DRAFT RFP -Question Answer Matrix -SWMFTS_12APR.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE OF FIELDED TRAINING DEVICES (SWMFTS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N6134023R0058
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE OF FIELDED TRAINING DEVICES (SWMFTS) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Questions and Answer Matrix | |||||||
| Offerors | Government Comments | ||||||
| Q# | Document | Pg # | Section | Par. # | Comment/Question | Response | |
| 2 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 261 | Part B Specific Instructions Minimum Contract Requirments | e | Paragraph e. of the Minimum Contract Requirements on page 261 states "Demonstrate that a minimum number of 15 sites were managed under previous contracts within 3 years of the RFP release date". Since this restricts competition and favors the incumbent contractor if limited to one contract, will the government confirm that the requirement is 15 sites in the last 3 years over "multiple" contracts? | The revised solicitation explains the government will consider the number of CONUS and OCONUS sites managed in assessing relevance. Past performance references of similar complexity to the solicitation requirements (managing OCONUS sites and several CONUS sites) are more relevant than past performance references of less complexity and will weigh heavier in the Past Performance Confidence Assessment. | Added suggested answer |
| 3 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 261 | Part B Specific Instructions Minimum Contract Requirments | f | Paragraph f. of the Minimum Contract Requirements on page 261 states "Demonstrate that one (1) OCONUS site was managed under a previous contracts within 3 years of the RFP release date". Can the government clarify whether locations need to be permanent locations or can "permanent" temporary duty locations (3 month rotations) be used to provide this qualification? | The permanance of a site is not a specific requirement for a past performance refernce to be relevant. However, the duration that a site was managed may be considered in assessing the relevance of the past performance reference. | Added suggested answer |
| 5 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 262 | Part B Specific Instructions 1.0 Volume 1-PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR 1 | 1.3 | Paragraph 1.3 of Performance Factor 1 states "Prime Contractors or Joint Venture (JV) team members identified in Attachment ATTACHMENT L-P1 shall each identify two (2) relevant contracts whose performance is within three (3) years of the proposal due date and contains efforts similar to the ISEO requirements required by this solicitation". As written this requirement imposes a higher requirement on JV offerors that it does on single entity offerors. Under SBA rules for a formal mentor/protégé JV relationship, the JV can use its own past performance or past performance from each partner. Will the government consider requiring that the prime or Joint Venture (JV,) or a combination of the JV and its partners to provide two past performance citations, rather than requiring two from each JV partner? | The revised solicitation limits each offeror's proposal to two past performance references collectively between the prime offeror, JV Team Members, and major subcontractors. | Added suggested answer |
| 6 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 262 | Part B Specific Instructions 1.0 Volume 1-PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR 1 | 1.3 | Paragraph 1.3 of Performance Factor 1 states "Do not submit Past Performance information for subcontractors. The Government will not evaluate subcontractors for this solicitation". Very few businesses (including JVs) will be able to meet all of the requirements on the contracts and will require significant subcontractors on the team to cover critical areas and ensure all scope is covered. Paragraph 1.3's language seems to favor the incumbent contractor and provides a barrier to competition. Will the government consider allowing past performance from significant subcontractors to increase competition? | The revised solicitation permits offerors to submit past performance references of major subcontractors. | Added suggested answer |
| 7 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 278 | Part B Evaluation Factors for Award II.Specific Information A. Past Performance Factor 1 | A. | The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and JV team member’s demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services similar to the solicitation requirements for Software Maintenance of Fielded Training Systems in each of the following areas: 1) Technical Performance, 2) Management Performance, including Management Responsiveness and Management of Personnel, and 3) Cost Control. This limits competition due to the specificity of the requirement to software maintenance for fielded training systems. Would the government consider revising the requirement to require software development/maintenance expertise supporting fielded systems? [remove "training"] | No, this will not be changed. The government must consider past performance in the context of its relevance to the solicitation requirements. This solicitation's requirements are titled "Software Maintenance of Fielded Training Systems (SWMFTS)." The relevant protion of the sentence quoted in the question merely explains that the Government will evaluate demonstated past performance (e.g. CPARs content) of the past performance references found to be relevant. The Governemnt will not evaluate the demonstated past performance of past performance references found to be not relevant. | Added suggested answer |
| 8 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 261 & 278 | Part B Evaluation Factors for Award II. Specific Information B. Corpoarte Experience | pg 261 para g. and page 278 para 1 | Paragraph 1 of Corporate experience states "The Government will evaluate the proposed Workforce personnel and the supporting information, including the proposed Labor Categories and the Workforce Qualifications, including resumes, to determine whether they meet the minimum requirements of the SOW. Personnel will be evaluated on labor qualifications, including education, experience that the Offeror proposes to utilize in the performance of this effort. The only mention of personnel as it relates to resumes being evaluated is in a previous section of the RFP stating on one of the minimum Contract Requirments, "Demonstrate that a minimum of 75 personnel were managed under a previous contract within 3 years of the RFP release date". This implies that 75 resumes will be required and strongly favors the incumbent contractor. Will the government consider revising this resume requirement to be for specific key positions or require representative resumes for the various labor categories to lessen the barrier to competition? | Corporate Experienece is not included in the revised solicitation. | rephrased |
| 9 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Question regarding who the incumbent company is and what is the previous contract number. | The current incumbent is DKW Communications, Inc and the current order number is N6134018F0018. | Deleted the FOIA sentence |
| 10 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | L, Part A General Instructions | 4 | It appears no date has been set for the pre-solicitation conference, as detailed in Section L 4.0. | |||
| There will be an update to the announcement containing the scheduled date of the conference. There will not be a pre-solicitation conference only a pre-proposal conference.The announcement will provide direction on how to register and how many individuals may attend. | Deleted second sentence of the question. | ||||||
| 11 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | L, Part B Specific Information | 1.3 | “Do not submit Past Performance information for subcontractors. The Government will not evaluate subcontractors for this solicitation.” Currently a small business cannot utilize the Past Performance of subcontractor, but the Government does allow multiple JV members Past Performance to be utilized. Few (if any) small businesses under a $30M size standard can meet all of these stringent minimum contract requirements. Not allowing a small business to utilize a subcontractor past performance is bias towards JV companies which will be able to use the past performance of their large business partners. This is a serious limitation that prevents establishing a more robust competitive field. Request consideration be given to allowing a Major subcontractor that has a defined workshare of 40% or greater be allowed to have their past performance evaluated. | The revised solicitation permits offerors to submit past performance references of major subcontractors. | Added suggested answer | |
| 12 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | L, Part B Specific Information | States under Minimum Contract Requirements that a Prime or JV member that does not meet these requirements is ineligible for award. Request a subcontractor that is meeting a 40% workshare requirement (or greater) be allowed to help meet minimum contract requirements. Small business Prime contractors can manage this contract but with a size standard of under $30M they will not be able to meet every minimum requirement without leveraging subcontractor support. Request the Government allow subcontractor participation to meet Minimum Contract Requirements criteria. | The revised solicitation permits offerors to submit past performance references of major subcontractors. | Added suggested answer | ||
| 13 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 1 | A, Cover page | N/A | Can the government confirm that the current posting is still a Draft and the final solicitation has not been released? Sam.gov lists the current due date as 4/25/23, however, Block 9 of the SF33 does not include a date. | The posted solicitation is still a draft and the final has not been released. The final solicitation will contain the proposal due date. | revised |
| 14 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | L, Part A General Instructions | 4 | In Section 4.0 of the draft RFP a pre-solicitation conference is referenced, but there is no date or time listed. | There will be an update to the announcement containing the scheduled date of the conference. There will not be a pre-solicitation conference only a pre-proposal conference.The announcement will provide direction on how to register and how many individuals may attend. | Revised answer and deleted last two sentences of the question. | |
| 15 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | L, Part A General Instructions | 3.5 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION | In which Volume should the offeror submit its administrative information per Section 3.5; or should we prepare a separate Volume named Administrative Information? | The revised solicitation includes an Adminstrative Volume. The revised solication contain instructions for the content and evaluation of the Administrative Volume. | Revised | |
| 16 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | L, Part A General Instructions | 5252.239-9500 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CAPABILITIES AND PROCESSES (NAVAIR) (FEB 2001) | In which Volume should the offeror submit the Software Capabilities and Processes response? | The revised solicitation does not require submision of software capabilities and processes. | Added suggested answer | |
| 17 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | L, Part A General Instructions | 252.215-7009 PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST (JAN 2023) | Should the offeror submit the adequacy checklist as an Appendix? | The revised solicitation does not require the submission of the adequacy checklist. | revised | |
| 18 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | L, Part A General Instructions | Transition – Due to the mission critical nature of the work being performed under the SWMFTS contract, it is imperative that there is a low risk, non-disruption of day-to-day operations on the contract during the transition period. Vendor would like to propose that the Navy consider adding a requirement that a Prime Contractor must demonstrate successful experience transitioning a contract with at least 75 FTEs’, at a minimum of 15 CONUS locations and at least one OCONUS location within a 30 calendar transition period and at the end of the 30-days having onboarded no less than 90% of the required staffing. | The requirement for 75 personal has been removed from the revised soliciation. | Recommend cutting this question | ||
| 19 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 261 | L, Part B, Specific Instructions | Vendor is strongly in favor of the minimum requirements in this section, and they provide the Navy with a level of confidence that the selected company has the necessary experience successfully performing as a prime on a contract as complex, diverse, and mission critical as the SWMFTS contract. These minimum contract requirements significantly reduce the risk of failure by the winning company in performance of the tasks required under the SWMFTS contract. Removal of these minimum requirements from the final solicitation will only increase the risk of inadequate performance by the winning company. | See the revised solicitation for the updated requirement | Recommend cutting this question | |
| 20 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 276 | L, Part B, Specific Instructions | 5252.239-9500 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CAPABILITIES AND PROCESSES (NAVAIR) (FEB 2001) - Vendor is strongly in favor of the software development capabilities and processes requirements in this section and they provide the Navy with a level of confidence that the selected company has the necessary experience successfully performing as a prime on a contract as complex, diverse, and mission critical as the SWMFTS contract. The SWMFTS contract is software intensive and requires a prime contractor with mature, documented, and repeatable processes for software development. At a minimum, the Prime Contractor should have a current Level-3 for Development Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) certification from the Software Engineering Institute (SEI). The Prime contractor should also be required to maintain that certification throughout the life of the contract and demonstrate that they have performed on a contract as complex as SWMFTS that required at least a Level-3 CMMI Development certification. These minimum contract requirements significantly reduce the risk of failure by the winning company in performance of the tasks required under the SWMFTS contract. Removal of these minimum requirements from the final solicitation will only increase the risk of inadequate performance by the winning company. | The current effort does not require CMMI certification. | Recommend cutting this question | |
| 21 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | L, Part B, Specific Instructions | The purchasing of equipment, shipping, and travel are important components of the SWMFTS contract that are funded under ODC CLINS. Vendor would like to propose that a requirement is added that requires Prime Contractors to demonstrate experience supporting contracts similar to SWMFTS where ODC expenditure avearage at a minimum $75K per year with spikes over $100K in a given year. This will provide the Navy with added assurance that prime contractors are capable of supporting the ODC requirements required under the SWMFTS contract. | The currrent effort does not require a demonstration ODC of $75K | Recommend cutting this question | ||
| 22 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 261 | L, Part B, Specific Instructions -Minimum Contract Requirement | The SWMFTS contract has a very complex structure consisting of over 100 CLINS (CPFF, FFP, ODC, and CAF), and averaging at least one contract modification a month, and at least 4 request for quote per year. To minimize the risk to the Government and improve the confidence in the selected Contractor, Vendor would like to propose that the following is added as a Minimum Contract Requirement. - Demonstrated experience as a prime managing a contract with at least 80 CLINS consisting of CPFF, ODC, and FFP, and averaging at least 10 contract modifications a year, and 4 requests for quote. | The current effort does not have a requirement for the prime to demonstrate experience with atleast 80 CLINS. | Recommend cutting this question | |
| 23 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 - Attachment L | Attachment L | C.1 | Are the ODCs for each year, or the entire period of performance for each location? | ODCs are specific to a location and on an as needed basis. | I think the question is asking how to price the ODCs | |
| 24 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 - SOW | 30-31 | SOW Appendix A, | Appendix A | Some of the LC titles are lacking the level (Jr.Jm.Sr.) will the government please confirm the level for the following positions: |
Documentation Specialist Computer Scientist Network Engineer
| Information Assurance Analyst | This effort will not require multiple level for the LC listed. The LC must meet the requirements specified in the SOW for each specific labor category. | So any level is fine? | |||||
| 25 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 - Attachment L | Attachment L | C.1, Instructions Tab | The instructions state "Within the worksheets, "blue" cells contain formulas and should not be edited.". However, application of our indirect rates is different than the formula provided. Can the government confirm that these formula may be amended? | Yes, the formulas may be amended. See the instructions in the revised solicitation. | ||
| 26 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 268 | L, M | 3.5, (e )(9) | Will the government confirm that FAR clause 52.219-14 is the most recent clause dated 2022? | Yes, that is the correct clause date. The clause is now incorporated by reference in Section I. | |
| 27 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 - Attachment L | Attachment L | C.1 | Can an offeror add a tab to summarize the final cost over all years? | No, The revised spreadsheet includes a tab for total cost. | ||
| 29 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 204 | H | Will the government confirm if an EVMS is required in accordance with clause 52.234-4 EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NOV 2016) | EVMS is not required. The revised solicitation does not include 52.234-4. | ||
| 30 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 266 | L, | 3.2.5.1. | States: The Fixed ODCs Indirect Rate will not be applied separately to the subcontractor and then again to the prime. The Fixed ODCs Indirect Rate will be applied to the total ODCs incurred, regardless of whether the costs are incurred by the prime or subcontractor. | ||
| To not apply ODCs indirect rate in accordance with approved accounting practices by both the prime and subcontractor could present issues when undergoing DCAA audits. Request the government reconsider this approach, and allow primes and subcontractors to bill in accordance with their approved accounting systems and approved indirect rates. | Refer to attachment L-C1 for proposal pricing intructions. Offerros must propsed cost/prices consistent with how they will invoice the government IAW the terms and conditions in the solicitation. Offerors may be able to amend to reflect their approved accounting practices. The formula must remain visible and include only mathematical operations and references to cells within the same worksheet of the workbook where the formula is included. | ||||||
| 31 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 268 | L | 3.5, (e )(8) | Will the government provide a copy of the NAVAIR clause 5252.201-9502 “Contractor’s Authorized Contractor Coordinator and Technical Liaison;” for completion. | The revised solicitation does not include NAVAIR clause 5252.201-9502. | |
| 32 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 268 | L | The clause 52.222-46 Evaluation Of Compensation For Professional Employees FEB 1993 requires that offerors submit a Total Compensation Plan. Where in the cost volume should this be submitted? | The revised solicitation does not include 52.222-46. | ||
| 34 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 269 | L | Cluase 252.215-7009 PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST (JAN 2023) -Should this be submitted as part of the Cost Volume? | The revised solicitation does not require the submission of the adequacy checklist. | ||
| 35 | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | Will a past performance under a COMS contract be considered relevant to this effort since this effort is more O&M and engineering services? | The Government will not provide a pre-evaluation of a contracts references relevancy. The Governmnet will assess relevancy as stated in Section M. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .