N6134023R0058-0006_Question Answer Matrix_30MAY.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 44 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
Questions
| Questions and Answer Matrix | |||||||
| Offerors | Government Comments | ||||||
| Q# | Offeror/POC | Document | Pg # | Section | Par. # | Comment/Question | Response |
| 1 | Ted Henrich - (JV Operations) - thenrich@dcrevtech.com | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 261 | Part B Specific Instructions Minimum Contract Requirments | d | Paragraph d. of the Minimum Contract Requirements on page 261 states "Contract reference at the same physical location and with the same CAGE code and DUNS as the prime entity identified in Block 15A on Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award or the JV member identified in the documentation demonstrating the JV is a legal entity awarded a contract". While the JV has a CAGE and DUNS, each JV partner also has a unique CAGE and DUNS number, and each JV partner's past performance can be used as past performance for the JV entity. The Small Business Act requires agencies to consider the experience of the individual members to the joint venture “if the joint venture does not demonstrate sufficient capabilities or past performance to be considered for award of a contract opportunity” 15 U.S. C. 644(q)(1)(c). As written this provision is contrary to the regulatory requirements because it would only allow credit for experience of the JV. See 13 C.F.R. 125.8(e). Each of these entities has its own location, and unique CAGE, Code and DUNS. Will the government consider changing this requirement to allow either the JV or one or more of the JV partner's physical location, CAGE Code and DUNS to be used to identify the entity for which the contract reference past performance citations are being submitted so that the requirement complies with SBA guidance? | The revised solicitation permits offerors to submit two past performance references collectively between the prime offeror, JV Team Members, and major subcontractors. |
Bermudez, Ruben CIV USN NAWCTSD (USA): Bermudez, Ruben CIV USN NAWCTSD (USA):
| Need to somehow add this to the solicitation. | Added suggested answer | ||||||||
| 2 | Ted Henrich - (JV Operations) - thenrich@dcrevtech.com | 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 | Ted Henrich - (JV Operations) - thenrich@dcrevtech.com | 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 | |
| 4 | Ted Henrich - (JV Operations) - thenrich@dcrevtech.com | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 261 | Part B Specific Instructions Minimum Contract Requirments | h | Paragraph h. of the Minimum Contract Requirements on page 261 states "Offerors must have a top secret facility clearance by the proposal due date". Per SBA rules, an SBA-approved mentor-protege JV can satisfy this requirement if all JV partners have individual facility clearances. Can the government clarify whether this qualification will allow each JV partner member to satisfy the facility clearance requirement through each partner demonstrating that it has a TS facility clearance? | The solicitation has been revised to require that the prime contractor or a JV team member possess a top secret facility clearance at the time of proposal. | ||
| 5 | Ted Henrich - (JV Operations) - thenrich@dcrevtech.com | 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 | Ted Henrich - (JV Operations) - thenrich@dcrevtech.com | 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 | Ted Henrich - (JV Operations) - thenrich@dcrevtech.com | 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 | Ted Henrich - (JV Operations) - thenrich@dcrevtech.com | 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 | Jan Gorospe - (HiRO Services Inc.) - jan@urhiro.com | 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 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | 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 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | 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 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | 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 | Lindsey Watson - (LinTech Global, Inc.) - lwatson@lintechglobal.com | 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 | Lindsey Watson - (LinTech Global, Inc.) - lwatson@lintechglobal.com | 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 | Darlene Spears - (DKW Communications, Inc.) - dspears@dkwcommunications.com | 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 | Darlene Spears - (DKW Communications, Inc.) - dspears@dkwcommunications.com | 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 | Darlene Spears - (DKW Communications, Inc.) - dspears@dkwcommunications.com | 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 | Darlene Spears - (DKW Communications, Inc.) - dspears@dkwcommunications.com | 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 | Darlene Spears - (DKW Communications, Inc.) - dspears@dkwcommunications.com | 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 | Darlene Spears - (DKW Communications, Inc.) - dspears@dkwcommunications.com | 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 | Darlene Spears - (DKW Communications, Inc.) - dspears@dkwcommunications.com | 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 | Darlene Spears - (DKW Communications, Inc.) - dspears@dkwcommunications.com | 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 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | 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 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | 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 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | 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 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | 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 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | 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. | |||
| 28 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | M | Will the government provide a list of NAVAIR's functional area trip wires for the labor categories listed in the SOW? | Section M now indicates the tripwire for all labor categories is $300,000 | Where? How? | |||
| 29 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | 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 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | 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 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | 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 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | 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. | |||
| 33 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-3-9-2023 | 268 | L | The clause 52.237-10 | Identification of Uncompensated Overtime MAR 2015 requires that offerors shall include a copy of its policy addressing uncompensated overtime with its proposal. Where in the cost volume should this be submitted? | The revised solicitation does not include Clause 52.237-10. | ||
| 34 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | 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 | Darlene Spears - (DKW Communications, Inc.) - dspears@dkwcommunications.com | 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 contract references relevancy. The Governmnet will assess relevancy as stated in Section M. | |||||
| 36 | Sharon Harp- (StraCon Services, Group, LLC) - Sharon.Harp@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-4-18-2023 | Section L states "If the offeror submits a single award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) as a reference then it may identify up to a maximum of 2 orders under the IDIQ. Those orders in the aggregate will count as one reference." In order to allow contractors to demonstrate the full scope of a single award IDIQ (including dollar value, number of sites managed, etc.) will the Government consider removing the restriction of citing only two task orders and allowing contractor's to submit the contract as a whole? | The revised solicitation requires that if an offeror submits "a single award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) as a reference then it may identify up to a maximum of 2 orders under the IDIQ. However, orders under a Multiple Award Contract (MAC) will each count as a reference." The government does not plan to change the Past Performance requirements. | |||||
| 37 | Sharon Harp- (StraCon Services, Group, LLC) - Sharon.Harp@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058-SWMFTS-Final Draft RFP-4-18-2023 | Section M states "Past performance information that obviously does not relate to the order(s) submitted under a single award IDIQ will not be considered." If the Single Award IDIQ-level SOW applies to all task orders under a contract (e.g., Task Order Level SOWs are not provided - only labor mix changes), we assume we may present the IDIQ level SOW for each Task Order. Please confirm. | Yes, if the order relies upon the IDIQ SOW to describe the tasking required by the order, then the offeror should submit the IDIQ SOW along with the order. | |||||
| 38 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058 SWMFTS - Amendment 0002 5-5-2023 | Attachment_L_P1_Past_Performance_Summary_Tables | If offerors propose past performance of a major subcontractor, we assume the major subcontractor past performance summary data should be provided under the prime’s in the second table on the spreadsheet. Can the Government confirm? | Yes. Major subcontractor past performance summary data can be provided under the prime’s in the second table on the spreadsheet. | ||||
| 39 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058 SWMFTS - Amendment 0002 5-5-2023 | Attachment+L-P2_Past_Performance_Contract_Data.xlsx. | In order to ensure legibility, will the Government allow each past performance reference to be provided on separate sheets in the same workbook? | Yes, each past performance reference may be provided on a separate sheet in the same workbook. | ||||
| 40 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058 SWMFTS - Amendment 0002 5-5-2023 | L.B.2.3 Contract Documents, Page 65 | We assume all contract documents will be provided as separate Attachments to Volume 2 Past Performance. Please confirm. | Yes, all contract documents in 2.3, are intended to be attachments to the Past Performance volume. | ||||
| 41 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058 SWMFTS - Amendment 0002 5-5-2023 | Section L, General. | Will the Government confirm no page limitations are provided for any volumes? | Correct, there are No Page Limitations. | ||||
| 42 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058 SWMFTS - Amendment 0002 5-5-2023 | Section I | 52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES (NOV 1999) states: The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed 6 months. However the hours assigned in Attachment LC1 for 52-217-8 appear to be for a 3 month period of performance. Please advise | L-C1 is be corrected to reflect six-months. | ||||
| 43 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058 SWMFTS - Amendment 0002 5-5-2023 | Section M 3.1 | States: and Government-calculated value of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Government will calculate the value of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services for evaluation purposes only by dividing the probable cost of Year 7 under every tab in the offeror’s completed Attachment L-C1 Pricing Worksheet. this should be removed as the government has provided the hours for the extension. | No, the contractor is not to complete the FAR 52.217-8 data. The Government will calculate the value of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services for evaluation purposes only by dividing the probable cost of Year 7 under every tab in the offeror’s completed Attachment L-C1 Pricing Worksheet in half (i.e. six months). In contract performance, the FAR 52.217-8 option may be exercised at the order level and is priced when exercised using the rates in effect on that order at that time. | ||||
| 44 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058 SWMFTS - Amendment 0002 5-5-2023 | RFP pages 7&8 | 5252.211-9503 LEVEL OF EFFORT (COST REIMBURSEMENT) (NAVAIR)(DEC 2012) states number of hours as 1,198,176 man hours. Correct hours to match Attachment LC1 1,211,616 |
Believe the following corrections are required to match the Attachment L-C1:
Table Electronics Technician, Maintenance, Senior 17280 hours Attachment L-C1: Electronics Technician Maintenance III , 21120
Table Software Engineer, Journey Level 19200 hours Attachment L-C1 Engineer, Journey Level 17920 hours
Table System Administrator, Senior 23040 hours
| Attachment L-C1 System Administrator, Senior 22400 | L-C1 is updated to reflect 1,236,480 total level of effort. | |||||||
| 45 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058 SWMFTS - Amendment 0002 5-5-2023 | Attachment L-C1 | Should the Electronics Technician Maintenance III in location of San Diego have a WD assigned? | Yes. This is a SCA Labor category | |||
| 46 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058 SWMFTS - Amendment 0002 5-5-2023 | Attachment L-C1 | Should the Electronics Technician Maintenance III in location of Norfolk for 3840 hours have a WD assigned? | Yes. This in the Attachment J-8(b) -Norfolk WD. The labor catagory is numbered as 23183 -Electronics Technician Maintenance III. | |||
| 47 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058 SWMFTS - Amendment 0002 5-5-2023 | Attachment L-C1 Tab Jacksonville LOE | The WD Category's appear to be flipped. Supply Technician should be - 01192 Order Clerk II and Draft/Cad Operator should be 30062-Drafter/CAD Operator | Yes, Table is updated to relect correct category and category title. | |||
| 48 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058 SWMFTS - Amendment 0002 5-5-2023 | RFP pages 26 section G | 5252.232-9510 PAYMENT OF FIXED FEE (NAVAIR) (OCT 2005) Believe the number of hours for the Base Period is incorrect, and it should show the hours for the Option Period. | Hours in the Base Period has been updated and verified and is included in the most recent release of this amendment. | |||
| 49 | RESERVED | |||||||
| 50 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058 SWMFTS - Amendment 0003 5-8-2023 | RFP Page 23, 3.1 (d) Man-Year hours | Executive Order (EO) 13706 “Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors” requires contractors to provide any person engaged in performing work on or in connection with a contract covered by the Executive Order whose wages under such contract are governed by the SCA, DBA, or Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including employees who qualify for an exemption from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions with 7 days paid sick leave. However, the Final Rule also explains that a contractor’s existing PTO policy can fulfill the paid sick leave requirements of the Executive Order as long as it provides employees with at least the same rights and benefits as the Final Rule requires. In other words, if a contractor provides 56 hours of PTO that meets the requirements described in the Order and the Final Rule but employees can use the leave for any purpose, the contractor does not have to provide separate paid sick leave even if an employee uses all of the time for vacation. Additionally, SCA Sick Leave is limited to specific types of leave that may not be utilized by all SCA employees and has a maximum accrual limit of 56 hours at any point in time. Reducing the FTE hours to 1856 will result in a shortage of hours for SCA employees that do not utilize the accrued Sick Leave for reasons outlined in the EO each year and use them before reaching the 56 hour maximum. Can the government reconsider and change the FTE hours to 1912 and not 1856? | The Government reviewed the tables in Section B and Attachment L-C1 and made any appropriate adjustment to the productive hours necessary to accurately reflect the requirement. The hours in Section B and Attachment L-C1 are productive hours (hours actually working, not leave or sick hours), not the hours of a full time equivalent. | |||
| 51 | Anne Welfare - (StraCon Services Group, LLC) - anne.welfare@stracongroup.com | N6134023R0058 SWMFTS - Amendment 0003 5-8-2023 | RFP Table B-1 and Attachment LC-1 | Does the government intend on updating the tables to reflect the new FTE hours by labor category from 1920 to 1912? | See the response to Question 50 above. | |||
| 52 | RESERVED | |||||||
| 53 | Tom Newman | PPC | Could you explain the basis/rationale for using 1,856 hours for pricing this proposal? | See the response to Question 50 above. | ||||
| 54 | George Essel | PPC | Can we expect a new L-C1 Pricing Worksheet utilizing the 1856 DLH as opposed to the 1920 currently represented? | See the response to Question 50 above. | ||||
| 55 | Karin Zielinski | PPC | Is table B-1 correct? | See the response to Question 50 above. | ||||
| 56 | Transtecs Corporation | Solicitation - Amendment 0003 | Page 71 of 75 | Section M.1.2. Technical Experience. | Section M.1.2. Technical Experience states, “The government will only consider the contract itself (not documents external to the contract like emails, report submittals, or self-assertions) in assessing whether the offeror demonstrates that the contract(s) required the management of the above sites.” Most contracts use Technical Instructions (TIs), Delivery Orders (DOs), or Task Orders (TOs) that specifically detail locations, places of performance, etc. May we submit contract documents, such as TIs, DOs, or TOs PWSs/SOWs, along with the contract to demonstrate our experience managing performance at a OCONUS site and two CONUS sites? | Updated Section L to clarify that Offerors may submit more than one order under a single award IDIQ to demonstrate experience managing two or more CONUS sites simultaneously. | ||
| 57 | Transtecs Corporation | Solicitation - Amendment 0003 | Page 65 | Section L.2.4. Narrative | 2.0 Volume 2 - Past Performance | Section L.2.4. Narrative states, “If the Offeror submits a past performance reference for an entity with a CAGE Code other than the CAGE Codes listed in Attachment L-P1, then the Offeror shall provide a written explanation as to how that performance is reflective of the Offeror and any related information, such as corporate acquisition or merger information or information required by 13 CFR 125.11.” For Vol. 2 Past Performance, we are performing, as a major Subcontractor, SOW requirements A-J detailed in Attachment J-1, SOW, Paragraph 3.2.1 at OCONUS and CONUS locations with 50+ employees. Can performance as a first-tier/major/principal Subcontractor be used to complete Attachment L-P1 and Attachment L-P2 if we explain the Prime/Subcontractor arrangement and include all necessary agreements and related information? | Yes, that subcontract can be submitted as a reference. But it is the subcontract between the prime contractor and the subcontractor that must be submitted as the reference, not the prime contract. The government will not consider the prime contract to be past performance of a subcontractor. | |
| 58 | DKW Communications, Inc. | |||||||
| N6134023R0058 Amendment 0003.docx page 23. Section L. Part B Specific Instructions, 3.0 Volume 3 Cost/Price, 3.1 General subparagraph (d), | ||||||||
| Question 1) Referenced document is N6134023R0058 Amendment 0003.docx page 23. Section L. Part B Specific Instructions, 3.0 Volume 3 Cost/Price, 3.1 General subparagraph (d), provides a value of 1,856 for a total hours per Man-Year for Proposal Preparation Purposes. However, Attachment L – C1 Pricing Worksheet uses 1,920 total hours per man-year. Should we use the hours provided in Attachment L – C1 Pricing Worksheet (1,920 per man-year) or do we change it to reflect 1,856 hours for a man-year? | See the response to Question 50 above. | |||||||
| 59 | DKW Communications, Inc. | |||||||
| N6134023R0058 Amendment 0003.docx page 23. Section L. Section L, Part B Specific Instructions, 3.0 Volume 3 Cost/Price, 3.2 Price/Cost Information, 2nd paragraph | Question 2) Referenced document is N6134023R0058 Amendment 0003.docx page 23. Section L. Section L, Part B Specific Instructions, 3.0 Volume 3 Cost/Price, 3.2 Price/Cost Information, 2nd paragraph: Please confirm that Clause G.2 is the only place where we are to provide our Fixed ODC Burdened Rate. Please also confirm that Attachment L – C1 Pricing Worksheet, ODC tab does not require us to modify it to add our Fixed ODC Burdened Rate to the Government provided not to exceed ODC. | Yes that is correct the only place your fixed burdened rate for ODC is entered is G.2. Correct, the Government will calculate the value of the burdened ODCs by applying the rate proposed in G.2 to the Government provided estimates in Attachment L-C1, “ODC” tab. | ||||||
| 60 | DKW Communications, Inc. | |||||||
| Attachment L -C1 Pricing Worksheet.xlsx. | Question 3) Referenced document is Attachment L -C1 Pricing Worksheet.xlsx. Please confirm that the Electronics, Technician, Maintenance, Senior labor category on the “LOE San Diego” tab is not subject to a WD Category. | According to the SLC Guide, The Electronics Technician, Maintenance is an SCA Labor Category and therefore should have a WD. The SLC Labor Cat would be "Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technicians" according to the SLC Crosswalk. The pricing worksheet is updated. | ||||||
| 61 | DKW Communications, Inc. | |||||||
| N6134023R0058 Amendment 0003.docx page 7. Section L. Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices, B.3 | ||||||||
| Question 4) Referenced document is N6134023R0058 Amendment 0003.docx page 7. Section L. Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices, B.3 STREAMLINED ORDERING FOR COST-PLUS FIXED FEE TERM LOE ORDERS, (3) Requirements for contractor response, Table B-3 in subsection (v): The Kingsville, TX location is included in the table but Attachment L-C1 does not include a tab for Kingsville, TX. Should we enter $0 as the value in the table for Kingsville, TX? If not, will an updated Attachment L-C1 be provided with a tab for Kingsville, TX? | Attachment L-C1, "Emerging Projects Est Amount" tab, has been updated to reflect emerging project amounts and a LOE tab for Kingsville, TX has been added. | |||||||
| 62 | DCREVTECH (psingalla@dcrevtech) | N6134023R0058+Amendment+0003 | 66 | L | 3.2 (c ) | Regarding the requirement to submit resumes to the KO during the mobilization period (30 days prior to contract start date): is this action required to have the KO approve the resumes for hire, or is it strictly to provide information to the KO, similar to a status of hiring update? If this answer is the former, do you have a planned approval timeline for providing evaluations and responses back to the Contractor team? While we plan to engage regularly with the government on our staffing plan, to include incumbent capture, we believe that adding additional approval time period to an already rigorous process (completing candidate screening and interviewing, getting offer letters generated and accepted, and onboarding and moving personnel) adds excessive risk to a non-incumbent team successfully staffing all positions within the 60 day mobility period, and significantly favors the incumbent prime. | The reviewal of resume's is merely to make sure that the resume's include the educational requirements and/or certifications in the SOW. No added layer of approval will be added to the process however if a candidate does not posses the proper educational requirements and/or certifications the Government will alert the contractor that the candidate does not meet the requirement. | |
| 63 | DCREVTECH (psingalla@dcrevtech) | N6134023R0058+Amendment+0003 | 66 | L | 3.1 (d ) | The Electronics Technician, Maintenance, Senior labor category is listed as SCLS for all locations except San Diego, CA. Is this positions SCLS in San Diego, CA or is this expected to be a Professional Exempt category? If this is SCLS, will the Government provide the Wage Determination schedule? | Electronic Technician, Maintenance is not a Senior level category since it is an SCA Labor Category. The level in the SOW is listed at Electronic Technician, Maintenance III. The WD is now included as an attachment. | |
| 64 | DCREVTECH (psingalla@dcrevtech) | N6134023R0058+Amendment+0003 | 66 | L | 3.1 (d ) | The Government updated the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Man Hours from 1,920 to 1856 but did not provide an updated Attachment L-C1 Pricing Worksheet with updated hours by location. Will the government provide an updated Pricing Worksheet or should offerors update these worksheets ourselves? | See the response to Question 50 above. | |
| 65 | DCREVTECH (psingalla@dcrevtech) | N6134023R0058+Amendment+0003 | 66 | L | 3.2 (c ) | The Government updated the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Man Hours from 1,920 to 1856 which is based on 56 sick leave hours. This amount of sick leave hours is applicable to SCLS positions. Many companies offer less hours to professional exempt employees. Will the government consider a 1912 FTE Man Hour for Professional Exempt and 1856 for SCLS applicable positions to better reflect productive hours? | See the response to Question 50 above. | |
| 66 | DCREVTECH (psingalla@dcrevtech) | N6134023R0058+Amendment+0003 | 66 | L | 3.2 (c ) | Can you please confirm that "Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs), and Area Wage Determinations (AWDs) that are applicable to any proposed personnel" are required to be submitted with the proposal even though they are provided in the solicitation documents? | No, offerors need not include in their proposals any Wage Determination (WD) attached to the solicitation. Referencing the soliciation attachments in the Cost/Price Volume narrative is sufficient. The are no Collective Bargaining Agreeements (CBAs) attached to the solicitation. | |
| 67 | DCREVTECH (psingalla@dcrevtech) | N6134023R0058+Amendment+0003 | 66 | L | 3.2 (c ) | "Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs), and Area Wage Determinations (AWDs) that are applicable to any proposed personnel." The solicitation documents did not include any CBAs, can you confirm there are no applicable CBAs or provide the applicable CBAs? | The current contract does not contain any collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). | |
| 68 | DCREVTECH (psingalla@dcrevtech) | N6134023R0058+Amendment+0003 | 66 | L | 3.2 (c ) | How should the supporting documentation be submitted? (As an appendix to the narrative, in separate files or all in one file labeled supporting documentation?) | The Government anticipates receiving soft copy proposals consisting of seperate folders for each Volume. Those folders should contain seperate files for each component required by the solicitation. Supporting documentation may consist of several seperate files depending on what an offeror submits. Perhaps the folders may also consist of subfolders organizing the files if the files are numerous. | |
| 69 | DCREVTECH (psingalla@dcrevtech) | N6134023R0058+Amendment+0003 | 66 | L | 3.2 (c ) | "The Offeror shall submit Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs) (or Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (RPRRs) if no FPRA exists)." Can you confirm this is an example of the supportive documentation, but an offeror is not required to have a FPRA or a FPRR to be eligible for award? | The soliciation is updated to clarify that the Offeror shall submit, if they exist, Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs) (or Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRRs) if no FPRA exists), Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) and Area Wage Determinations (AWDs). | |
| 70 | DCREVTECH (psingalla@dcrevtech) | N6134023R0058+Amendment+0003 | 66 | L | 3.2 (c ) | This section describes supporting documentation for the employee salary as either payroll verification or Letters of Intent, however section 3.3 Cost Realism on page 74 of the RFP lists the various sources the government will use to determine cost realism. Can the offeror use these sources or other available market data to support the proposed employee salaries or will payroll verification and LOIs be the only acceptable support for the direct labor cost element? | In Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3.2, payroll verification and letter of intent are identified as examples of supporting documentation (not the only possible types of supporting documentation) that offerors may submit to substantiate the realism of their proposed rates. | |
| 71 | DCREVTECH (psingalla@dcrevtech) | J-1_SWMFTS _SOW_Final | 17 | 4. Administration | 4.1.2 | "The contractor shall designate a primary Program Manager (PM)." Attachment L-C1 Pricing Worksheet does not include a Program Manager. Can you confirm the Program Manager is not a direct bill labor category? This effort has various locations, and the location of the PM is not provided. Can you confirm the location of the PM is up to the offeror? | The Government is not directly ordering PM hours and the contract does not require any certain number of PM hours. There is no required location for the PM. | |
| 72 | The ASTA Group, LLC (erica.haglund@theastgroup.com) | Attachment+L-C1+Pricing+Worksheet, N6134023R0058_Amendment_0003_Conformed.pdf | When can offerors expect an updated Pricing Worksheet, it was noted in the Pre-Proposal Conference that the worksheet would be updated to reflect the changes made in amendment 0003 section L 3.1.d. Will the updated spreadsheet reflect the annual hours per employee? | Attachment L-C1 is updated to reflect the annual requirements. | ||||
| 73 | The ASTA Group, LLC (erica.haglund@theastgroup.com) | N6134023R0058_Amendment_0003_Conformed.pdf | Can the government provide clarification for the hours provided in Table B-1? It appears that the 1856 hours/yr applies to SCA employees as the 56 hours of sick time is specified in the WDs. Can the Government confirm that annual labor hours for an SCA covered employee are 1856 and that the annual labor hours for an exempt employee are 1912? | See the response to Question 50 above. | ||||
| 74 | The ASTA Group, LLC (erica.haglund@theastgroup.com) | N6134023R0058_Amendment_0003_Conformed.pdf, Section L, Volume 1 | Can the government clarify that Volume 1 requires only a cover page with a table of contents to identify what attachments are included? Or is the government looking to have the tables re-created (L-T2 and L-T1) and completed in the narrative of Volume I and submitted as an attachment? | A cover page identifiying the contents of the volume is adequate. The volume should contain, as seperate files, all components required by the solicitation, including L-T1, L-T2, and the contracts identified in L-T2. | ||||
| 75 | The ASTA Group, LLC (erica.haglund@theastgroup.com) | N6134023R0058_Amendment_0003_Conformed.pdf, Section L, Volume 2 | Can the government clarify that for Volume 2 L-P1 and L-P2 should be re-created and brought into the Volume and submitted as an attachment or only provide them as an attachment? | The volume should contain, as seperate files, all components required by the solicitation, including L-P1 and L-P2. | ||||
| 76 | The ASTA Group, LLC (erica.haglund@theastgroup.com) | Attachment+L-C1+Pricing+Worksheet | Can the government provide some guidance and instructions for the following on the pricing worksheet: |
• On the individual LOE tabs, please advise if Column F represents site location and the preloaded “G” is indicating government site location?
• On the individual LOE tabs, please advise if Column G, F/P, is to be completed as the fixed priced mobilization effort, a total added at the bottom and then carried to Column B in the Location Summary tab? If not, please advise how to complete the template for this Column.
• On…
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 .