MASTER Final RFP QAs 7-8-22.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Mission Planning Support Contract IV (MPSC IV)
- Solicitation number
- FA8217-22-R-0001-0001
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
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
Sheet1
| MPSC IV RFP Q&A as of 7/8/22 | ||||||||
| # | Document | Section | Page | Question/Comment | Government Response | RFP Attachment revisions | Completed? | |
| 1 | Attachment 1 | 2.3.1.2.2 | ||||||
| SSR Support Level | 10 | The PWS 2.3.1.2.2 requirement for reach-back plus SSRs states: "The SSR shall provide limited unscheduled on-site support when the systems cannot be managed via any other means; response time will vary based on location and SSR availability, but should be within 72 hours, if possible." "Limited" is not quantified. With MPSC IV being an FFP contract with a potential 10-year PoP, Industry requires quantifiable language to define what "limited" is in this context. We request the Government provide an average or not-to-exceed amount such as the number of projected unscheduled on-visits per a given time period (such as per month or per year). | The term "limited" appears in both the reach-back and reach-back plus descriptions. It is meant to suggest if the methods that are described in each paragraph are not sufficient to get a unit's systems operational, the contractor is required to provide "limited" on-site support. The definition of limited is "few, small, short". There is no way to quantify "limited" exactly, as it is dependent upon the unknown reason why the issue could not be resolved during the standard monthly visit in reach-back plus or via remote methods in reach-back. It could be a day, two or longer depending on how quickly an SSR can resolve whatever the issue was that couldn't be resolved remotely or during the monthly visit. This situation is generally rare, but the Government must identify that additional on-site visits may be necessary if there is still an issue. On average, the government wouldn't expect this to occur more than 2 times per year, but there is no way to determine it for certain as it is based on the unique situation that could not be resolved. | |||||
| 2 | Attachments 1, 3, and 4 | 2.3.1.2 | ||||||
| SSR Support Level | 10 | Per the service-level definitions outlined in PWS 2.3.1.2, MPE Systems support is a stated requirement within all four levels. In Attachments 3 and 4, 20 SSR locations do not have any MPE systems listed. Since these locations do no meet the criteria defined in PWS 2.3.1.2, please remove these locations from the solicitation as they have no MPE systems to support. | This information was provided directly from the MAJCOMS. However, the Government will update the attachments to reflect 0 where there was N/A; as these locations do not have MPEs but have non-MPES. In the event that a location has no MPEs but has Non-MPEs, the contractor is still required to support non-MPEs even though the number of MPEs is zero. In most cases those are Air Operations Centers or Groups that do not have their own MPEs. In addition, for some of the locations that were left blank, those are units under ANG A2 and the Government will update the attachments to reflect 1 Distributed Ground System (DCGS) at each of those locations. There will be a value in each cell on the updated sheet, even if the value is zero in one of the columns, support is still expected for the systems listed in the other column. Additionally, the Government requires a value greater than zero in every cell as it is implied that Full support is equal to or greater than the lower levels of support. If a location requires zero Non-MPEs it can be assumed that the price for Full and Basic is the same since no additional work it required at that location currently. | Attachment 3 and 4 | YES | |||
| 3 | Attachments 3 and 4 | In reference to the MPSSF tabs of Attachments 3 and 4, Column D, Rows 11-19, is it the Government’s intent for Offerors to bid discrete or cumulative FTEs to support the Country Case ranges? For example, should the Offeror’s proposed FTE LOE be: |
A) D11 – cases 1-11; D12 – cases 12-15; D13 – cases 16-25, etc.
or B) D11 – 1-11 cases; D12 – 1-15 cases; D13 – 1-21 cases, etc.?
| If the answer is B, will the Government order one range or multiple ranges? | The answer is B. The Government intends the offeror will provide cumulative FTEs, but each cell is treated as a distinct value. For example, an offeror may propose X FTEs in E11, and they may choose to increase FTEs in E14 and so on. The value in E14 would then be the X FTEs in E11 plus the additional FTEs needed to support the increase in cases. The value then in E14 is a distinct value. The Government will order one range initially and then may order another range later, or additional individual cases. For example, the Government may order 16 cases initially, and later order another 16 cases. Or we may order all 32 at once and then order additional cases individually later. This is all dependent on when country cases are able to provide funding and if it lines up with the initial task order we issue each year. | |||||||
| 4 | Attachments 3 and 4 | All SSR spreadsheet tabs in Attachment 3 and 4 are missing Reach-Back SSR data entry cells for two sites -- AFRC NAS JRB Ft Worth, TX, and ANG A3 Tucson, AZ. Please provide corrected Attachment 3 and 4 files. | The Government has corrected the two missing rows for Reach-back Plus for AFRC NAS JRB Ft Worth, TX, and ANG A3 Tucson, AZ on both the pricing and staffing table. | Attachment 3 and 4 | YES | |||
| 5 | Attachments 3 and 4 | Three SSR locations (ANG 3 sites Fort Drum, Grandfork, and Fort Huachuca) have zero MPE or Non-MPE systems listed. Please remove these locations since no LOE is required as they have no in-scope systems requiring support. | This information was provided directly from the MAJCOMs, however Government will update Attachments 3 & 4 to ensure at least one of the columns has a value. | Attachment 3 and 4 | YES | |||
| 6 | Attachment 5 | L.2.1.8.2 | 4 | Section L.2.1.8.2 says the 11-point minimum text-size requirement does not apply to "reproduced sections of the solicitation document" in Offerors' proposals. Please clarify that Offerors may submit completed solicitation attachments in their native font size and format. | The offeror is requested to complete solicitation attachments without altering the basic format the government has provided. For example the offeror is required to fill out cells within the Pricing and Staffing sheets, as well as the CRM. Since the Government will exempt the staffing sheet and CRM from page counts, if an offeror wishes to slightly alter the appearance in their native font and format, it is allowed, provided the basic structure, content and layout format of the document remains intact. It is preferable the offerors fill out the sheets as provided for the soft copy for consistency and standardization. However, for the hard copy if slight modifications need to be made for printability or aesthetic purposes, this will be acceptable. | |||
| 7 | Attachment 5 | L.2.1.8.2 | 4 | Please confirm that artifacts derived from the PPI Tool (Attachment L-3) are exempt from formatting requirements in Section L.2.1.8.2. | The PPI Tool system generated reports are exempt from the formatting requirements. However, the same page limits would apply. Please note the following: |
The PPI Tool is required for the submission of the Past Performance information. This is to facilitate a consistent process for the offeror's to provide the requested past performance information, and also the government's ability to evaluate that information efficiently between the offeror's.
If offeror's would like to provide a supplemental version using Microsoft Word (with bold, italics, underline, tables, etc.) in addition to the PPI Tool report; that would be acceptable. However, the two versions would have to primarily contain the same information. The Word version would only be used to emphasize or provide information that isn't able to be entered in the PPI tool( i.e., bold, italics, underline, tables, etc.). The same page limits would apply for both documents.
| 8 | Attachment 5 | L.2.1.8.1, L.4.2.2 | 4, 8 | Section L.4.2.2 requires Offerors to submit a List of Tables and Drawings and a Cross Reference Matrix. Please clarify that these artifacts are excluded from page-count restrictions similar to excluded items listed in Section L.2.1.8.1 (Page Limitations). | Yes, the List of Tables and Drawings, as well as the Cross Reference Matrix, are excluded from page-count restrictions. |
| 9 | Attachment 5 | L.2.1.11, L.4.2.2 | 5, 8 | Will the Government clarify that the Cross-Reference Matrix described in L.2.1.11 and identified as Attachment L-2 is the Cross Reference Matrix identified in Section L.4.2.2? If so, does the Government require Offerors to submit this artifact as an Excel spreadsheet and a separate file from the rest of the Technical Volume? Section L.4.2.2 says the Cross Reference Matrix appears after the glossary, whereas instructions for Attachment L-2 say the Requirements Traceability Matrix "will remain a separate attachment through solicitation." | Yes, the Cross-Reference Matrix described in L.2.1.11 and identified as Attachment L-2 is the Cross Reference Matrix identified in Section L.4.2.2. These sections are both referring to the same document. |
The Cross Reference Matrix should be submitted as part of the Technical volume.
The instructions for Attachment L-2 say the Requirements Traceability Matrix "will remain a separate attachment through solicitation." This statement is just identifying that the Cross Reference Matrix will be included as part of the RFP as it's own attachment, not that offeror's should keep it separate from the rest of the Technical Volume proposal. The CRM should be included as part of the Technical Volume proposal.
| 10 | Attachment 5 | L.2.1.15.2 | 6 | Will the Government clarify that only numbered headings and subheadings need to be hyperlinked to a volume's Table of Contents? Tables of Contents typically correspond to numbered headings and subheadings but not unnumbered subheadings. | Yes, we confirm that only numbered headings and subheadings need to be hyperlinked to a volumes table of contents. | ||
| 11 | Attachment 5 | L.4.3.1 | 8 | Per L.4.3.1 (Human Resources), will the Government clarify that Offerors should only submit the completed Staffing Table (Attachment 4 / Attachment L-10) as a separate electronic file rather than embed a printable version into the main Technical Proposal response? If the latter, please remove the Staffing Table response from any page-count and formatting limitations listed in L.2.1.8.2. | The Staffing Table is required to be submitted as part of the soft/electronic file copy as well as an embedded printable in the main hard copy Technical Proposal. The Government will remove the staffing table from the page count as requested. | Section L 2.1.8.1 | YES |
| 12 | Attachment 5 | L.5.1 | 10 | Section L.5.1 states that past performance information “is requested on the offerors and all key subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. Key subcontractors/partners are those who are proposed to perform 15 percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance.” Will the Government clarify whether Offerors are to provide past performance information on ALL subcontractors/partners or only those key subcontractors/partners who perform 15 percent or more of the proposed effort? | The requested information should be provided for the offeror and ONLY the key subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners, who are proposed to perform 15 percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. | ||
| 13 | Attachment 5 | L.5.5 | 11 | Per L.5.5, the Government requires Offerors to provide information on Workload Sharing. However, Section M does not address how the material will be scored. Industry recommends removing this requirement from Volume III Past Performance and instead have Offerors provide the workshare percentages per teammate in Volume IV Factor 3 Price. | The Government will keep the workload sharing in the Past Performance volume. | ||
| 14 | Attachment 5 | L.5.6 | 12 | Section L.5.6 states: “If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with the same partner.” Will the Government clarify whether this applies only to Joint Ventures, or if this requirement is also inclusive of all subcontractors/teammates? | This requirement applies to Joint Ventures, Teaming Arrangements/Partners, and Subcontractors. | ||
| 15 | Attachment 5 | L.6.7 | 14 | Section L.6.7 requires Offerors to detail "fringe, all other burdens, and profit/fee contained in labor rates" in their Professional Employee Compensation Plans. Providing such information goes beyond what is typically provided in a compensation plan and goes beyond what is required by FAR 52.222-46. We recommend removing fringe, burdens, and profit/fee from the Plan requirements. Rather, we recommend the Plans include salary rates or ranges and detail fringe benefits per 52.222-46 in order to demonstrate reasonable salaries and benefits for attracting and retaining staff. | Section L 6.7 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees will be changed to: "The offeror shall submit a professional employee compensation plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. As part of their proposals, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract in accordance with FAR 52.222-46." |
| Section M 5.5 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees will be changed to: "In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements and allows the offeror to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The offeror shall detail the salaries and fringe benefits to facilitate comparisons in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. Lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may impair the offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees. This may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements which may lead to rejection of the proposal." | Section L and M | YES | ||||
| 16 | Attachment 5 | L2.1.12 | Section L.2.1.12 states: "Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections." In response to a past question from Industry asking whether this requirement only applies to proposal hard copies, the Government said, "Tabbed indexing is required on hard and soft copies" (Draft RFP QAs, 6 June 22, row 9). Will the Government provide further guidance and instruction on tabbed indexing for soft copies, as it is not commonly used for electronic submissions and Offerors may have different takes on how to meet this requirement? Such guidance and instruction would enable alignment between Offerors' proposals and Government expectations. | As answered in Draft RFP QAs, 6 June 22, row 9 "Tabbed indexing is required on hard and soft copies." If for some reason you are not able to index your soft copies, please let us know and we will determine if the electronic and hyperlink instructions described in Section L Paragraph 2.1.15 and 2.1.15.2 will suffice for soft copies." If an offer is unable to perform tabbed indexing on soft copies, the Government confirms that the instructions provided in 2.1.15 and 2.1.15.2 will suffice. | ||
| 1 | RFP_Attachment_5_ RemainingSectionLattachments _25May22, | 2.1.6 Communications | Pg 3 of 17 | This section references Attachment L-4 (Section L): Email Encryption Instructions which states there is a requirement to utilize Encryption Wizard. During the DRFP we sent an email to POCs using this tool and were told not to. Please confirm if encryption is a requirement and if so, should we use this tool. | It appears the Encryption Wizard is no longer a viable option. |
The instructions in attachment L-4 will be changed to: "Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will control exchanges of source selection information after submission of the initial proposal packages between the Government and offerors. Email may be used to transmit such information only if the email can be sent encrypted, and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the Buyer/Contracting Officer indicated on the face page of the solicitation prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information). Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mail.
| To clarify, an offeror's initial proposal submission is not allowed to be submitted through email and hard copies must be delivered. The possible use of encrypted email, would be for all unclassified, sensitive information (FOUO, Privacy Act, CUI, etc.) related to the final RFP, contractor proposal responses, contract communications, contract deliverables, contractor-to-government communications, contractor-to-subcontractor communications or any other type of sensitive information. | Section L 2.1.6 and Attachment 11 (page 4) | YES | ||||
| 2 | RFP_Attachment 11 RemainingSectionLattachments _29Apr22, | ATTACHMENT L-4 (SECTION L): EMAIL ENCRYPTION INSTRUCTIONS | Pg 4 of 15 | There is a requirement to utilize Encryption Wizard. During the DRFP we sent an email to POCs using this tool and were told not to. Please confirm if encryption is a requirement and if so, should we use this tool. | It appears the Encryption Wizard is no longer a viable option. |
The instructions in attachment L-4 will be changed to: "Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will control exchanges of source selection information after submission of the initial proposal packages between the Government and offerors. Email may be used to transmit such information only if the email can be sent encrypted, and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the Buyer/Contracting Officer indicated on the face page of the solicitation prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information). Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mail.
| To clarify, an offeror's initial proposal submission is not allowed to be submitted through email as hard copies must be delivered. The possible use of encrypted email, would be for all unclassified, sensitive information (FOUO, Privacy Act, CUI, etc.) related to the final RFP, contractor proposal responses, contract communications, contract deliverables, contractor-to-government communications, contractor-to-subcontractor communications or any other type of sensitive information. | Section L 2.1.6 and Attachment 11 (page 4) | YES | ||||
| 3 | RFP_Attachment_5_ RemainingSectionLattachments _25May22, | 2.1.8 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits | Pg 4 of 17 | The Master Proposal is required to be submitted in an entirely different format than the other volumes, hole punched on the short edge and not bound. Would you consider allowing the Master Proposal to be submitted in the same format as the other volumes? | The Master Proposal should be submitted using the same general formatting as the other proposal volumes (i.e., Times New Roman, 11 point, etc.). However, the Master Proposal should also follow the formatting instructions listed in 2.1.8 for printing (double-sided, and flipped on the short end), 2 hole punched, and bound together. This allows for incorporation of the contractor's proposal into the governments hard copy contract files. | |
| 4 | RFP_Attachment_3_MPSC IV_Pricing Table_1Jun22 and RFP Document |
FA8217-22-R-0001 (Section B Items 0001 and 1001) Pricing Table Instructions Tab In the event that less than a month is necessary to place on order, the government will provide a full month rate for the month services begin.
However, in the RFP Document Part 1 – The Schedule, Section B Supplies or Services Price/Costs Items 0001 and 1001:
In the event that less than a month is necessary to place on order, the government will determine the fractional price by dividing the monthly price in half.
| Please clarify which partial month instruction applies. | The Government will correct the man month reference in the RFP Document Part 1 – The Schedule, Section B Supplies or Services Price/Costs Items 0001 and 1001. That information was pulled from the MPSC III Contract for the MPSC IV Solicitation, and that change was not identified to the PCO as something that needed to be updated. It was determined half way through MPSC III that using half man months presented challenges and the Government moved to only using whole man months, and it is our intent to continue with that method on MPSC IV. | Solicitation -CLIN structure. | YES | |
| 5 | RFP_Attachment_3_MPSC IV_Pricing Table_1Jun22 | Please confirm there is not a requirement to price every cell in Attachment 3 – Pricing Table. |
| For reference, the pricing table has “N/A” in Column D and is blank in column E for certain locations (i.e., rows 815-818 of tab CY32 – SSR). If support is not needed at this location, zero is appropriate as the price. | There is a requirement to fill in each cell in the pricing table. Some of our locations are unique, such as the AOCs, and do not have MPEs but have non-MPEs, and in the case of the ANG A2 some of the locations have 1 Distributed Ground System (DCGS),. The Government will update attachment 3 and 4 to ensure each cell has a value, even if the value is 0 in one column it should have a value in the other requirement column (D or E). Zero is not an appropriate price or FTE count, even when there are 0 MPEs or non-MPEs listed. The Government would expect the lower support levels would be equal to or less than the full support level, even if we could only order full support if the requirements remain as described. Also, it can be assumed that Full support for a location with zero Non-MPEs is the same as basic for that location since no additional support is currently required. | Attachments 3 & 4 | YES | |
| 1 | Section L | 5.5 | Section L 5.5 – “Offeror shall submit workload sharing percentages, based on cost, for the total contract and each subfactor defined in Section L, paragraphs 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.” |
| Can you clarify that you want to see our teams workshare for MPSC IV only? | Yes, the workload sharing percentages are for the work to be performed as part of the MPSCIV contract. | ||||||
| 2 | During industry days the government let industry know that there would be a 60 day response window, will the government extend the due date by 15 days? | The Government does not intend to issue an extension. Industry has had access to the Draft RFP since 14 Dec 21, and updated documents were released on May 20th with minimal changes (17 days prior to RFP release). After the Government contemplated the lengthy time Industry has had access to the vast majority of the requirements the Government decided 45 days was reasonable length of time to provide proposals. | |||||
| 3 | Section L | 5.2 and 5.6 | Given the language in section L 5.2 Relevant Contracts and L 5.6 Past Performance Information, can you confirm that you want all off the “relevant contracts/past performance” in the relevant contracts section, the Past Performance volume, and the PPI tool? | Yes, the Past Performance information for the relevant contracts should be submitted using the PPI Tool; this along with any other Past Performance information would be included as part of the Past Performance Volume of the proposal. | |||
| 1 | NA | What is the total MPSSF FTE on MPSC III? | This is a performance based contract and offerors are requested to provide their individual approach based on the requirements in the PWS. The Government will not provide FTE counts. Please refer to previous Q&As (Draft RFP and Industry Day Q&As) where similar questions have been asked and answered on FTE counts. | ||||
| 2 | ITO 4.3.1, 4.3.4, 4.4.1 | Is the government open to an entirely new way to organize, train and staff MPSC IV? | This is a performance based contract. The Government provides the requirements. Offerors are free to provide their approach to meeting those requirements. Those approaches will be evaluated in accordance with the Technical Factor and Subfactors defined in Section M. Approaches must be deemed technically acceptable to be awardable. | ||||
| 3 | Govt Response to Industry Day and Draft RFP Qas | Is the government firm on the $1.2M TDY travel budget? | The $1.2 M is an estimate. Offerors are not required to propose travel costs, and they are not included in the price evaluation. The actual travel amounts will be determined per task order between the COR and the MAJCOM. | ||||
| 4 | NA | Will the Government consider Key resume’s for subfactors 1, 2 &3 when scoring the proposal? | Factor 1: Technical Subfactors 1, 2 &3 do not require offerors to submit key resumes as part of the technical volume. However, if they are provided they may or may not offer substantiation to proposed approaches, however the Government will determine technical acceptability of each subfactor based on the description of approaches provided in the offeror's proposal independent from any key personnel or resumes. Note that "Key Personnel" and Key subcontractors may be factored into Factor 2: Past Performance as indicated in Section L 5.6. | ||||
| 5 | PWS 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.3.1 and 2.3.4.1 | Please provide the pricing tables for CAOC, Assault Zone, and ACC Test SSRs | The Assault Zone SSR was indicated in the original attachments in parenthesis at Scott AFB. The CAOC and ACC Test SSRs were also embedded in the pricing and staffing tables, but the attachments have been updated similarly to Scott indicating they are the ACC Test SSR locations (Eglin and one location at Nellis) and the CAOC SSR (listed under Unit Funded SSRs which is the last row in both tables). Additionally the section for ACC Test SSR has been removed and the locations are embedded as they were previously, just with the added notation. If further questions exist regarding this question after reviewing the updated attachments, let the PCO know. | Attachment 3 & 4 | YES | ||
| 6 | ITO 5.0 | Please provide Attachment L-3 (Past Performance Information) | This attachment is included within "RFP_Attachment_11_RemainingSectionLattachments_29Apr22" that are posted in the SAM announcement. The PPI Tool is available upon request and has been sent to your company. | ||||
| 7 | ITO 5.0 | Please provide Attachment L-5 (Consent Letter) | This attachment is included within "RFP_Attachment_11_RemainingSectionLattachments_29Apr22" that are posted in the SAM announcement. | ||||
| 8 | ITO 5.0 | Please provide Attachment L-6 (Client Authorization Letter) | This attachment is included within "RFP_Attachment_11_RemainingSectionLattachments_29Apr22" that are posted in the SAM announcement. | ||||
| 9 | ITO 5.0 | Please provide Attachment L-7 (Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Sheet) | This attachment is included within "RFP_Attachment_11_RemainingSectionLattachments_29Apr22" that are posted in the SAM announcement. | ||||
| 10 | ITO 5.0 | Please provide Attachment L-8 (Past Performance Questionnaire) | This attachment is included within "RFP_Attachment_11_RemainingSectionLattachments_29Apr22" that are posted in the SAM announcement. | ||||
| 11 | ITO 5.0 | Please provide Attachment L-9 (Questionnaire Cover Letter) | This attachment is included within "RFP_Attachment_11_RemainingSectionLattachments_29Apr22" that are posted in the SAM announcement. | ||||
| 12 | PWS | The PWS refers to a total of 7 different SSR security pricing table categories, these are: |
| 1. | AF SSR T2‐S – Standard USAF SSR with Information Assurance Technician (IAT) Level 2 certification, Secret clearance required |
| 2. | AF SSR T2‐TS/SCI – Standard USAF SSR with IAT Level 2 certification, Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information clearance required |
| 3. | In the event an AF SSR T3-S and/or AF SSR T3-TS/SCI requirement is identified after JOMS deployment, this will be negotiated using the Not-to-Exceed pricing structure when/if the time comes. |
| 4. | AF AZ SSR T2‐S – Assault Zone SSR with IAT Level 2 certification, Secret clearance required. |
| 5. | CAOC SSR T2‐TS/SCI – CAOC SSR with IAT Level 2 certification, Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information clearance required. |
| 6. | ACC Test SSR SSR T2‐S – ACC Test SSR with Information Assurance Technician (IAT) Level 2 certification, Secret clearance required |
| 7. | ACC Test SSR T2‐TS/SCI – ACC Test SSR with IAT Level 2 certification, Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information clearance required |
| Will the government provide the pricing table that refers to these seven items? | These locations, with the exception of the SSR IAT Level 3, which is handled under NTE pricing if/when applicable, are all included already in the Attachments. The Assault Zone and CAOC locations have both Secret and TS pricing cells, in case the requirement changes in the future and for spreadsheet standardization purposes. The AF SSR T2-S and TS (#1 and #2) is applicable to every SSR location. AF SSR T3-S and TS (#3) will be under the NTE pricing when applicable. AF AZ T2-S (#4), as well as TS and indicated above applies to the designated location at Scott AFB under AMC, the CAOC T2-TS (#5), as well as S as indicated above, is listed under the CAOC in the last row of both tables, the ACC Test SSRs (#6 and 7) are listed for Eglin AFB and one of the Nellis locations under ACC. These locations were all included in the original attachments, hopefully this description and updates more clearly identify the CAOC and ACC Test SSRs. Please let us know if you have further questions. | Attachment 3 and 4 | YES | ||
| 1 | Section L - RFP Attachment 5 | 5.0 Past Performance, | 10 | Issue: |
Adding a PPI Summary into the Volume III Factor 2: Past Performance.
Discussion:
We encourage the government to allow offerors to use a 1 page within Volume III Factor 2: Past Performance, for an overview of information to be found within the PPI citations printout, prior to the actual printout.
If the government is concerned about total page count, the offeror could manage this within the 7 pages per citation.
For example, if an offeror submits 12 past performance citations, the offeror would have a maximum of 84 pages. The offeror could use one page for a PPI summary and use the remaining 83 pages for all other PPI contract citations.
It is our opinion that an overview of this nature will benefit the government.
Recommendation:
| Allow offers one page as a PPI Relevant Contract Summary that is included within the total PPI page count. | The government will allow offeror's to include a one page summary/overview of their past performance information if they choose. However, this summary/overview is not required. The current Past Performance Volume page limit would still be limited to 84 pages total. | ||||
| 1 | Section L - RFP Attachment 5 | 5.1 and 5.5 | 10 & 11 | “5.1 General |
Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Attachment L-3. This information is requested on the offeror and all key subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. Key subcontractors/partners are those who are proposed to perform 15 percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.”
“5.5 Workload Sharing
Offeror shall submit workload sharing percentages, based on cost, for the total contract and each subfactor defined in Section L, paragraphs 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.”
Question: Are offerors mandated to only submit past performance information and questionnaires from subcontractors that perform 15% or more of the proposed effort, and if so, how is that substantiated? Is it through the table contained in Section L, para 5.5? Are we allowed to submit PP information and questionnaires whose workshare is less than 15%? The requested information should be provided for the offeror and ONLY the key subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners, who are proposed to perform 15 percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. This information is being presented by the offeror based on estimates they have for the overall program and should coincide with the information requested in Section L paragraph 5.5 Workload Sharing.
The government is not requesting Past Performance information for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners that perform 15 percent or less of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. However, the offeror may submit Past Performance information for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners that perform less than 15 percent of the proposed effort, if the offeror considers that Past Performance information critical to overall successful performance.
1 Section M paragraph 4.6 In the Quality Assessment Rating table in paragraph 4.6, the "Marginal" description reads, "During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully"
In addition, the "Unsatisfactory" rating also appears to be cut off.
It appears as though the last sentence in the description was cut off. Would the government clarify whether there's anything to add to the "Marginal" and "Unsatisfactory" descriptions? The last sentence in these rating definitions were cut off. So the ratings for this table have been corrected as follows:
MARGINAL (M)/ YELLOW: During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.
UNSATISFACTORY (U)/ RED: During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered, corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.
2 Section L paragraph 2.1.12 In a previous Q&A, dated 01/10/2022 the government stated, "Tabbed indexing is required on hard and soft copies. If for some reason you are not able to index your soft copies, please let us know and we will determine if the electronic and hyperlink instructions described in Section L Paragraph 2.1.15 and 2.1.15.2 will suffice for soft copies."
| Would the government clarify what is meant by tabbed indexing on the soft copies (electronic copies)? Is the meaning of 'Tabs" here referring to directories (folders) on the recordable CDs, as described in Section L, Paragraph 2.1.15? If not, please clarify what program is used to create these Tabs. | The Government does not have a specific program for creating tabs. The intent is to make the soft copy easily searchable by topic/area, similarly to the hard copy. For example, if the Government needs to refer back to the Technical Subfactor Plans, they are easily able to see Program Management vs Cybersecurity, etc. If an offer is unable to perform tabbed indexing on soft copies, the Government confirms that the instructions provided in 2.1.15 and 2.1.15.2 will suffice. | |||
| 3 | Section L | paragraph 2.1.8 | "Additionally, the offeror shall prepare one (1) Master Proposal containing one hard copy of each volume identified above in Table 1. This Master Proposal shall be printed double-sided, flipped on the short end, two-hole punched centered on top of the page, and bound together, but not in a binder." |
| Would the government accept copies of the Master Proposal in a folder (not a binder) with metal prong fasteners? | Yes, that would be considered acceptable. | |||
| 4 | Govt+Response+to+Industry+Day+and+Draft+RFP+QAs.xlsx, Line 7 | Govt+Response+to+Industry+Day+and+Draft+RFP+QAs.xlsx, Line 7 | "The government intends to use a program called EZSource to facilitate the proposal evaluation process and document all evaluations results." |
| Are there steps offerors should take to ensure their proposals comply with EZ Source parameters (e.g., make graphics searchable)? | There isn't any additional steps necessary from the offeror's. However, offeror's are required to make the information contained within their proposal volumes searchable, per Section L 2.1.15. The ability to search within an offeror's electronic proposal volume (i.e., CTRL/F) facilitates the government's review and evaluation process. Proposal Volumes which have searchable Tables, Graphs, etc.,; help facilitate the government's review/evaluation process. | |||
| 5 | Section M.6.3.2 and L.7.3.2 | 6.3.2 and L.7.3.2 | Sections M.6.3.2 and L.7.3.2 require offerors to provide mailing addresses, telephone and fax numbers, and facility codes for the cognizant Contract Administration Office, DCAA, and Government Paying Office, as well as the name, telephone, and fax number for the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO). |
Would the government provide the fax number and facility code for the contract administration office and the name, phone number, and fax number for the ACO?
Would the government also advise as to how offerors are to determine facility codes for the Contract Administration Office, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), and Government Paying Office? The government is not able to provide this information as part of the RFP, since it is dependent upon the location of each offeror's facility. The fax number, and facility code for the contract administration office; as well as the name, phone number, and fax number for the ACO, are determined based on each offeror's facility location and what DCMA region they belong to. This information can be obtained from the DCMA eTools application under the "Contract Management Team Search." This searching tool can be found at the following website: https://www.dcma.mil/aboutetools/
In order to use DCMA eTools, offeror's may first be required to register for External Web Access Management (EWAM) at the following website: https://www.dcma.mil/WBT/ewam/
Once access has been granted, the user should be able to find this information by searching under your companies CAGE code.
The DCAA office information can be found by searching using your CAGE code at the following website: https://fao.dcaa.mil/locator/conus 6 Attachment 3, Pricing Table Attachment 3, Pricing Table Pricing Instructions on Attachment 3 (Pricing Table) states, “- Fill in each cell with the proposed rate for each combination of SSR support level and Security Clearance level”. Likewise, the instructions on Attachment 4 states, “- Fill in each cell with the proposed number of FTEs for each combination of SSR support level and Security Clearance level”.
| Will the government clarify whether, a) it is requiring that all eight cells per location (per level of service and clearance level) be filled out for pricing and staffing, regardless of an offerors understanding of the requirements and specific proposed staffing solution or that, b) an offeror is required/may fill out only their proposed price and staffing solution per location? | The Government requires that every cell be filled out per location; so all eight cells are required to have a value greater than zero in them. What goes in that cell is up to the offeror, but every cell should be populated with a price or proposed FTE count/amount. Even locations that have 0 MPEs and a defined number of non-MPEs should have some value in every cell. It is implied that the amounts in the "Full" non-MPE cell would either be equal to or more than the value in reachback, reachback plus and basic levels of service, even if the Government's only choice would be to purchase full support for that location. | |||||
| 17 | Attachment 5 | 2.1.15.1 | 6 | Section L.2.1.15.1 identifies ".xxxx" as the default file extension for MS Office suite/Adobe document type. Will the Government confirm that Offeror submissions in Adobe may have the three-digit ".pdf" extension? We recognize that Industry Day Q&As dated 2/2/22 (row 20) refer to the appropriate file extension for MS Word/Excel as ".xxxx" but seek further clarification for Adobe file submissions. | The Government confirms that Offeror submissions in Adobe may have the three-digit ".pdf" extension. | |
| 18 | Attachment 5 | 6.1 | ||||
| 6.8 | 14 | |||||
| 15 | Section L.6.1 states: "Scanned documents in PDF files are NOT acceptable for the Price Proposal Volume." Please clarify whether this requirement only applies to the Pricing Table (Section J, Attachment 3), as Industry typically places scanned-in accounting system approval letters in proposals as evidence for meeting requirements in Section L.6.8, Accounting System. | Offeror's should submit their Pricing Volume in the appropriate Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel documents. When PDF's are required or necessary as part of this proposal volume, the use of scanned documents are acceptable for accounting system approval letters. The PDF's need to be able to be searched (i.e., CTRL+F) and they can't contain any hidden information (i.e., embedded pricing tables with excel formulas that cannot be determined) that are not able to be identified and distinguished within a scanned/photocopied version. The government recognizes that scanned letters for accounting systems and other approval letters are commonly used and will be acceptable. | ||||
| 19 | Attachment 5 | 6.6 | 14 | Section L.6.6 states: "Offerors shall populate the pricing and cost cells in Section J Attachment 3, TEP Pricing Table per the instructions in the TEP Pricing Table. . . . The offeror shall complete and return this in MS Excel format." Please confirm whether the Government only requires Offerors to submit the completed Pricing Table (Section J, Attachment 3) in MS Excel format. Or does the Government require Offerors to submit a printed version of the completed Pricing Table in their hard-copy Cost/Price Volumes? | The Government DOES require a printed version of the pricing table in the hard copy of the price volume. | |
| 20 | FA821722R0001 | Part I – The Schedule | ||||
| Section B | 3, 6-9, 20 | According to RFP Section B, the ordering period is from 02 February 2023 through 01 August 2033, and the period of performance is from 02 February 2023 through 01 August 2034. |
However, the dates shown on pages 6, 7, 8, 9 show end dates of 01 February 2033 (for ordering) and 01 February 2034 (for performance).
We also note one of the clauses cited on page 20 -- FAR AR 52.217-9 (c) -- says, "The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed Eleven (11) years to include all options."
Please clarify and confirm that the period of performance is NTE 11 years, with an end date of 01 February 2033 (for ordering) and 01 Feb 2034 for performance. The period of performance is 11 years total. This is comprised of a 5 year basic ordering period, a 5 year optional ordering period, with up to an additional 1 year for delivery after an order is placed.
The dates listed in the RFP appear to have been off by a few days and they also included time for a potential 6 month extension of services. The 6 month extension of services period, has been removed from these dates as it no longer applicable to this effort . So the ordering period and period of performance dates are being updated as follows:
ORDERING PERIOD FROM 04 FEBRUARY 2023 THROUGH 03 FEBRUARY 2033.
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE FROM 04 FEBRUARY 2023 THROUGH 02 FEBRUARY 2034.
| The dates shown in the RFP are estimates based on the expiration of the current MPSC-III contract. These will be updated with the final dates contract award. | Solicitation - Section B | YES | |||||
| 21 | Attachments 3 and 4 | The Pricing Table (Attachment 3) and Staffing Table (Attachment 4) have tabs for CY22 and CY34. Because the period of performance start date begins in 2023 and ordering end date is 01 February 2033, will the Government remove the CY22 and CY34 tabs? | The Government will remove CY22, but will not remove CY34. Originally there was a possibility requirements could have been executed in CY22. There is a possibility CY34 rates will be needed into early CY34 depending on the award date of MPSC IV. | Attachment 3 and 4 | YES | ||
| 22 | Attachments 3 and 4 | When will the Government release an updated Pricing Table (Attachment 3) and Staffing Table (Attachment 4)? In the June 23, 2022, Q&As, the Government said it has corrected two missing rows for Reach-back Plus for AFRC NAS JRB Ft Worth, TX, and ANG A3 Tucson, AZ (row 7). | The Government will release these with a solicitation amendment #0001 along with the updated RFP Q&As. | ||||
| 23 | Attachments 3 and 4 | The Pricing Table (Attachment 3) includes pricing per month for Not to Exceed (NTE) pricing for IAT L3/TS SCI support based on numbers of certified and non-certified MPEs. How is this support evaluated given that this level of support is not reflected in the Staffing Table (Attachment 4)? | Currently there is not a requirement for IAT Level 3 personnel; therefore the Government is not requiring the staffing table be filled out for this area. However, it is included in the NTE pricing tabs within the pricing table so this can be used for negotiations if this ever becomes a requirement within the PoP of MPSC IV. This is similar to all the locations listed that do not currently have requirements, but may in the future. The NTE pricing tabs include cells that are incorporated into the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and will also be evaluated for reasonableness and balance. | ||||
| 24 | Attachment 3 | The Pricing Table (Attachment 3) includes pricing per month and is specifically identified as Not to Exceed (NTE) pricing for IAT L3/TS SCI support based on numbers of certified and non-certified MPEs. Contractually, how does the NTE pricing per month differ from the fixed prices proposed for the SSRs? | NTE pricing is a tool the government uses to allow the scope of potential future work to be included in our current solicitation. An offeror proposes a NTE amount for each requested location/support level etc. If the number of MPEs/Non-MPEs changes outside the 20% margin, or if a new location is needed, or if an IAT L3 is needed, the NTE amount is a ceiling from which the Government negotiates down from to get a proposed rate from the contractor to put that work on MPSC IV. NTE rates are factored into the price evaluation as part of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and for reasonableness and balance, as it is important to keep these rates competitive. The execution of any NTE pricing will take place after the award of MPSC IV when new or updated requirements emerge. | ||||
| 25 | Attachment 3 | Will the Government provide historical ordering information for the NTE services listed in the Pricing Table (Attachment 3)? | The Government will not provide historical information, but will provide this example of how NTE pricing is intended to work and has worked on MPSC III and previous contracts. If after the award of MPSC IV, a MAJCOM has a change to a requirement or a new requirement, the Government will request a new rate. This is done through the NTE pricing structure when the offeror has already provided the price that it will not exceed for parameters defined within the NTE tabs. The Government will provide the location, # of systems, IAT level needed etc. and request the contractor provide rates for each of the eight cells for the two security clearances and four support levels. This proposed rate will be evaluated by the Government PM to determine if it is fair and reasonable based on the requirement parameters provided. Once that determination is made, the Government will place this requirement on contract in the same fashion it places the other current requirements on contract. Historically, the Government uses NTE pricing to place new locations, change #s of systems etc. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .