The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
PP&A
| # | Document | Page # | Paragraph /Figure | |
| Number | Comment/ Rationale | Proposed Resolution(s) | Government Responses | | |
| 1 | HQ085821R0014_TN-PPA Draft RFP Section L | 3 | 1.3 | The subject paragraph states: "the joint venture may be awarded a contract if the lead small business partner has a facility clearance." In a separate sentence in the same paragraph, it then states: "a facility security clearance for the joint venture legal entity (not individual members) must be in place prior to contract award." These statements appear to contradict one and other, as the first statement indicates that a the JV is eligible for contract award if the lead small business partner has a facility clearance, while the second sentence then indicates that the JV itself must have a facility clearance in place prior to contract award. |
| Propose removing the statement: "Nevertheless, a facility security clearance for the joint venture legal entity (not individual members) must be in place prior to contract award." as it contradicts the earlier language in the same paragraph indicating that the JV may be awarded a contract if the lead small business partner has a facility clearance. | | | | |
| Section L 1.3 has been removed. Facility Clearance has been included as an Evaluation Factor in Section L 10.0. | | | | |
Despite recent policy from the SBA that a joint venture may be selected for award if any of the joint venture partners has a facility clearance, the DCSA has not adopted this policy and still requires a facility security clearance for the joint venture legal entity (not individual members) be in place prior to contract award.
| 2 | HQ085821R0014_TN-PPA Draft RFP Section L | 3 | 1.3 | The subject paragraph states: "For additional questions regarding a sponsorship, please contact the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). Failure of the joint venture to make adequate progress towards obtaining a facility clearance may result in your proposal being deemed un-awardable and award to the next Offeror in line as determined by the SSA's best value tradeoff decision." Does this indicate that the PCO for the subject solicitation will sponsor a JV which has submitted a proposal for a facility clearance? |
| Please clarify if a JV which submits a proposal for the solicitation can be sponsored, in advance, for the required facility clearance in order to make adequate progress toward obtaining the facility clearance and be eligible for award. | | | | |
| Section L 1.3 has been removed. Facility Clearance has been included as an Evaluation Factor in Section L 10.0. | | | | |
Prior to award the MDA will sponsor the apparent successful offeror in applying for a facility clearance, if necessary.
| 3 | | Facility Security Clearance Section L 1.3, As long as both companies have the required Facility Clearance does the actual JV have to have a Facility Clearance? Then if we win will we be sponsored for the Facility Clearance? Should we request sponsorship in advance? |
| Section L 1.3 has been removed. Facility Clearance has been included as an Evaluation Factor in Section L 10.0. | |
Despite recent policy from the SBA that a joint venture may be selected for award if any of the joint venture partners has a facility clearance, the DCSA has not adopted this policy and still requires a facility security clearance for the joint venture legal entity (not individual members) be in place prior to contract award. Prior to award the MDA will sponsor the apparent successful offeror in applying for a facility clearance, if necessary.
| 4 | HQ085821R0014_TN-PPA Draft RFP Section L | 14 | 4.4 | The OCI Management Plan has a maximum page limit of 15 pages. Based on the requirements needed to address in Section L and the importance of ensuring contractors remain OCI free, we recommend allowing unlimited pages for the OCI Management Plan or increase the page allocation to 25 pages so Offerors can adequately address these requirements. |
| Revise the OCI Management Plan to have an Unlimited Page allocation. | | | | |
| Section L, Table L-1 Volume V - Factor 3: OCI Management Plan, maximum number of pages has been increased to 20. | | | | |
| 5 | HQ085821R0014_TN-PPA Draft RFP Section L | 14, 16, 23 | 4.4, 4.11, 7.7 | This section references MCS6 Human Capital Management Element #2. However, MCS6 is called Problem Resolution in Table L-1 and 7.7. |
| Recommend revising MCS6 name in Section 4.4 so all areas in Section L use the same name (either Human Capital Management or Problem Resolution). | | | | |
| MCS6 has been renamed Human Capital Management throughout Sections L and M. | | | | |
| 6 | Section L | 12 | Was it the Governments intent to name the Human Capital Management Section Problem Resolution Strategy |
| Based on the previous MDA TEAMS NEXT Solicitations, rename MCS6 to Human Capital Management | | | |
| MCS6 has been renamed Human Capital Management throughout Sections L and M. | | | |
| 7 | HQ085821R0014_TN-PPA Draft RFP Section L | 25, 27 | 10.0, 10.3 | Section L 10.0 does not list PARs as a requirement under the past performance volume. However, Section 10.3 requires CPARs to be submitted. |
| Recommend updating Section 10.0 to include CPARs as a requirement. | | | | |
| Section L 10.0 (now L 11.0) has been updated to include CPARs as part of the Past Performance Volume. | | | | |
8 Section L 25 L-10.0 Comment: List of past performance volume contents does not include CPARS per L-10.3 and Table L-1.
Rationale: Completeness
| Add CPARS with relevant description as L-10.0.(d) and move remaining items down. |
| Section L 10.0 (now L 11.0) has been updated to include CPARs as part of the Past Performance Volume. |
| 9 | HQ085821R0014_TN-PPA Draft RFP Section L | 27 | 10.3 | Section L 10.3 requires Offerors to provide CPARS for all PPIs/contracts submitted in the Past Performance volume. Some contracts have extended periods of performance and CPARS can be multiple pages resulting in a large CPAR section of the proposal. Can Offerors only provide the latest CPAR or do they need to provide all CPARS available for each contract? |
| Recommend the Government allow Offerors to be only required to provide the latest CPAR for each contract/PPI. | | | | |
| Contractors are requested to provide all CPARS available for each contract. Section L 10.3 (now L 11.3) has been updated to clarify "all available CPARS for each of the contracts". | | | | |
| 10 | Section L | 27 | 10.3 | Section L 10.3 states, "The Contractor shall provide available Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) for the contracts it submitted in PPI." |
| Please confirm that offerors providing CPARs should provide the most recent completed CPARs available. | | | | |
| Contractors are requested to provide all CPARS available for each contract. Section L 10.3 (now L 11.3) has been updated to clarify "all available CPARS for each of the contracts". | | | | |
| 11 | | Please confirm that offerors providing CPARs should provide the most recent completed CPARs available. |
| Contractors are requested to provide all CPARS available for each contract. Section L 10.3 (now L 11.3) has been updated to clarify "all available CPARS for each of the contracts". | |
| 12 | | Can we update instructions to say ALL CPARs? |
| Contractors are requested to provide all CPARS available for each contract. Section L 10.3 (now L 11.3) has been updated to clarify "all available CPARS for each of the contracts". | |
13 HQ085821R0014_TN-PPA Draft RFP Section L 27 10.3 CPARs are marked “For Official Use Only/Source Selection Information” and contain sensitive information concerning overall program activity. This information is safeguarded by companies with distribution generally limited to Government entities.
Section L 10.3 states “The Contractor shall provide available Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) for the contracts it submitted in PPI.”
Are CPARs for all contracts submitted in PPI, including Subcontractors, to be included in the delivered Volume IV? Or, due to the sensitive nature of CPARs, can subcontractor CPARs be submitted directly to the Government?
Recommend allowing CPARs for required subcontractors (those with PPI forms) to be submitted by the subcontractor directly to the Government with Cost and Price (Volume VII) information or as a standalone item delivered to the Government in a manner similar to Section L paragraph 1.4. Subcontractor CPARS may be submitted to the Government by the Subcontractor as a separate submittal from the Cost and Price (Volume VII).
| 14 | Section L | 10 | All of the Section L MCS's are aligned with a SOW paragraph that bears their name. (for instance, MCS1 Element 2 named Schedule Integration and Analysis Support (in Section L page 10) can be traced to the SOW Section Schedule Integration and Analysis (SOW Page 10). MCS1 Element 3 Integration and Synchronization Support and MCS2 Element 2 MDA Earned Value Baseline Review Support do not have a matching paragraph in the SOW. |
| Request the Government add the requisite SOW paragraphs to match up with MCS1 Element 3 and MCS2 Element 2. | | | |
| The Statement of Work Section 3.6 (pg. 18), and Section 3.3.3.e (pg. 24) have been revised. | | | |
| 15 | Section L | 14 | Table L-1 | We fully understand the importance of EVM support to PMs and to the Agency although we believe the page count for MCS2 is disproportionally out of whack with the LOE count (14) that currently supports this effort in Business Operations. |
| Request the Government reduce MCS2 by 5 pages and increase MCS3 by 5 pages | | | | |
| Maximum number of pages will remain the same for MCS2 Earned Value Support. Maximum number of pages for MCS3 International Affairs Support has been increased to 20 pages. | | | | |
| 16 | SOW | 9 | 3.1.11 | Duplicate of requirement 3.1.2A on SOW page 7 |
| Please delete duplicate. | | | | |
| The information included in SOW Section 3.1.11 was found to already be included in Section 3.1.2. Section 3.1.11 Market Research Support has been removed. | | | | |
| 17 | SOW | 48 | 4.3.1.6 | States that PMP or equivalent is highly desirable for CPM |
| Would the Govt please clarify 'or equivalent'? | | | | |
| "Or equivalent" has been removed from the CPM labor category description. | | | | |
| 18 | SOW | 48 | 4.3.1.6 | States that PMP and DAWIA certification or equivalently are highly desired by several of the key staff positions. |
| Due to the importance of CPM role, would the Govt consider adding DAWIA Level III or equivalent as highly desirable? | | | | |
| Labor category descriptions have been refined to state the DAWIA Level equivalent for each, to include CPM. | | | | |
| 19 | Section L | N/A | N/A | Lack of clear cross-reference between SOW requirements to corresponding MCS Elements. |
| Similar to the Warfighter Operational Integration (WOI) RFP (Solicitation #HQ0858-20-R-0011), Section L, page 15, Table L-2: Proposal Cross-Reference Matrix, please update the PP&A Proposal Cross-Reference Matrix (Table L-2) to include a column for critical/important SOW requirements and mapping to corresponding MCS Element. | | | | |
| Section L 6.2 language has been revised to remove "the SOW." | | | | |
| 20 | Section L | 19 | 6.2 | The FRFP states that "The Offeror shall provide a matrix using the format below (Table L-2) to cross reference its proposal to, at a minimum, the SOW, Section L, and Section M," but the table shown at L-2 does not include a column for offerors to add in SOW references. |
| Given the Government's assertion that "While an Offeror will be expected to perform the entire Statement of Work (SOW) upon award, for proposal purposes the Offeror shall propose its approach to and understanding of the following Mission Capability Subfactors and Elements...", recommend that the Government remove the requirement for offerors to cross reference their proposal to the SOW. | | | | |
| Section L 6.2 language has been revised to remove "the SOW." | | | | |
21 Section L Will the Cross Reference Matrix in Section L be included? Section L 6.2 language has been revised to remove "the SOW."
| 22 | Section L | 16 | 4.11 | Please clarify how MCS4 Element #2 would require review of the Cost Volume. We believe this may be a typographical error. We believe that only part of the MCS volume that should link back to the Cost Volume is MCS6 Element #2. |
| Please clarify and/or correct. | | | | |
| Error has been corrected. The volume requiring review is MCS6 Element #2. | | | | |
| 23 | SOW | 50 | Acquisition and Program Management Analyst (Basic) LCAT | The Acquisition and Program Management Analyst (Basic) labor category requires 2+ years of experience directly supporting a business or acquisition program as an acquisition/program analyst overseeing cost, schedule, and performance. This requirement will reduce the contractor's ability to hire entry level candidates that can be developed into highly qualified analysts. It will significantly reduce the pipeline of candidates, who can and often do progress into Government roles. |
| Remove the years of experience for Acquisition and Program Management Analyst (Basic), Schedule Analyst (Basic), International Affairs Program Analyst (Basic), and Strategic Planning Analyst (Basic) to allow offerors to recruit top entry level talent and develop professionals who can deliver significant skills to MDA. | | | | |
| The labor category descriptions for Basic positions will remain unchanged as experienced support is required to supplement the MDA workforce. | | | | |
| 24 | Section L | 27, 28 | 10.3 and 10.7 | Per Section L 10.3 and 10.7, the Government appears to require offerors to submit both CPARs and PPQs, which often provide similar past performance information. |
| Request offerors provide either the CPARs or PPQ, but not both. | | | | |
| Both CPARS and PPQs are required. | | | | |
| 25 | Sections L and M and PPI Sheet | L p. 26, |
| M p.15, PPI Sheet Letter F | L paragraph 10.2, M paragraph 7.3, PPI Sheet Letter F | Sections L and M state that in assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to information provided at the Mission Capability Subfactor level (i.e., MCS1 - MCS6). The PPI requests illustration of how the described program applies to various MCS Elements below the subfactor level. This introduces possible inconsistencies into the evaluation of past performance relevance. | |
| Please confirm that past performance relevance will be evaluated at the MCS Element level as indicated in the PPI form. Please revise Sections L and M so they align to the evaluation of relevance as addressed in the PPI sheet. | | |
| Section L 10.9 (now L 11.9), Section M 7.2 (now 8.2), and L-01 Letter F have been revised to clarify what areas will be assessed regarding relevancy. | | |
| 26 | EPW | LOE | In the EPW, the AB (CLIN 10) requirement includes three (3) Acquisition and Program Management Analysts (Basic) and zero (0) Intermediate or Advanced Acquisition Analysts. The requirement also includes 10 Scheduler positions of which 7 are Intermediate Schedulers. This staffing profile does not align with current execution. Specifically, if the PP&A EPW requirements are correct, it will result in five Incumbent Acquisition Analyst positions being replaced by schedulers. There doesn't appear to be a significant difference in the SOW for this effort, so is the Government's intent to revise the balance of personnel required? |
| Please indicate if the EPW is correct as defined (i.e., it is the Government's intent to replace current acquisition analysts with schedulers). If this is not the Government's intent, recommend the following changes: | | | |
Change the Basic Scheduler to an Acquisition and Program Management Analyst (Basic).
Change five (5) of the Schedule Analysts (Intermediate) to two (2) Acquisition and Program Management Analyst Advanced, one (1) Schedule Analyst (Advanced), one (1) Acquisition and Program Management Analyst Intermediate, and one (1) Acquisition and Program Management Analyst Basic.
See updated EPW for AB (CLIN 0010) changes.
| 27 | EPW | LOE | In the EPW, the IP (CLIN 34) requirement includes one (1) Acquisition and Program Management Analyst (Intermediate). This staffing profile does not align with current execution. Specifically, this work is currently executed by one Advanced Analyst. Is it the Government's intent to downgrade the current position? |
| Please indicate if the EPW is correct as defined (i.e., it is the Government's intent to downgrade the current position). If this is not the Government's intent, recommend the following changes: | | | |
Change the IP position to an Acquisition and Program Management Analyst Advanced.
Requirement is as stated in the EPW.
| 28 | EPW | LOE | MDA previously announced that it is moving small business support from the Acquisition contract to the C3PO contract. This work could present an OCI issue if it remains on the PP&A contract. |
| Recommend removing the SB (CLIN 40) unless additional small business support that does not present OCI concerns is required on the PP&A contract. | | | |
| Small Business Support has been removed from EPW and Solicitation. | | | |
| 29 | | Two people supporting Small Business seemed to be moving to C3PO and they also may be listed on PP&A. Are these two new separate positions? |
| Small Business Support has been removed from EPW and Solicitation. | |
| 30 | EPW | LOE | In the EPW, the GM (CLIN 30) requirement includes twelve (12) Schedulers and sixteen (16) Acquisition Analysts. This staffing profile does not align with current execution. Specifically, there are currently twenty (20) Acquisition Analysts and eight (8) schedulers on the Acquisition contract in GM. With the LOE nature of PP&A, there is no flexibility to shift positions among labor categories. Is it the Government's intent to revise the LCAT requirements on this CLIN? |
| Please indicate if the EPW is correct as defined (i.e., it is the Government's intent to replace current acquisition analysts with schedulers). If this is not the Government's intent, recommend the following changes: | | | |
Remove one (1) Schedule Analyst Advanced and three (3) Schedule Analysts Intermediate and replace with four (4) Acquisition and Program Management Analysts Advanced.
Requirement is as stated in the EPW.
| 31 | EPW | LOE | In the EPW, the location of the DE (CLIN 17) Strategic Planning Analyst Intermediate is listed as Huntsville. This position is currently in the NCR. Is it the Government's intent to move this position to Huntsville? |
| Please indicate if the EPW is correct as defined (i.e., it is the Government's intent to move the DE Strategic Planning Analyst Intermediate position to Huntsville). If this is not the Government's intent, recommend the following change: | | | |
Change DE Strategic Planning Analyst Intermediate location to NCR.
The location of the DE (CLIN 0017) Strategic Planning Analyst (Intermediate) has been updated in the EPW to reflect the correct location of Fort Belvoir, VA.
| 32 | EPW | LOE | In the EPW, the SS (CLIN 42) requirement includes five (5) Acquisition and Program Management Analysts (Intermediate) in COS. This staffing profile does not align with current execution. Specifically, this work is currently executed by four (4) Advanced and two (2) Intermediate Acquisition Analysts. Is it the Government's intent to downgrade three positions? |
| Please indicate if the EPW is correct as defined (i.e., it is the Government's intent to downgrade three (3) current Acquisition and Program Management Analysts from Advanced to Intermediate). If this is not the Government's intent, recommend the following change: | | | |
Change three (3) SS Acquisition and Program Management Analysts (Intermediate) to Acquisition and Program Management Analysts (Advanced).
Requirement is as stated in the EPW.
| 33 | EPW | LOE | In the EPW, the FMS CLIN 0105 requirement includes three (3) Acquisition and Program Management Analysts (Intermediate). This staffing profile does not align with current execution. Specifically, this work is currently executed by one (1) Intermediate and two (2) Senior Consultants supporting UAE FMS. Is it the Government's intent to replace the two Senior Consultants with two Acquisition and Program Management Analysts (Intermediate)? |
| Please indicate if the EPW is correct as defined (i.e., it is the Government's intent to replace the two Senior Consultants with two Acquisition and Program Management Analysts (Intermediate) ). If this is not the Government's intent, recommend the following change: | | | |
Change two (2) Acquisition and Program Management Analysts (Intermediate) to Acquisition and Program Management Analysts (SME).
Requirement is as stated in the EPW.
| 34 | EPW | LOE | In the EPW, FMS CLIN 0107 appears to be support for Japan FMS and includes two (2) Acquisition and Program Management Analysts Advanced in Huntsville; two (2) Acquisition and Program Management Analysts Intermediate in Huntsville; and three (3) Acquisition and Program Management Analysts Intermediates in Dahlgren. This staffing profile does not align with current execution. Specifically, this work is currently executed by individuals in four (4) positions (three (3) Advanced and one (1) Intermediate), all of which are located in Dahlgren. Is it the Government's intent to add three (3) more positions and move one of the current Dahlgren positions to Huntsville? |
| Please indicate if the EPW is correct as defined (i.e., it is the Government's intent to add three (3) more positions and move one of the current Dahlgren positions to Huntsville). If this is not the Government's intent, recommend the following changes: | | | |
Move one Acquisition and Program Management Analyst (Advanced) from Huntsville to Dahlgren. Change one Acquisition and Program Management Analyst (Intermediate) in Dahlgren to a Schedule Analyst (Advanced).
Requirement is as stated in the EPW.
| 35 | | Japan FMS CLIN 0107. Are the locations of the support correct? |
| Requirement is as stated in the EPW. | |
| 36 | EPW | LOE | In the EPW, the FMS CLIN 0114 Acquisition requirement includes two (2) Acquisition and Program Management Analysts Advanced, two (2) Acquisition and Program Management Analysts Basic, and one (1) Acquisition and Program Management Analyst (Intermediate). This staffing profile does not align with current execution. Specifically, this work is currently executed by two (2) Senior Consultants, two (2) Advanced Analysts, and one (1) Intermediate Analyst supporting KSA on the current contract. Is it the Government's intent to restructure the LCATs and levels for the execution of this task? |
| Please indicate if the EPW is correct as defined (i.e., it is the Government's intent to restructure the LCATs and levels for the execution of this task). If this is not the Government's intent, recommend the following changes: | | | |
Change two Acquisition and Program Management Analysts Advanced to Acquisition and Program Management Analyst SMEs.
Requirement is as stated in the EPW.
| 37 | EPW | LOE | At Industry Day, MDA announced plans to move all the Schedulers in the Agency to this contract. It appears only seven new scheduling positions have been added. Was the plan to place all schedulers on the PP&A contract dropped? |
| Recommend moving forward with the plan to move all schedulers onto the PP&A Contract and add positions to the EPW to reflect the implementation of this plan. | | | |
| Requirements are as stated in the EPW. | | | |
| 38 | | Have MDA’s plans to place all schedulers on the PP&A contract changed? |
| Requirements are as stated in the EPW. | |
| 39 | EPW | LOE | MDA has frequently expressed its desire to execute all SETA support on MDA Teams Next contracts. Most THAAD Acquisition Support is performed on a non-TEAMS contract with only three (3) current TEAMS Acquisition Analysts. |
| Recommend moving forward with the plan to acquire THAAD Acquisition support through Teams Next PP&A and reflect the transition of these positions to the PP&A EPW. | | | |
| Current requirements are as stated in the EPW. MDA conducts an annual Inter/Intra-Agency Acquisition Requirements Review. Requirements will be evaluated during the 2021 review. TEAMS-Next contracts may be adjusted in the future as results of the review are published. | | | |
| 40 | | MDA has frequently expressed its desire to execute all SETA support on MDA Teams Next contracts. The THAAD Acquisition Support is not included in the PP&A draft. Recommend moving forward with the plan to acquire THAAD Acquisition support through Teams Next PP&A and reflect the transition of these positions to the PP&A EPW. |
| Current requirements are as stated in the EPW. MDA conducts an annual Inter/Intra-Agency Acquisition Requirements Review. Requirements will be evaluated during the 2021 review. TEAMS-Next contracts may be adjusted in the future as results of the review are published. | |
| 41 | EPW | Rates tab | Cells T1 & T2 | Performance is expected to start within GFY2022 (February 15, 2022); therefore, GFY1 (GFY2022) should have a 10/1/2021 start date (Cell T2). To enable the appropriate calculation of GFY rates, CFY1 would start prior to (or at the same time as) GFY1. If you are using the calendar year, it should be 1/1/2021; if you are using the standard government fiscal year, it should be 10/1/2021 (Cell T1). With the date currently set at 10/1/2022, the Offerors' rates will be too low by a factor equal to the escalation. |
| Revise cell T2 to 10/1/2021 and T1 to 1/1/2021. Instruct the offeror that the CFY1 start date is prior to or on the GFY1 start date. Suggest that the offeror adjust cell P4 to properly identify their CFY1 fiscal year. | | | | |
| These cells are for example purposes only to show that the Government fiscal year is on a different cycle, and adjusts the rate for this time difference. The area highlighted in yellow has been updated for clarification purposes. | | | | |
| 42 | | Since the RFP says the estimated start date is February 15, 2022, then in the EPW shouldn’t the GFY1 start date be 10/1/2021 since that’s the FY that the start date falls within? |
| The GFY1 (2022) start date is 10/1/2021. | |
| 43 | EPW | Rates tab | Cell P5 | Cell P5 reflects the value in cell E4, but this appears to be inaccurate. Based on the formulas, it appears that MDA expects the CFY1 rate to be reflective of the benchmark rate. Therefore, cell P5 should equal 2021. Companies with a calendar year fiscal year would reflect CFY1 as 2021 in order to calculate GFY1 rates for GFY2022. Since column R presents the offeror's CFY1 rates, cell R4 should reflect the contractor's correct fiscal year. Although this is primarily a labelling issue, its correction will prevent confusion. |
| Recommend making cell P5 equal to 2021. Instruct the offeror to properly identify the fiscal year associated with CFY1 in cell R4. | | | | |
| No changes will be made to Cell P5 as the estimated start date of the contract falls within GFY1 (2022). Changes to cell R4 by Offerors should not be necessary. The area highlighted in yellow above these cells has been updated for clarification purposes, and are for example purposes only to show that the Government fiscal year is on a different cycle, and adjusts the rate for this time difference. | | | | |
| 44 | EPW | LOE | FMS work with the UK is initiating now, but the EPW does not reflect this work, and it is not included in this RFP. Should there be a UK FMS Support CLIN? |
| Recommend adding a UK CLIN to the solicitation and the EPW. | | | |
| There is currently no UK FMS Support requirement. | | | |
| 45 | | FMS work with the UK is initiating now, but the EPW does not reflect this work, and it is not included in this RFP. Should there be a UK FMS Support CLIN? |
| There is currently no UK FMS Support requirement. | |
| 46 | EPW | LOE | In the EPW, AB CLIN 0010 includes a requirement for two (2) International and Policy Program Analysts (Advanced). It seems that one (1) International and Policy Program Analyst (Advanced) and one (1) International and Policy Program Analyst (Basic) would be sufficient. Executing this work with an Advanced and a Basic analyst will deliver a cost savings to the Government. |
| Change one International and Policy Program Analyst (Advanced) to a Policy Program Analyst (Basic) on CLIN 0010. | | | |
| Requirement is as stated in the EPW. | | | |
| 47 | EPW | LOE | In the EPW, the DI CLIN 0020 includes a requirement for an International and Policy Program Analyst (Advanced) at Fort Belvoir. This staffing profile does not align with current execution. Specifically, this work is currently executed by an Intermediate Analyst. Continuing this work with an Intermediate Analyst will deliver a cost savings to the Government. |
| Change one International and Policy Program Analyst (Advanced) to a Policy Program Analyst (Intermediate) on CLIN 0020. | | | |
| Requirement is as stated in the EPW. | | | |
| 48 | EPW | LOE | In the EPW, the DI CLIN 0020 includes an International and Policy Program Analyst (Basic) and an International and Policy Program Analyst (Intermediate) in Dahlgren. This staffing profile does not align with current execution. Specifically, this work (which appears to be Aegis Support) is currently executed an International and Policy Program Analyst (Basic) by an International and Policy Program Analyst (Basic) and an International and Policy Program Analyst (Intermediate) in Dahlgren. Is it the Government's intent to change the staffing for the execution of this work? |
| Please indicate if the EPW is correct as defined (i.e., it is the Government's intent to change the staffing for the execution of this work). If this is not the Government's intent, recommend the following changes: | | | |
Move the Basic position to CLIN 0010 AB.
Move the Intermediate position to AB FMS CLIN 0121.
Requirement is as stated in the EPW.
| 49 | EPW | LOE | In the EPW, the FMS CLIN 0114 includes two (2) International and Policy Program Analyst (Advanced) positions. This staffing profile does not align with current execution which includes three (3) International and Policy Program Analyst (Advanced). Is it the Government's intent to change the staffing for the execution of this work? |
| Please indicate if the EPW is correct as defined (i.e., it is the Government's intent to change the staffing for the execution of this work). If this is not the Government's intent, recommend the following change: | | | |
Change one International and Policy Program Analyst (Intermediate) to an International and Policy Program Analyst (Advanced) on CLIN 0114.
Requirement is as stated in the EPW.
| 50 | EPW | LOE | Based on current requirements, the level of support to CLINs 0107 and 0108 appears to be inadequate. We believe an additional half FTE for an International and Policy Program Analyst (Advanced) is needed on both CLINs 0107 and 0108. |
| Add a half FTE for an International and Policy Program Analyst (Advanced) on CLINs 0107 and 0108. | | | |
| Requirement is as stated in the EPW. | | | |
| 51 | EPW | LOE | The significant scope of CLIN 0121 requires resources beyond those listed in the EPW. This staffing profile does not align with current execution, which includes three Intermediate Analysts performing JPN FMS case work. Is it the Government's intent to change the staffing for the execution of this work? |
| Please indicate if the EPW is correct as defined (i.e., it is the Government's intent to change the staffing for the execution of this work). If this is not the Government's intent, recommend the following change: | | | |
Add a minimum of two (2) additional Intermediate Analysts to CLIN 0121.
Requirement is as stated in the EPW.
| 52 | DRFP | 133 | Section I, FAR 52.216-11 | FAR 52.216-11 relates to a cost contract with no fee. As this contract will be a CPFF contract, the clause is not applicable. |
| Delete clause 52.216-11 from IBR list in Section I. | | | | |
| FAR clause 52.216-11 has been removed from the RFP. | | | | |
| 53 | | The FTE was described in the MDA newsletter at 345. Our analysis of the RFI using the EPW shows 284. Can you clarify what the FTE is for the PP&A effort? |
| MDA has performed a thorough analysis of the workforce needed for its mission, applied manpower deep dive reductions where applicable, and considered future funding in determining a workforce that is plausible. The FTE requirements are as stated in the EPW. | |
| 54 | | Is it correct that we are reducing hours from 380 to 284 FTE in the EPW? |
| MDA has performed a thorough analysis of the workforce needed for its mission, applied manpower deep dive reductions where applicable, and considered future funding in determining a workforce that is plausible. The FTE requirements are as stated in the EPW. | |
| 55 | | What is the significance of the PRIDE tab? It appears it has no “Precedents” or “Dependents” in the rest of the EPW. |
| The PRIDE Tab is used to include the MDA Tracking # for each position. This information is not required to be provided in proposals as it is unknown to Offerors. | |
| 56 | | Do we need to provide resumes for CPM and key personnel? If so, will they be evaluated? |
| Resumes are not required to be submitted for key personnel and will not be evaluated. MCS6 Element #4 - Key Staff Position defined as Contract Program Manager (CPM) has been removed. | |
| 57 | | Is MDA going to re-evaluate degree requirements for certain positions? |
| Degree requirements will remain as written. | |
| 58 | | If some of the staff have long term support but don't have the degree level for the PP&A positions, will the government consider years of experience over an degree? |
| If there is an allowable substitution for years of experience vice degree levels it has been included in the labor category descriptions. | |
| 59 | | We identified numerous differences in the current execution staffing profile in relation to what is being requested in the EPW. Are these staffing types and levels and the associated staffing changes they entail are correct and accurately reflect what the Government is seeking for PP&A? |
| The requirements are as stated. | |
| 60 | | With the agency in the process of making cuts will the labor mix we provided be significantly different from the incumbent current workforce? |
| MDA has performed a thorough analysis of the workforce needed for its mission, applied manpower deep dive reductions where applicable, and considered future funding in determining a workforce that is plausible. The FTE requirements are as stated in the EPW. | |
| 61 | The previous Acquisition contract SOW contained a section on Small Business Innovative Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) for DV. BCF is currently performing outreach for DVR, but this work does not appear to be in the TEAMS Next SOW. We believe the position is included in the DV CLIN in the Pricing workbook. Is MDA removing the Outreach requirement for DV? |
| The position may be there but the Outreach requirement is not | |
| The Statement of Work has been revised to include Section 3.1.16 Small Business Innovative Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) - for MDS Supported Programs. | |
| 62 | | Do we still have to submit PPIs? |
| Yes, PPIs shall be provided. | |
| 63 | | Is the reason for the Government providing benchmark rates due to issues of attrition and retention? |
| This is a LOE contract versus a Performance-Based contract. Benchmark rates have been developed so the Government can properly evaluate cost realism. It also ensures support contractor employees are receiving fair market rates and will not be underpaid in order for a company to "buy-in" to the work, and to comply with FAR Clause 52.222-46. | |
| 64 | | Will Mission Capability Adjectival Ratings be at the Subfactor Level and not rolled up to the Factor level? |
| Adjectival Ratings will be given at the Mission Capability Subfactor Level. These ratings will NOT be combined into one adjectival rating at the Factor Level. | |
| 65 | Attachment L-01 - Past Performance Information | Can the Government please confirm that Attachment L-01, "Past Performance Information" is not required to be handled as CUI until the Proposal is submitted by the Offeror to the Government. |
| This is correct. | |
| 66 | dRFP L-05 EPW | Level of Effort tab and Labor Resources tab | rows 363, 364, 365 in each tab | The CLIN # in each of the rows for International and Policy Analyst Advanced is listed as 0010, but the hours in the GFYs seem to indicate that row 363 should be CLIN 1010, row 364 should be CLIN 2010, and row 365 should be CLIN 7010. |
| Please correct the CLIN #s associated with International and Policy Analyst Advanced (rows 363-365) in the Level of Effort tab and the Labor Resources tab, to reflect the correct option periods. | | | | |
| Labeling of the referenced CLINs has been updated. | | | | |
| 67 | Section L | When will the final RFP be out and proposals due? And what is the transition period? Can this information be included in the RFP? |
| Final RFP is estimated to be posted 5/20/21 with proposals due 6/21/21. The proposal due date can be found in Section L 1.4. Section L 12.0 has been revised to include the estimated transition period. | |
68 What is the final release date for the RFP? Final RFP estimated to be posted 5/20/21 with proposals due 6/21/21.
| 69 | Section L | 23 | 7.7 MCS6 Element 1 | Ref: MCS6 Element 1. The number of days Offerors are asked to address backfilling critical and vacant billets is within 15 days. The SOW (pg. 70) states that the staff replacement timeline for all but the CPM is 35 work days after vacancy has occurred. |
| Revise MCS6 Element 1 to state "[a]ddressing processes and timelines for backfilling critical and vacant billets within 35 days" in order for Section L to match the SOW. | Section L and M, MCS6 Element 1 have been updated to remove the number of days to fill billets. | | | |
| 70 | Section L | 6 | 1.5 Non-Governmental Personnel | Is Kepler Research the only contractor who will be a non-government advisor? |
| Yes. | | | |
| 71 | | Are we looking for Offerors to be in compliance with DFARS and to submit a plan for what they will do in the case of a natural disaster? Will we identify Essential Services? |
| Essential Services positions are listed in Attachment J-18. | |
| 72 | | Will MDA shuts down in the future if there is another pandemic/natural disaster? How will that effect mission essential personnel? |
| The Mission Essential Services Plan is for situations such as a national disaster / pandemic. MDA guidance would be provided to notify contractors in the even of Government shutdowns due to CR/budget issues. | |
| 73 | | Do we need an appropriate justification for any pricing over the benchmark? |
| Substantial justification is only required for rates proposed under the benchmark rate. Justification is not needed for prices greater than the benchmark rates. | |
| 74 | | Do Offerors need to provide why they find the benchmark rates to be acceptable? |
| The benchmark rates have been provided by the Government as part of the RFP. Justification for why they are acceptable is not necessary. The most important aspect is that Offerors defend their proposed indirect rates and any hourly rate that is below the benchmark. | |
| 75 | | The CPM labor category description appears to ask for someone who is overqualified for the position. Would MDA lighten the technical description? |
| CPM is the position who reports to the SES and senior leadership. It is an important position to the agency. This labor category description will not be changed. | |
| 76 | | Will there be significant changes from the Draft to the Final RFP? |
| No, significant changes are not expected. Requirements have been vetted as thoroughly as possibly prior to posting the Draft RFP. | |
&A Draft RFP &K000000HQ0858-21-R-0014 MDA Government Comment Matrix Compilation
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&10 &"-,Regular"&11