Draft Solicitation QnA1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 42 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N0001921R0027
About this file
This solicitation requests program management knowledge-based services to support the F-35 Joint Program Office. Required services include contract management, program management, technical, analytical, acquisition, and operational support. The North American Industry Classification System code is 541611 and Product Service Code is R408. The government will award a single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-only contract line items. Upon award, the government intends to issue one initial task order. The potential period of performance for the contract is five years from February 2022 to February 2027. Questions are due within 10 days of issuance and proposals are valid for 180 days. The solicitation was posted on SAM.gov with a link provided.
View the file
Other files
Show all 20
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
| DRAFT N00019-21-R-0027 Cumulative Question Submittal Form | |||||||
| Question Number | Date Submitted | Question Source (RFP, attachment #, GFI title, etc.) | Section | Page number and paragraph header from source | Question | Gov't Response | Solicitation Revision |
(Yes/No)
| 1 | 8/4/21 | Draft RFP | Section C | Table on Page 13 | ||||
| Table on Page 109 | Would the Government please clarify the number of key billets required for this effort? It appears that in the draft RFP the Government identified 9 Key Labor Categories (page 13). However, when cross-referenced with the labor hours reflected on page 109, it appears there are multiple FTEs in some of the Key labor categories - putting the potential total Key billets for Year 1 at 22 FTEs. | There are 10 Key Personnel in Year 1. For the full list of Key Personnel, see “Attachment P1 – Level of Effort spreadsheet,” Column I | Yes | |||||
| 2 | 8/5/21 | Att_2_Labor_Categories_and_Minimum_Qualifications | Attachment 2 | In Attachment 2 - Labor Categories and Minimum Qualifications there are Education Level Substitution guidelines for Master’s and Bachelor’s degrees but none for Associates degrees (required for all Junior positions). Will the Government allow for substitution guidelines for Associates degrees as well (possibly High School diploma plus a certain number of years’ experience)? | The Government will not allow a substitution for the Associates Degree for these positions. | No | ||
| 3 | 8/6/21 | Att P1 Level of Effort | Attachment P1 | Year 1 LOE | Should the Export Compliance Specialist be a key position in Year 1 LOE, do bidders need a resume for this position? | No. Export Compliance Specialist is not a Key Position in Year 1 | No | |
| 4 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section M | page 113, Section 2.0 | Are the prime contractor's wholly-owned affiliate companies past performance evaluated as prime past performance? | The fact of ownership of an affiliated company is not sufficient to show that the past performance of one can be attributed to the other. Expressly claimed general access to resources of an affiliate and mere presence of common management are insufficient. Absent a factual basis to conclude that the prime has a commitment of resources from other separate corporate subsidiaries, the attribution of those affiliates’ past performance and experience to the primes would be improper. | No | |
| 5 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | page 103, Section 1.3.7 | Are there minimum goals for each small business types? (SB, SDA, WOSB, SDVOSB, VOSB and HUBZone SB) | Per the solicitation, all Offers shall describe strategies to achieve a Government established Small Business Participation goal of no less than 20% of the total contract value, inclusive of options. There are no minimum goals for subcategories. | No | |
| 6 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section C | page 30, Section 7.1.1.2 | Are Key Personnel required to have an clearance at the time the proposals are submitted? | Contractor's are not required to have a clearance at the time of proposal. All Security Clearances status' must be provided for evaluation. | No | |
| 7 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section I | page 64, Section 52.219-9 (a) | Do small business prime contractors need a Small Business Subcontracting Plan? | Per Section L 1.3.7 of the draft RFP, the SB subcontracting plan applies to large business offerors. | No | |
| 8 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section C | Section C | Section C mentions "resulting TO" and "at the TO level" in numerous areas. Is industry to assume that the SOW is presented at the ID/IQ level and a separate SOW will be released for TO 0001? If so, are we only required to present key personnel resumes for the positions at the IDIQ level with our proposal or are we required to present key personnel resumes for all the key positions in year 1, which we assume will be TO 0001? | Per Section L, Offerors are to provide a resume for all Key Personnel listed in “Attachment P1 – Level of Effort spreadsheet,” Column I. There are 10 Key Personnel in Year 1. | No | |
| 9 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | Page 101-102, Part B Specific Instructions, 1.0 Volume 1: Technical, 1.2 Key Personnel, Sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 | The requirement is to "provide a narrative explaining how the proposed key individuals qualification stated in the SOW, Attachment 2". Is the Government seeking a narrative for the minimum requirements in Table A.2.4 Standard Occupational Code (SOC) Labor Categories or Table A.2.5 Labor Category Table, or both? If both, we recommend that up to 5 pages allowed for key resumes. | Table A.2.5 Labor Category Table | No | |
| 10 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | Page 100, Section 4.2.2 | This section states that "An email shall be submitted to joseph.holt@jsf.mil and sheila.utz@jsf.mil no later than 2:00 PM EST on 20 Aug 2021 requesting a “Drop-Off Request Code.” The “Drop-Off Request Code” email must specify a point of contact name and email address for the Prime Contractor and for each individual Subcontractor". Considering this is the draft RFP, is this accurate or will an updated date be provided when the Final RFP is released? | The proposal submission instructions for this solicitation have been updated. See Section L 4.0 of the published solicitation. | Yes | |
| 11 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section B | Pages 3-11, Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices | Does the Government intend on adding a CLIN to cover Transition-in cost or is the offeror to build this into the burdened rates? | Transition-in efforts will be included under Task Order 0001. A separate CLIN will not be incorporated. | No | |
| 12 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section B | Pages 3-11, Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices | Will the Government allow offerors to bill DBA insurance cost for OCONUS travel to the respective CR travel CLINs or is the offer to build this into their burdened rates? | Per Section L 3.5.4.1: The Offeror shall utilize the estimated amounts provided by the Government for Travel and include all applicable burdens. If it is the Offeror’s accounting practice to apply (and invoice for) burdens with regards to ODCs, then the Offeror shall propose the ODC amount plus the addition of the applicable burdens. If the Offeror chooses not to burden ODCs, then the Offeror shall propose a Section H-clause to establish that burdens will be unallowable for ODCs. | No | |
| 13 | 8/6/21 | Att P-1 Level of Effort; RFP Section 3.6.3 | Section L | RFP Page 109 - FTE Table | Attachment P-1 shows that there are 2 Senior - Affordability Program Managers, but the FTE Table on Page 109 of the RFP shows 1 Senior and 1 Mid level Affordability Analysts (not Program Managers). Would the government please clarify which labor category should be used? | FTE table corrected to align with Attachment P1 | Yes | |
| 14 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | Page 98, Section 2.1 Written Proposal Format | This section states that "Graphs and tables shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph. "Can the government please provide further explanation for this requirement? Does this mean that all graphics should have a grid superimposed on them? This will likely make it harder to clearly see all the content of the graphic in many cases. We recommend that the requirement for all graphs and tables to have a grid be removed from the RFP. | Grids can take many different forms. Per Section L 2.1 "Graphs and tables shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph" | No | |
| 15 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | Page 98, Section 2.2 Electronic Proposal Format | Is there a maximum file size when submitting via DoD SAFE? | The proposal submission instructions for this solicitation have been updated. See Section L 4.0 of the published solicitation. | Yes | |
| 16 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | Page 101-102, Part B Specific Instructions, 1.0 Volume 1: Technical, 1.2 Key Personnel, Sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 | A large amount of information is required to fully answer the 7 bullets in section 1.2.1, including a full work history with narrative descriptions of duties and responsibilities. Section 1.2.2 also requires each Key Resume to include a narrative explaining how the individual meets the qualifications detailed in Attachment 2 - Labor Categories and Minimum Qualifications. In some cases this would require substantial narrative; for example, the Program Analyst LCAT description contains six bullets of very detailed requirements. Section 1.2.1 restricts each key personnel resume to no more than two pages. We request that this be revised to no more than five pages per resume in order that we are able to provide the substantive narrative required by the RFP and Attachment 2. | Section L & M provide the associated page limitations. | No | |
| 17 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | Page 102, Part B Specific Instructions, 1.0 Volume 1: Technical, 1.3 Management Approach, sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.4 | The requirements in Sections 1.3.1(b) and 1.3.4 seem duplicative. Can the government please clarify in which section Offerors should address subcontractor management? | The solicitation is revised to remove duplicative language. | Yes | |
| 18 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | Page 98, Section 2.1 Written Proposal Format, and Page 104, Part B Specific Instructions, 2.0 Volume 2: Past Performance, section 2.1.1 | Can the government please provide a Microsoft Word version of Attachment P2 so Offerors can more easily complete it and also ensure we do not modify the formatting of the document, as that is prohibited by the RFP. | Attachment is provided as a MS Word Document with the published solicitation. | No | |
| 19 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | Page 98, Section 2.1 Written Proposal Format, and Page 104, Part B Specific Instructions, 2.0 Volume 2: Past Performance, section 2.1.1 | Can the government please provide a Microsoft Word version of Attachment P3 so Offerors can more easily complete it and also ensure we do not modify the formatting of the document, as that is prohibited by the RFP. | Attachment is provided as a MS Word Document with the published solicitation | No | |
| 20 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | Page 98, Section 2.1 Written Proposal Format, and Page 104, Part B Specific Instructions, 2.0 Volume 2: Past Performance, section 2.1.3 | Can the government please provide a Microsoft Word version of Attachment P4 so Offerors can more easily complete it and also ensure we do not modify the formatting of the document, as that is prohibited by the RFP. | Attachment is provided as a MS Word Document with the published solicitation. | No | |
| 21 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section M | Page 113-114 | Does the government expect each contractor provided past performance citation meet, at a minimum, all five relevancy definitions? | See Section M 3.0 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings for the definitions associated with Past Performance Relevancy. The Government will assign a rating based upon how well a past performance effort aligns with the various elements identified. | No | |
| 22 | 8/6/21 | Draft RFP | Section M | Page 113-114 | Will the government aggregate all contractor provided past performance citations to meet all five relevancy definitions? | See Section M 3.0 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings for the definitions associated with Past Performance Relevancy. | No | |
| 23 | 8/8/21 | N0001921R0027_DraftRFP_20210730.pdf | Section L | Page 101, 1.1 Understanding of the Work | ||||
| The Government changed the requirement from previous draft of addressing SOW paragraphs 7.1.8, 7.1.15 & 8.1.2 to providing an Implementation Plan containing a step-by-step approach to SOW 3.1-3.10 and subparagraphs without adding page count to this Volume. | ||||||||
| QUESTION: Can the Government add 10 pages to Volume 1 to allow the offeror to adequately respond to the requirement? | Section L & M provide the associated page limitations. | No | ||||||
| 24 | 8/8/21 | N0001921R0027_DraftRFP_20210730.pdf | Section L | Page 103, 1.3.7 Small Business Utilization Strategy | ||||
| The Government has added the requirement to submit SB Utilization Strategy & SB Subcontraction Plan in Volume 1 without adding page count to this Volume. |
QUESTION: Can the Government consider the addition of another Volume for this solicitation to adequately respond to the SB Utilization Strategy & SB Subcontraction Plan as typically seen in other solitations?
| QUESTION: If not, can the Government add 15 pages to Volume 1 to allow the offeror to adequately respond to the requirement? | The Government removed page limitations for SBUS & SBSP, see amendment 1. | Yes | ||||
| 25 | 8/8/21 | N0001921R0027_DraftRFP_20210730.pdf | Section L | Page 103, Transition Plan (d) | ||
| In previous Draft RFP Q&A (Program+Management+KBS+QnA+Responses_update Row 108) stated the Govertment would Remove "Risk Mitigation Strategies from 1.3(d). The requirement is still included in this Draft? | ||||||
| QUESTION: Is it the Governemnts intent to remove the reqirement at Final RFP release? | RFP updated to delete 1.3.6 (d) | Yes | ||||
| 26 | 8/8/21 | N0001921R0027_DraftRFP_20210730.pdf | Section L | Page 102, 1.3.1 Mangement Plan portion | 1.3.4 Requirement seems to be duplicated in 1.3.1 (b) requirement. | |
| QUESTION: Due to page count restiction will the Government consider removing 1.3.4 to avoid repetition? | The solicitation is revised to remove duplicative language. | Yes | ||||
| 27 | 8/8/21 | N0001921R0027_DraftRFP_20210730.pdf | ||||
| DRAFT_Att_P2_Past_Performance_Matrix | Section L | Page 104, Past Performance 2.1.1 |
Page 98, RFP 2.1 Written Proposal Format Draft RFP Attachment P2 Draft Attachment P2 Past Performance-Under instruction # 3. “Relevant Work Description,” provide a detailed description of the work pertinent to the solicitation and why it is relevant. This column does not provide enough space to give a detailed description of the work which may cover multiple PWS lines.
| QUESTION: Can the Government allow the offeror to duplicate the table in a Word document or Government provide document in Word to enable offerer to fully decribe relevant work? | Attachment is provided as a MS Word Document with the published solicitation. | No | ||||
| 28 | 8/8/21 | N0001921R0027_DraftRFP_20210730.pdf | Section M | Page 114, 2.0 Past Performance | The Government has given a threshold of $25M for Minimum contract total value | |
| QUESTION: Will the Government accept the use of a Past Performance contract that had a value of $5M per year? | Section M provides the evaluation methodologies which the Government will use. The total contract value of $25M will be an evaluated minimum threshold; there is no minimum annual threshold. | No | ||||
| 29 | 8/8/21 | N0001921R0027_DraftRFP_20210730.pdf | ||||
| DRAFT_Att_P1_Level_of_Effort | Section C | Page 36, Key Personnel 9.1- 9.1.1 | ||||
| Page 101, 1.2.1 | Under 9.1 Key Personnel the Governement states that the ID/IQ Program Manager (PM) and Deputy PM are considered Key Personnel but does not include any other Key Personnel Positions within the SOW. |
QUESTION: Will the Government clarify that Key Personnel Resumes are only required for the ID/IQ Program Manager and Deputy PM positions?
| QUESTION: If not, can the Government clarify exactly which Labor Categories are considered Key Personnel and number of resumes required for sumbission? | Per Section L, Offerors are to provide a resume for all Key Personnel listed in “Attachment P1 – Level of Effort spreadsheet,” Column I. There are 10 Key Personnel in Year 1. | No | ||||||
| 30 | 8/8/21 | Section C. 4.2 | Section C | 23 of 117 | The draft RFP states All contractor personnel will provide on-site support at the governement sistes for approximatley 50% of the time. Are we to assume all positions should be proposed as government site and the remaining 50% of time would be either telework or at the Contractor site? If this is so, is there a requirement to have an office in the vicinity of all JPO primary locations? | Contractor personnel are required to be able to commute into the office 50% of the time, but there is no location requirement or restriction of contractor offices. | No | |
| 31 | 8/8/21 | Draft ATT. P1 Level of effort | Attachment P1 | Year 2 tab | On the Level of effort, P1 attachment, the Year 1 tab, row 21 Export compliance Specialist, Senior, is listed as a non key position. Then on the Year 2 tab, row 32 the Export compliance specialist, Senior, is listed as a Key position. Are we required to provide a resume and letter of intent for this position, given the position not being considered a Key until Year 2? The probability of the proposed individual being available over a year after proposal submission is significantly lower. | No. Export Compliance Specialist is not a Key Position in Year 1. | No | |
| 32 | 8/8/21 | DRAFT_Att_P2_Past_Performance_Matrix | Section L | Relevant Work Description | Section L paragraph 2.1 Written Proposal Format states, "When using Government supplied templates (e.g. Attachment P2, Attachment P5, Attachment P6, Attachment P7), no modifications to font or scaling are required." However, in the case of Attachment P2, Past Performance Matrix, instructions provided for the "Relevant Work Description" cell requires "a detailed description of the work pertinent to the solicitation and why it is relevant." Given the size of the PDF cell provided for this "detailed description," this appears impossible if the detailed description provided is to address the relevant aspects of the SOW Performance Requirements. To enable compliance with the Attachment P2 instructions, would it be permissible to convert this PDF Attachment P2 matrix to Word format and expand the size of the Relevant Work Description cell as necessary to provide the detail requested, so long as the font remains Times New Roman 12 point at normal scale? | Attachment is provided as a MS Word Document with the published solicitation. | No | |
| 33 | 8/8/21 | Section C. 4.1 PIA | Section C | 23 of 117 | Is there a standard Government-provided Proprietary Information Agreement (PIA) format that the Offeror and any Offeror Subcontractors are to use with each of the critical F-35 Prime and subcontractor firms as well as commercial technical information relationships with all key F-35 U.S. and foreign Contractors, or is Offeror and and Offeror Subcontractors to use their respective company PIAs? | No, there is no standard PIA format; each one is negotiated between the various contractors. | No | |
| 34 | 8/8/21 | Section C. C-TXT-SCR Service Contract Reporting | Section C | 37 of 117 | With the inclusion of C-TXT-SCR Service Contract Reporting, will the Government be incorporating DFAR 252.204-7023 (Reporting Requirements for Contract Services) into the Solicitation/Contract? | 252.204-7023 ATL I Reporting Requirements for Contracted Services is added to the published solicitation. | Yes | |
| 35 | 8/8/21 | Section I - 52.219-9 & Section L 1.3.7(2) | Section I | 60, 64 of 117 &103 of 117 | Please confirm that only the Prime Offeror is required to submit or provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and that this is not a requirement of any large business subcontractors proposed by the Offeror. | The Prime Offeror is the only offeror required to furnish a SB Sub-Contracting Plan (if applicable). | No | |
| 36 | 8/8/21 | Section L - 6.1 | Section L | 100 of 117 | The URL https://beta.sam.gov/ in this section has been updated to https://sam.gov/ | The published solicitation is revised. | Yes | |
| 37 | 8/8/21 | DRFP 4.4 | Section C | 4.4 page 24 | Any positions for which regular and reoccurring telework are NOT authorized will be designated at the TO level. For competitive landscape, should Offerors assume 50% telework for all positions? | Contractor personnel are required to be able to commute into the office 50% of the time, but there is no location requirement or restriction of contractor offices. | No | |
| 38 | 8/8/21 | DRFP 9.1 | Section C | 9.1 page 36 | "For key personnel, there may be specific retention and hiring considerations." Are Offerors expected to factor these considerations into their key personnel proposal decisions and, if so, how? | The language "For key personnel, there may be specific retention and hiring considerations." is removed from the published solicitation | No | |
| 39 | 8/8/21 | DRAFT Volume 1 Technical | Section L | 1.2.1.1 page 102 and 4.6.1 page 24 | No prospective hire may be proposed as Key Personnel. Request this be eliminated from final RFP. The fact that Draft RFP advocates a 75% retention rate for the life of the contract acknowledges the transitory nature of superior CSS talent and unfairly addvocates for the incumbent. Will the government consider removing this from the Final RFP? | A “contingent hire” is an individual who has committed, under a signed letter of intent, inclusive of salary information, to being employed by the Offeror if the Offeror is awarded the contract. A contingent hire already has an offer accepted contingent on award. A “prospective” employee has not accepted an offer contingent on award. | No | |
| 40 | 8/8/21 | RFP - SOW | Section C | 3.10.2 Mission Data Reprogramming Tools | Section 3.10.2 states the contractor will assign personnel to assist Combat Data Systems PMO in providing Mission Data Development Tools to operational reprogramming laboratories that enable sensor engineers to use intelligence data to develop Mission Data File Sets (MDFS). 1) Which of the labor categories in Attachment 2 is expected to perform these requirements? 2) If none has yet been identified, would the Government consider adding an Electronics Engineer or Electronics Technician to the existing list of labor categories? | Acquisition Management Analyst labor category will provide program management support; not adding Engineering LCAT | No | |
| 41 | 8/8/21 | Draft RFP | General | General | Will this procurement be set aside for Small Business? | This solicitation is not a small business set-aside. This procurement is solicited as a full and open competition. | No | |
| 42 | 8/8/21 | Section L, Part B, 1.1.1 (c) | Section L | 101 of 117 | The instructions for Understanding of the work require a "staffing plan (labor categories and number of personnel) required to meet the requirements of the critical tasks." What is meant by "critical tasks?" | RFP language modified to clarify. | Yes | |
| 43 | 8/8/21 | Section L, Part B, 1.2.1 | Section L | 101 of 117 | Key personnel resumes must contain work assignments, training, etc., that demonstrate the experience and specialized qualifications of each key person proposed, employment experience in chronological order including narrative description of duties and responsibilities, and other information which, in the case of senior level personnel, can be quite extensive. 1) In order to fit all this information within the 2-page limitation, could it be placed inside of a table using 10-point font? 2) If the entirety of the resume must be in 12-point font, could the page limitation be increased to 3? | No, font & page limitations remain the same. | No | |
| 44 | 8/6/21 | RFP | Section M | page 113, Section M, Part B - SPECIFIC INFORMATION, paragraph 2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE | The table in Section M part 2.0 Past Performance indicates that Complexity will be considered relevant if a contract required simultaneous operations at 4 or more sites. Will the government consider reducing that number to 3 simultaneous sites in order to allow for contracts with similar scope but slightly fewer locations to be considered relevant? | Section M provides the evaluation methodologies which the Government will use for Past Performance. The Relevancy Ratings and scale will account for variances between offeror's past performance and the current effort. | No | |
| 45 | 8/6/21 | RFP | Section C | page 15, Section C - Descriptions and Specifications - STATEMENT OF WORK | Will support to the SCC and CHC be included in the task orders issued under this contract? | This is no longer a part of the PM requirement. | No | |
| 46 | 8/6/21 | RFP | Section L | page 109, Section L, Part B - SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, paragraph 3.6.2 Labor Hours | Labor Categories Agile Product Manager and Agile Product Program Manager have locations listed as Open in the table. Please clarify what Open means? | A location listed as "Open" indicates the physical location of the individual is not specified by the Government and can be proposed by the Offeror. | No | |
| 47 | 8/6/21 | RFP | Section L | page 109, Section L, Part B - SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, paragraph 3.6.2 Labor Hours | Please verify the Total FTE's in the table for Foreign Military Sales Program Analystt Senior and Foreign Military Sales Program Analyst Journeyman, as the totals based each of the chart should be 44 for Senior and 37 for Journeyman | The quantities of 44 for senior & 37 for Mid are correct, update will be provided in amendment 1. | Yes | |
| 48 | 8/9/21 | N0001921R0027 DraftRFP 20210730 | Section A | Page 2, Section A, Contract Type | Please confirm our understanding that the USG will utilize the Streamlined Delivery Process to award the initial task order. If so, how will this be accomplished "immediately upon award" given the timeframes identified in the Streamlined Order Process? | The solicitation is revised to remove "Immediately" | Yes | |
| 49 | 8/9/21 | N0001921R0027 DraftRFP 20210730 | Section B | Page 3, Section B | Please confirm our understanding that the CLIN pricing in Section B should include all costs and fees for the Basic IDIQ Ordering Vehicle (i.e., all 5 Ordering Periods from Year 1 through 5). | The CLIN pricing in Section B should include all costs and fees for the Basic IDIQ Ordering Vehicle (i.e., all 5 Ordering Periods from Year 1 through 5). | No | |
| 50 | 8/9/21 | N0001921R0027 DraftRFP 20210730 | Section C | Page 16, Section 3.1.4, Quality and CPI, second bullet | Section 3.1.4 states, "Assist CMO in reviewing, evaluating, analyzing, and reporting on the quality performance of Prime and Subcontractors and providing inputs to CPARs." | |||
| Please confirm our understanding that this section refers only to CPARS from OEMs, such as Lockheed Martin and Pratt and Whitney, and not support A&AS contractors as applying this to the latter may result in a potential OCI. | Yes - only CPARS for Prime and Subcontractors | No | ||||||
| 51 | 8/9/21 | N0001921R0027 DraftRFP 20210730 | Section C | Page 23, Section 4.2, Place of Performance and Page 24, Section 4.4, Telework | Section 4.2 states, "All contractor personnel will provide on-site support at the Government sites listed above for approximately 50% of the time." |
Section 4.4 states, "Unless otherwise specified in a TO, all positions are eligible for telework at approximately 50% of the time."
| Please confirm our understanding that all positions will have working space available at all times in a government facility unless they are authorized to work via 100% telework. | Contractor personnel are required to be able to commute into the office 50% of the time, but there is no location requirement or restriction of contractor offices. | No | ||||||
| 52 | 8/9/21 | N0001921R0027 DraftRFP 20210730 | Section H | Page 53, Section 5252.209-9510 OCI | Please confirm our understanding that the time frame for paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) will be for a period of "12 months" after the term of this contract. | 5252.209-9510 OCI clause filled in to state "3 Years" in published solicitation. | Yes | |
| 53 | 8/9/21 | N0001921R0027 DraftRFP 20210730 | Section I | Page 60, Clause 52.216-11 | Clause 52.216-11 indicates Cost Contract - No Fee - other references throughout the DRAFT RFP indicate a Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contract. | |||
| Please confirm that clause 52.216-11 should be removed. | The Contract resulting from this solicitation will be a Single-Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract utilizing CPFF CLINs for Labor. Cost Reimbursable CLINs will be used for Other Direct Costs (Travel). The Clause is included for those CLIN's. | No | ||||||
| 54 | 8/9/21 | N0001921R0027 DraftRFP 20210730 | Section I | Page 63, Clause 52.216-22 Para (d) | Please confirm our understanding that the fill in period of final delivery should be extended to "latest delivery of the issued Task Orders". Thereby not limiting any TO awarded at the end of the IDIQ Ordering Period to only 1 year of performance. | The Government's intent is captured in the fill in for Clause 52.216-22, "beyond 365 days after the end of the ordering period." | No | |
| 55 | 8/9/21 | N0001921R0027 DraftRFP 20210730 | Section L | Page 101, Section 1.1.1.a | Section 1.1.1.a states, "Provide a detailed step-by-step procedure and methodology which would be used in accomplishing each of the critical tasks listed above." | |||
| Would the Government consider including a Sample Task Order 01 Response with a sample problem giving the Offerors an opportunity to illustrate their comprehensive, integrated technical solutioning capability across the JPO Enterprise? Such a Sample Task would benefit the government evaluation by demonstrating Offerors' clear technical knowledge of JPO Enterprise mission, requirements, and challenges. If a Sample Task is added recommend making the Technical Volume 45 pages in length. | No, 1.1.1.a won't be revised to include a sample Task Order nor will the Government increase the page limitations. | No | ||||||
| 56 | 8/9/21 | N0001921R0027 DraftRFP 20210730 | Section L | Page 105, Section 3.2.3, Ground Rules and Assumptions | The Section 3.2.3 states, "If subcontractors are proposed, they shall provide the same information required for the prime Contractor, unless otherwise noted in the Price/Cost Information section below." After review of Section 3.3 (Cost/Price Information), there are no exceptions noted by the Government. Please confirm our understanding that Section 3.2.3 refers to proposed "principal subcontractors" and only subcontractors that are proposed to have Cost Reimbursable subcontracts with the Prime Offeror. | |||
| Unless specified, all subcontractors shall provide the same information required for the prime Contractor. | No | |||||||
| 57 | 8/9/21 | N0001921R0027 DraftRFP 20210730 | Section L | Page 107, Section 3.4, Total Professional Compensation Plan | Please confirm our understanding that Section 3.4 applies to the Prime Offeror and Principal Subcontractors, and that minor subcontractors are not required to submit a Total Professional Compensation Plan. | Unless specified, all subcontractors shall provide the same information required for the prime Contractor. | No | |
| 58 | 8/9/21 | N0001921R0027 DraftRFP 20210730 | Section M | Page 113, Section 2.0, Past Performance | Please confirm our understanding under Section 2.0 that the "no more than five contract/task order references" will be collectively similar in scope, complexity and magnitude to the requirements identified for this IDIQ. | Offerors may submit up to five past performance references for Government evaluation. Section M outlines the methodology the Government will use in its evaluation, including clarifying language. | No | |
| 59 | 8/9/21 | N0001921R0027 DraftRFP 20210730 | Section M | Page 113, Section 2.0, Past Performance | Please confirm our understanding under Section 2.0 that "simultaneous operations at 4 or more sites" includes support at CONUS and OCONUS sites. | Confirmed. | No | |
| 60 | 8/9/21 | DRAFT_Att_P1_Level_of_Effort | Attachment P1 | Year 2 - 5 LOE Tables | Years 2 - 5 LOE Tables show four Agile Personnel (#35 & #36) located at an "Open" Government Site. | |||
| To ensure the accuracy of proposed pricing, would the Government provide the location for these personnel in the FRFP? | A location listed as "Open" indicates the physical location of the individual is not specified by the Government and can be proposed by the Offeror. | No | ||||||
| 61 | 8/9/21 | DRAFT_Att_2_Labor_Categories_and_Minimum_Qualifications | Attachment 2 | Page numbers | Document indicates there are 129 pages, however only 16 pages appear. | |||
| Please clarify the page numbering. | Document numbering is corrected in published solicitation. | Yes | ||||||
| 62 | 8/9/21 | DRAFT_Att_2_Labor_Categories_and_Minimum_Qualifications | Attachment 2 | Page 1, Section A.2.3.1 | The Government does not identify Education Level Substitution for the Associates Degree requirement listed for the Junior position. | |||
| Please confirm our understanding that Section A.2.3.1 should include Education Substitution for all Levels and provide a Years of Experience substitution for the Associates Degree requirement. | The Government will not allow a substitution for the Associates Degree for these positions. | No | ||||||
| 63 | 8/9/21 | DRAFT_Att_3_SAC, Enclosure (1): Services Summary, Row 3 | Attachment 3 | Page 5 Services Summary, | Row 3 Deliverables Management; ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVEL (AQL), Column is 100%. Please confirm that the AQL should align with standard CPARS Ratings to allow the Contractor the opportunity to exceed the Acceptable Level of Quality with gradations (e.g., xx% acceptable, yy% very good, zzz% exceptional) | The Government's AQL requirements are separate and apart from CPARS evaluations. These ratings are not intended to align. | No | |
| 64 | 8/9/21 | DRAFT_Att_3_SAC | Attachment 3 | Pages 6 and 7, Quarterly Evaluation by SOW Paragraph | Please confirm the acceptance of Monthly Status and Weekly Activity Report Submittals may be utilized to document COR/ACOR/TPOC inspection, as 100% compliance inspection of all deliverables by a single or multiple COR/ACOR(s) and/or TPOC(s) would be extremely burdensome and logistically difficult for the government to achieve. | The Government confirms the requirement as stated in the RFP. | No | |
| 65 | 8/9/21 | DRAFT_Att_P5_Cost Summary_Sheet_20210707 | Attachment P5 | B-1 Composite Rates Tab | The PoP Headers in cells D4 - H4 show a double asterisk but no reference in the document. | |||
| Can the Government provide the appropriate reference for these asterisks? | Attachment updated in published solicitation to remove dates. | Yes | ||||||
| 66 | 8/9/21 | DRAFT_Att_P5_Cost Summary_Sheet_20210707 | Attachment P5 | Cost Summary Spreadsheet Tab | Rows 9, 10, and 11 show "Employee Name 1", "Employee Name 2", and "Etc." | |||
| Can the Government clarify if a Name must be submitted for every position across all 5 Ordering periods? In lieu of this requirement, recommend the government consider having Offerors include a non-key personnel staffing matrix as an Appendix to the Technical Volume for base year staffing requirements (with either added page count for this attachment or the Atch not be included in the Tech Vol page count). This approach would allow the government to assess the quality, breadth and depth of the Offerors' staffing. | Per Cost Summary Spreadsheet "Instructions" Tab, B2 & B26 Employee names should be entered. Where a specific individual is not identified, insert a generic term. | No | ||||||
| 67 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | Page 103; Section 1.3.7 Small Business Utilization Strategy | Section 1.3.7(1) establishes a Small Business Participation goal of no less than 20% of the total contract value. Offerors are also instructed to provide goals for all socioeonomic subcategories (SDB, WOSB, HUBZ, VOSB, and SDVOSB) and then states "All goals shall be presented in percentages in relation to total subcontracted value." For Section 1.3.7(1), should SB goals be based on total contract value or total subcontracted value? | Per the solicitation, all Offers shall describe strategies to achieve a Government established Small Business Participation goal of no less than 20% of the total contract value, inclusive of options. There are no minimum goals for subcategories. | No | |
| 68 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | 101/1.1.1c | Can the government please delete this requirement to ensure competition? This ITO requirement (staffing plan to include labor categories and number of personnel required for the execution of each technical PWS requirement) provides the incumbent an unfair advantage since they are providing current support. | The solicitation will be revised. Section L, Part B 1.1.1 (c) will be removed. | Yes | |
| 69 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section M | 111/2.2.3 | Will the Government please provide the specific criteria for their past performance evaluation? | Section M provides the evaluation methodologies which the Government will use for Past Performance. | No | |
| 70 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | Section L, Part B - Specific Instructions, Para 1.1.1 | Will the Government confirm that their definition of "critical tasks" are all tasks in SOW 3.0 inclusive of 3.1 through 3.10 and all subparagraphs therein? | Removed | Yes | |
| 71 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | 101/1.3.6 | Will the government please provide a list of the personnel to be transitioned? | There is no Government requirement for transitioning personnel from the incumbent. | No | |
| 72 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section M | 111/2.2.2 | Will the Government please provide the specific criteria for their assignment of an overall Technical Factor/Risk rating? | Section M provides the evaluation methodologies which the Government will use in its Technical Factor and risk rating. | No | |
| 73 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section M | 112/1.2 | How will the assignment of labor categories/number of personnel required for the execution of each technical PWS requirement be evaluated? (i.e.., is there a "right answer"?) | The solicitation will be revised. Section L, Part B 1.1.1 (c) will be removed. | Yes | |
| 74 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section M | 113/2.0 | Will the Government provide the importance of past performance criteria in descending order? i.e.., is recency more important than relevancy and is quality more important than relevancy? | Section M provides the evaluation methodologies which the Government will use for Past Performance. | No | |
| 75 | 8/9/21 | Draft Attachment 4, Draft 254 | Attachment 4 | Block 13 | Performance of the SAP portion of this contract is authorized at the facilities listed in Block 8a. Please confirm that this would be at government facilities and at Lockheed Martin’s facility as listed on the proposed DD 254 | Yes, performance is authorized at facilities listed in Block 8a of the DD 254. | No | |
| 76 | 8/9/21 | Attachment_P5_Cost Summary Spreadsheet | Attachment P5 | Instructions Tab | There is no mention of the B-1 Composite Rates tab in the Instructions. Should both Prime and Subcontractor offerors complete this tab? | Instructions updated in published solicitation to clarify Tab B-1 reflects the Proposed rates under Section B Clause B-1 STREAMLINED ORDERING PROCEDURE | Yes | |
| 77 | 8/9/21 | Attachment_P5_Cost Summary Spreadsheet | Attachment P5 | Cost Summary Spreadsheet Tab | May offerors insert an additional column to use for tracking the FTE001 nomenclature required in Attachment_P6_Fully Burdened Rates? | No additional column shall be added | No | |
| 78 | 8/9/21 | Attachment_P5_Cost Summary Spreadsheet | Attachment P5 | Instructions Tab, Item 4. | "Only one worksheet shall be prepared for the entire period of performance (for each Prime and Subcontractor)" To clarify, one worksheet should be prepared by the Prime, and one worksheet by each subcontractor, so that if there were 3 subcontractors, a total of 4 worksheets should be submitted? Should all worksheets be submitted within 1 workbook, or as separate workbooks? | Concur, one worksheet should be prepared by the Prime, and one worksheet by each subcontractor, so that if there were 3 subcontractors, a total of 4 worksheets should be submitted. | ||
| All worksheets should not be submitted within 1 workbook. | No | |||||||
| 79 | 8/9/21 | Attachment_P6_Fully Burdened Rates | Attachment P6 | Instructions Tab, cell C4. | Instructions Tab, cell C4, indicates Offerors should record the labor category aligned with their accounting system in Column C of the Burdened Rates Tab. Labor Categories furnished by the Government are already included in Columns C and D of the Burdened Rates Tab. May offerors insert a column for recording contractor labor categories to conform with the instruction in cell C4? | No additional column shall be added. Labor Categories are furnished by the Government. | No | |
| 80 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP Section L,Clauses Incorporated by Reference | Section L | Page 94, 252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist | Will government please remove the requirement for the Proposal Adequacy Checklist, as this proposal is subject to full and open competition which should eliminate the need for certified cost or pricing data under FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, Section II Paragraph A(1)? If not, where should offerors include the completed proposal adequacy checklist in their submission? | Per DFARS 215.371 -3, Certified Cost and Pricing Data may apply. | No | |
| 81 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP, Section L, Paragraph 3.6.2, Labor Hours (table) | Section L | Page 109 | Attachment_P1_Level of Effort shows the work site (G or K) while the table in the RFP does not. May offerors assume that where there is additional or different LOE information, the Attachment P1 controls? | Seating column has been removed. | Yes | |
| 82 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP, SectionM, paragraph 3.5 Evaluation of Options | Section M | Page 115 | "Specifically, the evaluated Price/Cost of this six (6) month period will be calculated by dividing the Government's evaluated price for the final year of the ordering period by 50%," a methodology which would result in a six month price larger than a full year's price. Should the word "divided" in this sentence be replaced by "multiplied"? | The published solicitation is revised to state the final option year will be divided by 12 to establish a monthly rate, which will then be multiplied by 6 to establish an estimated cost for a 6-month extension. | Yes | |
| 83 | 8/9/21 | Att_P1_Level_of_Effort | Attachment P1 | Year 5 LOE, Row 176 and Row 183 | Both Rows call for a Requirements Management Analyst; however, Row 176 is mapped to 13-111 Program analyst and Row 183 is mapped to 11-1021 Program Manager. Please clarify if Row 183 should be mapped to 13-111 Program Analyst. Same question for Year 4 LOE, Row 182, Year 3 LOE, Row 177, and Year 2 LOE, Row 176. | Attachment P1 revised - Requirements Management Analyst should be 13-111 Program Analyst. | Yes | |
| 84 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section H | 53 | 5252.209-9510(b)(1), (e)(1), and (e)(2) are all missing information not filled in. | Filled in Clause in published solicitation. | Yes | |
| 85 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP, Section L, Paragraph 3.6.2, Labor Hours (table) | Section L | Page 109 | The totals for the Foreign Military Sales Program Analysts Senior and Mid appear to be incorrect. Should the total FTE be 44 Seniors and 37 Mids? | The quantities of 44 for senior & 37 for Mid are correct, update will be provided in amendment 1. | Yes | |
| 86 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP, Section L, Paragraph 3.5.4.1 travel | Section L | Page 108 | The government estimate for FMS Country X travel is blank. Should there be a dollar amount for CLIN 9008, FMS Country X travel? | Country X will have travel, it will be updated in amendment 1 | Yes | |
| 87 | 8/9/21 | RFP - Sec L | Section L | Pg 101, para 1.1.1 (b) | Requirement to "Provide a detailed step-by-step procedure and methodology which would be used in accomplishing each of the critical tasks listed above" highly favors the incumbent knowledge of specific JPO SOPs, locally developed procedures and policies. Would the government consider providing all JPO SOPs that support each of the 10 SOW task areas? | The intent of the Government is to provide the JPO requirements in the SOW | No | |
| 88 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | 2.0 Volume 2: Past Performance, Subparagraph 2.1.2, Page 104 | The Government requires Offerors to provide a narrative in the Past Performance Matrix that "clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions specified in Section M of the solicitation." May Offerors modify the table format of the Past Performance Matrix to make the narrative easier to read and evaluate so long as all required information is provided? | Attachment is provided as a MS Word Document with the published solicitation. | No | |
| 89 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section C | Section C, Para 4.2 - Place of Performance | If there are costs associated with available parking at each place of performance what are they? And will the Government provide an ODC CLIN to cover this cost? | Parking costs are not reimbursable under this requirement. | No | |
| 90 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section C | Section C, Para 4.4 - Telework | Will the Government provide notebook computers and secure access to the required information systems when the contractor workforce is performing on this contract in a telework mode? | The government will provide JVE laptops and access to JVE VPN. | No | |
| 91 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section C | Section C, Para 4.6 - Transition/Mobilization and Section B | What is/are the CLINs (Labor and Travel) for the Transition-In/Mobilization Period? Para 4.6 requires a 45-day Transition-In Period with incoming contractor team personnel transitioning with legacy/outgoing contractor team. | Transition-in efforts will be included under Task Order 0001. A separate CLIN will not be incorporated. | No | |
| 92 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section C | Section C, Para 4.8 - Installation Closure | What is the program's current COVID-19 work schedule? | The JPO currently follow's DOD HPCON guidelines for office policies. | No | |
| 93 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section F | Section F - Performance or Deliveries | If the contract starts on 10-FEB-2022, does the Transition In Period begin 45-days prior to 10-FEB-2022? | The transition-in period begins at contract award. | No | |
| 94 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | 3.0 Proposal Volumes and Sections, Pararaph 3.6, | ||||
| Page 99 | Should the Cross Reference Matrix be included in the Technical Volume or submitted as a separate file? | The Cross Reference matrix is submitted under the Technical Volume. | No | |||||
| 95 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | 1.2. Key Personnel, Subparagraph 1.2.2, | ||||
| Page 102 | Is the resume narrative to be included in the technical volume of the Appendix 1 with the key personnel resumes? And if yes; in Appendix 1 can it be in addition to the 2 page count per resume? | Yes, the narrative is to be included in the resume. Appendix 1 won't have a revised page limit. | No | |||||
| 96 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | 1.3. Management Approach, Subparagraphs 1.3.1(b), (d)-(h), 1.3.5, and 1.3.6 Page 102 |
and
| Proposal Content and Volumes, Paragraph 3.3, Page 99 | Are you asking for an "approach" in the proposal and "Plans" once the task order has been awarded? If "Plans" are required for the proposal, does the Government want the "Plans" referenced in 1.3. Management Approach to be submitted as annexes to the Technical Volume, or are these "Plans" to be included within the Technical Volume? If these "Plans" are to be included as annexes, please confirm that they are not included within the 40 page count restriction for the Technical Volume. | Para 1.3.1 is Management Plan. Subparagraphs (a) - (h) detail the contents of the Management Plan. The response to para 1.3.1 shall be submitted under the Technical Volume. | No | |||||
| 97 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | 1.3. Management Approach, Subparagraph 1.3.1(b), and Subparagraph 1.3.4 Page 102 | The requirements in subparagraphs 1.3.1(b) and 1.3.4 appear to be redundant. Given the page count limitations, would the Government remove either 1.3.1(b) or 1.3.4? | The solicitation is revised to remove duplicative language. | Yes | |
| 98 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section L | 1.3. Management Approach, Subparagraph 1.3.7(2), Page 103 | The instructions state "The Large Business Offeror shall provide its SB Subcontracting Plan conforming to the requirements of FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7 as Annex 1, unless there is an already approved comprehensive SB Plan." However, the SB plan is not listed in the table provided under 3.0 Proposal Volumes and Sections, paragraph 3.3. Would the Government confirm which volume should contain the SB Plan Annex? | Table 3.0 is revised in the published solicitation. | Yes | |
| 99 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP Section L, Paragraphs 3.3.3 and 3.3.7. | Section L | Page 106 | Can the Government define what are acceptable forms of back up or support for the direct labor rates proposed for non-key positions? | Direct labor can be supported by documented evidence of direct rates paid, actual rates , pay roll screen shots, BLS data, etc. | No | |
| 100 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP Section L, Paragraphs 3.3.7 | Section L | Page 106 | The DRFP state, "If necessary provide a narrative to describe derivation of labor rates, use of uncompensated overtime…" Will uncompensated time be incorporated into a bidder's total evaluated price if it is proposed? Is there a maximum amount of uncompensated time permitted for each position to ensure cost realism? Finally, what is acceptable support for the amount of proposed uncompensated time? | Uncompensated overtime will be evaluated IAW 52.237-10. The solicitation doesn't include a maximum, however; per the provision: Proposals that include unrealistically low labor rates, or that do not otherwise demonstrate cost realism, will be considered in a risk assessment and will be evaluated for award in accordance with that assessment. | No | |
| 101 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP Section M, Paragraphs 3.1 | Section M | Page 117 | Does the Government intend to use any specific tool or techniques to assess the cost realism of the proposed direct labor rates for non-key positions? | Cost realism will be assessed IAW FAR 15.101, 15.401, and 15.404-1(d) | No | |
| 102 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP; Attachment 2 Labor Categories and Min Qualifications; Attachment P1 Level of Effort Spreadsheet | Attachment 2 | Draft RFP pg. 36; Paragraph 1; Key Personnel, Labor Categories, and Qualifications | Would the government please indicate which positions in Table A.2.5 of Attachment 2 are Key Positions. Additionally, please confirm that the qualifications stated in the table apply to both key and non-key positions. | For the full list of Key Personnel, see “Attachment P1 – Level of Effort spreadsheet,” Column I | No | |
| 103 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP. Section 7.1 Contract Deliverables: | Section C | Page 30. CDRL A002. Note. | "Note: This CRDL is NOT the same as a similar requirement outlined in the Section L for proposal submission." Please clarify the "Note". What requirement is the government referencing in section L? | Section L Part B 1.1.1.(c) | No | |
| 104 | 8/9/21 | Draft RFP | Section B | pg. 12 - B-1 STREAMLINED ORDERING PROCEDURE | ||||
| B-1 STREAMLINED ORDERING PROCEDURE PARA (1) “…TO fixed fee is calculated using Section H Clause, H-3 FIXED FEE and Section G Clause, 5252.232-9510 PAYMENT OF FIXED FEE (NAVAIR)…” | Please confirm or revise the reference to Section H Clause? H-3 should be H-2 Fixed Fee as that is what is listed on page 52. Which reads: |
“H-2 CLAUSE
H-2 FIXED FEE (TBD)
This IDIQ contract will have resultant TOs that are Level of Effort. The fee rate per hour shall be the same for each TO and shall not vary from the fee rate per hour specified in Section G Clause 5252.232-9510 PAYMENT OF FIXED FEE. At no time shall the contractor earn fee exceeding the fixed fee pool established at award.
For any resultant level of effort TO, the contractor shall only earn fee on the hours that have been expended. If all hours cited in Section B Clause 5252.211-9503 LEVEL OF EFFORT are expended at the end of a term level of effort TO, then the contractor is entitled to the entire fee…
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 .