY2005) and SOW 10.0 state MDA's key personnel requirements for the CPM and SMEs but do not fully encompass the key personnel requirements required to execute the full scope of TEAMS-Next Test Support. Section L.2.4 requires for a "continuing obligation to notify MDA of any changes to key personnel proposed." However, there is no requirement to name the key personnel in the proposal or provide qualifications/experience. | All key personnel requirements be added to Section L to require inclusion of a 3-page resume that demonstrates each key person's ability and experience to perform the task(s). Add an additional Element in MCS4 (Human Capital) that evaluates each key person's resume. | Resumes will not be added to MCS4. Removed SME from table 10.3 Key Personnel. Will remove requirement to notify MDA of changes to key personnel proposed in section L. | |
| 9 | Section L | 12 | Table L-1 | Due to the size of this contract and detailed requirements, suggest the Government consider increasing page limits for Volume III Mission Capability, Tabs 1-2 by 10 pages each and Tabs 3 and 4 by 5 pages to enable offerors to provide a more comprehensive response to the RFP requirements. | Update Section L, Table L-1 Volume III page count requirements: Tab 1 - 25 pages, Tab 2 - 20 pages, Tab 3 - 15 pages, Tab 4 - 15 pages | Section L updated. | |
| 10 | SOW | 37 | 10. | Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) are required key personnel, however there are zero hours designated for SMEs in the Excel Pricing Workbook (EPW). Is it the Government's intent to revise the EPW and add hours for SMEs? | Confirm SME hours requirement. | Yes, the Government has revised the EPW and removed SMEs. | |
| 11 | Section L | 7 | 2.1 | Section L, 2.1 states ‘Government intends to award a full and open...contract”; however, the Draft solicitation, Section A, page 2 clearly states the solicitation is a Small Business Set-Aside. | Recommend updating the Section L to reflect the correct solicitation type. | Section L updated. | |
| 12 | Section L | 13, 18 | 4.11, 7.1 | Section L, 4.11 refers to "MCS5 Element #2"; however, Section L, 7.1 does not include MCS5. This appears to be an error. | Recommend updating Section L to reference the correct MCS Elements. | Section L updated. | |
| 13 | Section L | 19 | 7.4 | Section L, 7.4, paragraph #1 states "The Government will evaluate…". This statement appears to be language from Section M rather than Section L. | Recommend updating Section L to state solicitation requirements instead of evaluation criteria. | Section L updated. | |
| 14 | Section L | 4 | Due Date for the Proposal is January 20, 2020 | Should the due date be January 20, 2021? | Section L updated. | ||
| 15 | Section L | 13 | References MCS5 Element 2. | Should this be updated to MCS4 Element 2? | Section L updated. | ||
| 16 | SOW | 10 | 3.1.1 | SOW 3.1.1 references an Integrated Event Support Team. | Is the Integrated Event Support Team referenced in SOW 3.1.1 the same as the Integrated Event Test Team (IETT) referenced in the Flight Test CONOPS? | Updated SOW to Integrated Event Test Team (IETT) | |
| 17 | SOW | 11 | 3.1.1.2 | What is the "new Ground Test Program"? | Is the "new" Ground Test Program referenced in the Ground Test CONOPS or some other governing directive? | Updated SOW to remove reference to "new ground test program". | |
| 18 | L | 13 | 4.5 | The instructions did not specify the page margins. Depending on the printer, the page margins could be as small as 0.25". | Does the Government plan to specify minimum page margin sizes for the response to ensure consistency in proposal responses for evaluation purposes? | No. | |
| 19 | L | 10 | 3.1 | DRFP states “In order to be eligible for award. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. | How does the government plan to evaluate correct or incorrect information which is not requested in the MCS factors or subfactors? | Section L updated. | |
| 20 | Guiding Principles for TEAMS-NEXT OCI | 3 | f) | DRFP states “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. | Is the TEAMS International Engineering contract considered a Cooperative Development Program for the OCI determination? | No, it is considered an Agency Advisory and Assistance contract. | |
| 21 | Attachment L-05 | Labor Category Tab | Attachment L-05 TEST EPW 9.28.20 Draft RFP V2, on the Labor Category Tab, provides labor category, description and typical qualifications and benchmark for MDS Test Subject Matter Expert (SME). | MDS Test Subject Matter Expert (SME) is not in tabs Rates, FBLRs, Labor Resouces and Level of Effort. Please provide an updated Attachment L-05 that adds the MDS Test SME in all tabs. | The Government has revised the EPW and removed SMEs. Removed SME references in SOW. | ||
| 22 | Section L | At one of the TEAMS-Next Industry Days, it was stated that MDA expects people to flip their badges, however, Subfactor MCS4: Human Capital Management, requires the bidder to submit a transition plan. How can the bidders be graded against the incumbent? | Offerors will be evaluated against the criteria established in Section M, not the incumbent. | ||||
| 23 | Statement of Work & EPW | Are the labor categories in the EPW and the SOW a representative of the current workforce? | No. The MDA functional has been given the opportunity to adjust the labor categories as they see fit for this acquisition. | ||||
| 24 | Solicitation & Section L | In regards to CLIN 0001 - Emergent Requirements - Is the bidder expected to address emergent requirements in Factor 1, Mission Capability? | Offerors should propose in accordance with the instructions provided in Section L. | ||||
| 25 | Statement of Work | In Paragraph 3.3.6., Special Projects, of the Statement of Work it states, "The contractor shall provide expertise that is capable to perform special technical or organizational projects as required. These special projects generally consist of discrete, severable activities that require unique subject matter expertise to resolve." Are bidders expected to address the special projects? | "Special projects" is a catchall term as the Statement of Work may not list all of the currently active projects at this time. Offerors should propose to the evaluation criteria specified in Section L. | ||||
| 26 | Section L & Offeror's Library | Paragraph 3.1 Proposal Acceptability (Page 10), of Section L states, "...In order to be eligible for award, Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors..." - Does the Offeror need to propose to all of the requirements of the SOW? | No. Offerors should propose in accordance with the instructions provided in Section L. | ||||
| 27 | Are there any places that bidders can obtain additional information other than the Offeror's Library or RFP that you can think of? | No. | |||||
| 28 | EPW | Looking at the EPW and the labor hours in CLIN 0001, when looking at the numbers for the Program Manager, it looked they were calling multiple program managers. Is this a misinterpretation? It appears to be asking for three (3) program managers. | No, MDA is not asking for multiple Program Managers for this effort. MDA only intends to have one (1) Program Manager. | ||||
| 29 | Statement of Work | Paragraph 3.1.2., Ground Testing, of the Statement of Work states, "...The contractor shall assist with all activities as directed to conduct ground testing and continuous development integration (CDI) as defined in the Ground Test Concepts of Operations..." Can MDA provide clarification in regards to the new ground test program? | The new Ground Test Program is identified through the Ground Test CONOPS. | ||||
| 30 | Attachment J-21 - OCI Guding Principles | Reference: Paragraph 5.d. of the Guiding Principles for TEAMS-Next Organizational Conflicts of Interest, dated September 15, 2020 |
in this paragraph it states that "Testing of MDS capabilities performed by the MDS developer" is defined as potential OCI. Exceptions to this prohibition are provided and include "test activities in which non-developers support and facilitate the MDA test environment". In parentheses, several examples are given and include "Advanced Research Center", "Missile Defense Data Center", and "High Altitude Observatory (HALO) support". These are facilities, platforms, or contracts that are easily identifiable. A fourth example is provided: "pre-test analysis of HWIL component testing". This is much more ambiguous than the other examples and can be interpreted multiple ways.
One interpretation is that this is a "line in the sand" for what would be considered non-conflicted support in the system engineering lifecycle of hardware/software being delivered to the MDA. In other words, you can participate in activities up to planning for HWIL, but after that, the actual conduct of HWIL testing and post-HWIL test reporting on deliverables has an increased potential for OCI.
Another interpretation is that this is just one specific example of what the Agency means by "facilitating the MDA test environment" - it is but one example of exceptions among many, which would include "conducting HWIL tests" and " producing HWIL post-test reports" under a services contract to an OGA. Our question is: Is " pre-test analysis of HWIL component testing" a defining constraint in the component development lifecycle, where anything occurring after that point in the component lifecycle could present potential OCI; or is "pre-test analysis of HWIL component testing" but one of many examples of activities that fall under the umbrella of the "facilitating the MDA test environment" exception? "Pre-test analysis of HWIL component testing" is one of many examples of activities that fall under the umbrella of the "facilitating the MDA test environment" exception.
Test Support Draft RFP &K000000HQ0147-21-R-0012 MDA Government Comment Matrix Compilation
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&10Approved for Public Release 20-MDA-10626 (19 Nov 20) &"-,Regular"&11
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .