Draft RFP (Dec 2020) Questions and Answers.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 66 KB Posted Feb 26, 2021

Attached to: Tactical Integrated Threat/Target Training Systems (TTS) Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: N6893620R0106
Issued by: Department of the Navy Naval Air Systems Command Naval Air Warfare Center

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 30, 2023

This draft solicitation seeks industry feedback on a Multiple Award Contract for Tactical Integrated Threat/Target Training Systems. Key details include the Navy seeking qualified offerors to provide comments on the draft RFP by January 2021 to support a minimum 30-day solicitation period. Offerors will provide threat emulation, electronic warfare, and live-virtual-constructive training systems across 14 technical areas. The Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract has a five-year period of performance and $92.9 million ceiling to be awarded competitively through cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed price task orders.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Tactical Integrated Threat/Target Training Systems (TTS), newest first.
File	Type	Posted
TTS Questions and Answers Round 5.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Apr 27, 2021
TTS Questions and Answers Round 4 dated 4.20.2021.pdf	PDF	Apr 22, 2021
TTS QASP updated 4.19.2021.docx	DOCX document	Apr 22, 2021
TTS Questions and Answers dates 4.14.2021.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Apr 16, 2021
TTS Questions and Answers dated 4-7-2021.pdf	PDF	Apr 9, 2021
TTS QASP updated 4-7-2021.docx	DOCX document	Apr 9, 2021
TTS Questions and Answers dated 4-7-2021.pdf	PDF	Apr 9, 2021
TTS Questions and Answers Dates 4-1-2021.pdf	PDF	Apr 1, 2021
FINAL Attachment L-1 TTS CPAQ.pdf	PDF	Mar 15, 2021
Attachment L-4 TTS RFP Questions Form.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Mar 15, 2021
FINAL Attachment L3 - TTS PP Info Form.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Mar 15, 2021
Exhibit A - CDRL DD1423.pdf	PDF	Mar 15, 2021
Attachment 1 - QASP.docx	DOCX document	Mar 15, 2021
FINAL Attachment L2 - TTS ES Teaming Matrix.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Mar 15, 2021
Attachment L-1 TTS CPAQ.docx	DOCX document	Dec 4, 2020
Attachment L-3 TTS PP Info Form.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Dec 4, 2020
Attachment L-2 TTS ES Teaming Matrix.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Dec 4, 2020

Show all 17

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

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

		Solicitation #: N6893620R016 Draft RFP Questions and Responses
		Item No.	Page No.	Section	Para No.	Quote from Solicitation	Question	Response
		1	62	L	2.0	Offerors may use hyperlinks within and among proposal volumes that do not include price information. However, there shall be no links from any other volume in the Price Volume or into any other portion of the proposal that contains price information. Section 3.0 (page 63) Proposal Content and Volumes does not show a Price Volume.	Will the Government remove the reference to a Price Volume from Section 2.0 (page 62)?	The Government agrees to remove Price Volume Language from Section L.
		2	PWS 12	PWS	PWS 3.10	Web-Accessible Database	PWS Paragraph 3.10 specifies a web-accessible database for hosting and tracking product sustainment and maintenance information. Is this database provided to the contractor by the Government, or is it contractor-furnished? If Government-provided, would the Government consider releasing more information about the type and specifications of the database?	This is government furnished equipment. A task order will be issued with the detailed requirements, which will enable a contractor to manage and maintain the Database per PWS 3.10.
		3	PWS 18	PWS	PWS 3.15.8	Database Management Specialist	The minimum qualifications for the Database Management Specialist appear to be missing. Would the Government please provide them?	The Government intends to include this information in PWS section 3.15.7 in the Final RFP.
		4	67	L	1.2	Please note that only the Program Manager will be considered Key Personnel and evaluated at the Basic contract level.	Section L states that only the Program Manager will be considered Key Personnel at the Basic contract level; however, PWS Paragraph 3.15.7 describes two General and Operations Managers, Senior as Key Personnel who function as Project Manager and Deputy. Is it correct to conclude that the Program Manager specified in Section L, is a IDIQ-level position and the Project Manager and Deputy specified in the PWS are Task or Delivery Order-level positions? If so, can the Government confirm that only a resume for the Program Manager is required to be submitted with the offeror's proposal?	The Deputy PM labor category from Key Personnel table in PWS Paragraph 3.15.7
		5	65 - 66	L	1.1	Table 1 CAGE Code	The Executive Summary requires a table listing CAGE codes for each anticipated contractor place of performance and PWS Paragraph 5.4.2 specifies a requirement for the contractor to establish and maintain a facility within 10 miles of the NAWS China Lake Main Gate. If an offeror plans to lease a facility in Ridgecrest contingent upon award, is it permissible to list 'TBD' for the CAGE code of that facility in Table 1?	The Government will allow a potential awardee to list TBD for the CAGE code of the facility in Table 1.
		6	66	L	1.1.1.1	Any planned approach that will demonstrate effective performance that exceeds standards….	In Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.1.1.1 asks offerors to describe planned approaches that exceed standards, yet Paragraph 3.0, Section M (Evaluation Criteria) states "there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations." How does the Government intend to evaluate the approaches specified in Paragraph 1.1.1.1 if they offer no benefit to the Government?	The Government intends to remove the Language in section M that states "The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional". Additionally, the Government intends to remove the statement "there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations", also located in Section M.
		7	71	M	2.0	This method reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal to determine the combined Technical/Risk rating. The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. [Emphasis added]	How does the Government intend to assess strengths in an offeror's proposal or determine if it rises to a level of being exceptional, since Paragraph 3.0, Section M of the Evaluation Criteria states "there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations"?	The Government intends to remove the Language in section M that states "The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional". Additionally, the Government intends to remove the statement "there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations", also located in Section M.
		8	75	M	4.0	Strengths: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.	How does the definition of a strength apply to the Government's evaluation if "there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations" as stated in Paragraph 3.0, Section M?	The Government intends to remove the Language in section M that states "The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional". Additionally, the Government intends to remove the statement "there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations," also located in Section M.
		9	62	L	2.0	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. Graphs and Tables that fit on an 8.5” X 14” printed page will be counted as one page.	Is the term "graphs" used by the Government in the draft solicitation correct or should it be "graphics"?	The term graph is correct.
		10	62	L	2.0	The offeror shall submit all volumes of its proposal electronically via DoD Safe (https://safe.apps.mil/).	Is there a file size limit associated with DoD Safe proposal submissions?	Each submission package in DoD Safe is limited to 25 documents totaling 8 GB. If a proposal includes more than either of these limitation, the Offeror shall request an additional Drop-Off Request Code.
		11	63	L	3.0	Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as specified in the table below. The table below supersedes the copies requested in Block 9 of the Standard Form (SF) 33. All volumes of the proposal shall be delivered to the address provided in Section 5.0, received prior to the closing date/time stated in this solicitation.	The Government's table directs offerors to submit 4 electronic copies of the Technical and Past Performance Volumes. Since electronic submission will be completed using DoD Safe, is this still a requirement?	The Government intends to revise Section L, Part A, 3.0 to state 1 electronic copy is required.
		12	63	L	3.0	Page limitations for each volume, if any, are also specified in the table below; title and table of contents pages do not count towards the page limit. Any pages submitted exceeding the page limit shall be disregarded and NOT evaluated.	The Government's table limits the Management Plan to 5 pages. Based on the amount of information requested Sections L and M and the PWS, we respectfully request a 15-page limit in order to meet requirements.	The Government will revise the Section L of the RFP to state a 15 page limit for the Management Plan.
		13	63	L	3.0	Each volume shall contain the following information: (1) Cover Sheet - The cover sheet should include: Title of RFP "TTS"; Volume Title: Technical or Past Performance as applicable; Name and address of the offeror, point-of-contact (POC), telephone number, fax number, email address, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code; Name and address of any subcontractor team members, POC, telephone number, fax number, email address, TIN, DUNS, CAGE code; Offeror assigned proposal number (if applicable); Name, address, point of contact, telephone and fax numbers, and email address of cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) office for prime and any/all subcontractor team members; •	Name, address, point of contact, telephone and fax numbers, and email address of cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office for prime and any/all subcontractor team members.	Will the Government allow the use of a continuation page to the cover sheet used to list the names and addresses of subcontractor team members along with their POCs, telephone and fax numbers, email addresses, TINs, DUNS, and CAGE codes?	Yes, the Government will allow a continiutation sheet to provide the requested information.
		14	64	L	3.0	The Offeror shall submit a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) for the Technical Volume, similar to the example below, to help ensure that all solicitation requirements are addressed and to facilitate the evaluators’ review of the Offeror’s proposal. The CRM should be a single integrated matrix and cross-reference the proposal volumes and paragraphs to specific RFP requirements, as well as other parts of the proposal that contain relevant information.	Does the Government intend for offerors to submit one comprehensive CRM that incorporates Volumes 1 and 2 or is it the Government's desire to have separate CRMs for each volume?	One comprehensive CRM will suffice.
		15	65	L	Part B Specific Instructions	The purpose of the Executive Summary is to provide the Government with an overview of the Offeror’s entire proposal. Each section within the Executive Summary shall contain the salient points contained in each of the proposal volumes. In addition, this volume should be used by the Offeror to identify and highlight significant features of its proposal	Is the Executive Summary to be submitted as a separate Volume?	Section L, Part B, 1.0 header, has been changed to: "Volume 1: Technical" and the Executive Summary is now incorporated within this section. The Executive Summary is limited to 2 pages within Volume 1.
		16	22	PWS	6.2	The contractor will require access up to and including Top Secret/Sensitive Compartment Information (TS/SCI) and Special Access Program (SAP) information in performance of this contract’	Will access to TS/SCI and SAP information be at the contractor location or only Government locations?	All access to TS/SCI and SAP information will be at the Government locations only.
		17	63	General	Section 3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES	The instructions refer to a title page and a cover sheet. The title page will identify the proposal and the cover sheet will include the solicitation-required information.	Will the Government permit separate pages for each?	The Government will allow separate pages for each title page and cover sheet.
		18	7	CDRL	A007	The CDRL A007 remarks state that the Software Development Plan (SDP) is required as a part of the offer. However, there are no instructions provided in Section 3.0 for its inclusion.	Will the Government please provide the SDP submission requirements?
Will the Government permit the Software Development Plan (SDP) to be submitted as an Annex (Appendix) to Volume I with an unlimited page requirement?	The Government does not require a Software Development Plan to be submitted as part of the Basic Contract Award proposal. However, after award, for orders requiring Software Development, potential awardees may be required to submit an SDP as part of their proposal.
		19	66	L	Understanding of the Work, paragraph 1.1.1.1.	The DRFP states: "The technical proposal shall provide details that will demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the work and capability to perform the tasking described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraph 3.1 thru paragraph 3.14. In addition, the narrative shall also addresses the elements set forth below:

1.1.1.1 Any planned approach that will demonstrate effective performance that exceeds standards or addresses approaches, or features that reduce risk inherent in upgrade of legacy EW threat systems. "

Under Section M, 3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, B. Past Performance states: "... for this solicitation there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations. Therefore only the Technical Compliance Rating definitions of Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable will be used to relate the results of the evaluation."	Will the Government please clarify whether approaches that exceed a requirement are desired and if these requirements will be considered and evaluated by the Government?	The Government intends to remove the Language in section M that states "The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional". Additionally, the Government intends to remove the statement "there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations", also located in Section M.
		20	70	L	Part B, Specific Instructions, 2.0 VOLUME 2: PAST PERFORMANCE	The DRFP states: "The Offeror shall provide a narrative on each Past Performance Information form in the “Contract Effort Description” area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions specified in Section M of the solicitation. Additionally, the Offeror shall provide one electronic copy of the Performance Work Statement for each contract reference as Annex 1 to this Past Performance Volume. Form L3 does not have a section for the “Contract Effort Description”.	Will the Government clarify how the Offeror should provide the Contract Effort Description in our proposal?	The Government intends to modify the Section L, Section 2 paragraph 5, from "The Offeror shall provide a narrative on each Past Performance Information form in the “Contract Effort Description” area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions specified in Section M of the solicitation". To "The Offeror shall provide a supplimental narrative on each Past Performance Information titled Contract Effort Description. It shall clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions specified in Section M of the solicitation."
		21	63	L	Section 3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES	The DRFP includes FAR 52.219-9 that requires a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.	Will the Government provide instructions and page limitations for the Plan?	Please follow the guidelines specified in 52.219-9, the Government has placed no page limits on the Small Business Subcontract Plan.
		22	37	J	Table of Contents	The DRFP lists the DD254 as Attachment 3.	Will the Government please provide?	The Government intends to release the DD254 with the final RFP.
		23	63-69	L	Section 3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES, PART B	N/A	Will the Government allow the Executive Summary to be separate from the Volume 1 TECHNICAL with its own page allocation?	Section L, Part B, 1.0 header, has been changed to: "Volume 1: Technical" and the Executive Summary is now incorporated within this section. The Executive Summary is limited to 2 pages within Volume 1.
		24	13	PWS	Section 3.15 - Personal Qual	The labor categories listed in the table on page 5 of the Draft Solicitation differ from the labor categories listed in the table on page 16 of the PWS. Both of those tables are inconsistent with the labor descriptions defined in 3.15.7 and 3.15.8 (pages 16 – 18 in PWS).	Will the Government please confirm which labor categories and descriptions are correct?	The Government intends to update clause table on page 5 of the RFP to include the BLS labor categories as a crosswalk.
		25	67	L	Section 2.0, sub-section 1.2 KEY PERSONNEL	The Draft Solicitation, dated 04 December, 2020, number N6893620R0106, Section L paragraph 2.0, sub-section 1.2 KEY PERSONNEL, page 67 of 76, lines 4-6 states, Please note that only the Program Manager will be considered Key Personnel and evaluated at the Basic contract level. The Performance Work Statement, (PWS), Section 3.0 REQUIREMENTS, sub section 3.15, paragraph 3.15.7 Description: Key Personnel identifies 2 key positions, the Project Manager and the Deputy Project Manager.	Does the Government intend to require a Program Manager for the Basic Order and Project Managers for each Task Order and which one is required for the Basic Order?	The Deputy PM labor category from Key Personnel table in PWS Paragraph 3.15.7.
		26	1	RFP	General		To support development of a technical roadmap, will the Government provide an anticipated schedule for first Task Order release?	Task Orders are issued based on Sponsor requirements. These requirements are generated based on fleet requirements and funding availability. As such, it is impossible for the Government to project the schedule for first Task Order release.
		27	67	L	2.0, sub-section 1.2 KEY PERSONNEL	The Draft Solicitation instruction under Section 3.0 lists the Management Plan as part of Volume 1 with a 5-page limit. CDRL A00J remarks state that the Management Plan is to be submitted as part of the proposal. Please clarify if this represents a single requirement for a 5-page Management Plan or if the CDRL refers to a more detailed plan (e.g., a draft Project Management Plan).	If CDRL A00J requires a more detailed Management Plan, will the Government consider allowing this more-detailed Management Plan to be submitted as an ANNEX to the proposal with any specified page limit?	The Government will revise the Section L of the RFP to state a 15 page limit for the Management Plan
		28	67	L	2.0, sub-section 1.2 KEY PERSONNEL	The Draft Solicitation states "Please note that only the Program Manager will be considered Key Personnel and evaluated at the Basic contract level." In addition, the Performance Work Statement, (PWS), Section 3.0 REQUIREMENTS, sub section 3.15, paragraph 3.15.7 Description: Key Personnel identifies 2 key positions, the Project Manager and the Deputy Project Manager.	Does the Government intend to require a Program Manager for the Basic Order and Project Managers for each Task Order and which one is required for the Basic Order?	The Government is only requiring a Program Manager for the Basic Contract. The requirements of each order will determine whether the use of a Program Manager or Task Order Lead would be required.
		29	General Questions				Please confirm that the Total Number of Pages for the Technical Volume is 30 (plus those areas that are noted to have no page count).	The total number of pages for the Volume 1: Technical is now 47 to account for the increased pages for the Management Plan, Key Personnel, and inclusion of the Executive Summary.
		30					Please confirm the Contractors Purchasing System Requirements	See contents of Section I Clasue 252.244-7001.
		31					Please confirm that Contractors need to be compliant to all of the fourteen technical areas.	The Government expects the Contractor to be compliant in all of the fourteen technical areas contained within Section 3.0 of the PWS.
		32					Please confirm that additional Teaming Partners can be added at the Task Order level.	The Government will allow additional Teaming Partners to be added at the Task Order Level.
		33	More General Questions				To give adequate opportunity for small businesses would the government consider setting aside some sections of the PWS as SBSA and changing the size standard to be 541330 Military & Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons?	At this time, the Government will not consider revising the assigned NAICS.
		34					Recommendation: Issue task orders based on functionality – EWS, SA/IA, SW Development, field services, pod maintenance etc. to allow for both increased competition and small business participation.	The Government will take this into consideration.
		35	5	B	Level of Effort	It appears that the current LOE utilization is pretty low and is nowhere near the LOE allocations specified in the solicitation.	What are the LOE requirements? Does the government envision the contract reaching the full level of LOE specified?	The Government intends to award an IDIQ, as such, orders will be issued based on sponsor requirements. The contract ceiling of $92.9M is based on an estimate.
		36	20	H	Task Order Procedures		How are the Task Orders going to be issued? Would they be aligned to the PWS sections? One TO for each section of the PWS?	The Government intends that each order will annotate which PWS sections are applicable. Historically, several PWS sections are referenced within an order.
		37	More General Questions				Can offerors respond to specific portions of the PWS since this is a MAC?	No, as per Section L or M the contractor must be able to perform all functions of the PWS.
		38	PWS 20	PWS	Section 5.4		What percent of the work does the Gov’t anticipate will require contractor facilities? Does the Gov’t anticipate the need for classified storage at contractor facilities?	Task Orders are issued based on Sponsor requirements. These requirements are generated based on fleet requirements and funding availability. As such, it is impossible for the Government to speculate at this time what percentage of the work will require contractor facilities. Historically, 15% has been performed at the contractor facilities.
		39	PWS 17	PWS	Section 3.15.8	The Qualifications for the Database Management Specialist are missing from the table in section 3.15.8	Will the Gov't please correct the table to include it?	The Government will add the qualification to PWS 3.15.8, which is now 3.15.7.
		40		L		There is no Vol 3 Pricing required as part of the response.	Wouldn’t LCAT rates be established at the contract level to be able to issue initial task orders based on initial offers?	The Government intends to have awardees provide pricing at the task order level.
		41	5	B		draft RFP identifies “Program Manager” as a key labor category. However, PWS 3.15.7 identifies “General and Operations Manager, Senior” in both the Project Manager and Deputy roles as key labor categories.	Would the Government clarify which are the correct key labor categories?	Deputy PM has been removed from Key Personnel table in PWS Paragraph 3.15.7.
		42	5	B		draft RFP lists several non-key labor categories that differ from PWS 3.15.8. The draft RFP lists “Information System Security Officer/Engineer,” while the PWS lists “Information Security Analyst.” The draft RFP lists “Technical Writer,” while the PWS lists “Technical Writer/Training Specialist.” The draft RFP lists “Database Administrator,” while the PWS lists “Database Management Specialist.”	Would the Government ensure that the labor categories in the draft RFP are the same as those in the PWS?	The Government will ensure the labor categories listed in Section B of the RFP and PWS are congruent.
		43	5	B		draft PWS has several non-key labor categories that are not contained in PWS 3.15.8: Engineering Technician/Field Engineer, Electronics Engineer (Threat Radar SME), Electronics Engineer (Electronic Warfare SME), and Electronics Engineer (LVC, TENA, RADS SME).	Government ensure the same labor categories are contained in both the RFP and PWS?	The Government will ensure the labor categories listed in Section B of the RFP and PWS are congruent.
		44	62	L	Section 2.0	Paragraph 2.0 allows an 8.5x11” page to count as one page.	Will the Government confirm that 11x17” foldout pages are permitted for graphics and drawings and that they count as one page?	The Government will only accept 8.5 x 11 pages.
		45	63	L	Section 3.0	The Proposal Content and Volumes table requires 4 electronic copies of each proposal volume.	Since offerors are instructed to upload their proposals to DoD SAFE, does the Government require offerors to upload 4 of each proposal volume?	The Government intends to modify the Section L, Part A, Section 3.0 Table to reduce the number copies from 4 to 1.
		46	63	L	Section 3.0	The Proposal Content and Volumes table allocates 15 pages for the Understanding of the Work. This response includes 14 PWS tasks along with the additional requirement contained in Section L 1.1.1.1 through 1.1.1.3.	In order for offerors to fully respond to all of these requirements, would the Government increase the page limit for Understanding of the Work to 25 pages?	The Government has determined that an allocation of 15 pages is sufficient for potential awardees to provide an adequate demonstration of their Understanding of the Work.
		47	65	L	Section 1.0	Paragraph 1.0 provides the requirements for an Executive Summary volume; however, the Proposal Content and Volumes table does not include this volume.	Would the Government add the Executive Summary volume to the table along with the page limitations and number of copies required?	Section L, Part B, 1.0 header, has been changed to: "Volume 1: Technical" and the Executive Summary is now incorporated within this section. The Executive Summary is limited to 2 pages within Volume 1.
		48	67	L	Section 1.2	Paragraph 1.2 states that only the Program Manager is key at the basic contract level, but PWS 3.15.7 states that the General and Operations Manager, Senior in both the Project Manager and Deputy roles are key.	Would the Government clarify which labor categories are key at the basic contract level?	Deputy PM has been removed from Key Personnel table in PWS Paragraph 3.15.7.
		49	67	L	Section 1.2.1	Paragraph 1.2.1 requires a one-page Key Personnel Summary; however, if only the Program Manager is key at the basic contract level, such as summary would be redundant with the Program Manager’s four-page resume.	Would the Government consider removing the Key Personnel Summary requirement if the Program Manager is the only key labor category?	The Government understands that the Program Manager is the sole Key Labor Category however, a Key Personnel Summary Sheet is still required.
		50	67	L	Section 1.2.2	The list of items required to be contained in each resume does not include an item “5)”.	Would the Government confirm that item “5)” should be “whether employed with Prime or subcontractor”?	The Government confirms that item 5) states "whether employed with Prime or subcontractor". The number was erroneously omitted.
		51	68	L	Section 1.4	Paragraph 1.4 states that the Management Plan is to be provided in Annex D; however, the Proposal Content and Volumes table includes the Management Plan in Volume1, Technical.	Would the Government confirm that the Management Plan is part of Volume 1 and not Annex D?	The Management Plan is part of Volume 1. The Government will remove the Annex D reference.
		52	70	L	Section 2.0	Paragraph 2.0 requires the Past Performance narrative to be added in the “Contract Effort Description” area of Attachment L-3; however, Attachment L-3 has no such area.	Would the Government confirm that the Past Performance narrative be added in the “Similarity” section (Block 12 of Attachment L-3)?	The Government intends to remove the Language in section M that states "The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional". Additionally, the Government intends to remove the statement "there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations", also located in Section M.
		53	72	M	Section 3.0		Please confirm the Evaluation Factors for Award are on the basis of Technical Factors and Past Performance.	The Evaluation Factors for Award are Technical Factors and Past Performance.
		54	4	PWS	2.4		Would the Government confirm that the referenced documents are the most current versions, since some have dates as far back as 2007? Would the Government also add the new OSD/DEVSECOPS guide to the referenced documents?	The referenced websites in the PWS 2.4 has now been renumbered to 2.3 and each contain the latest policy. The OSD/DEVSECOPS guide will be added at the Order level as needed.
		55	4	PWS	2.5		Would the Government confirm that NMCI is no longer applicable and replace “NMCI” with “NGEN” and reference DoD DEVSEOPS guidance?	The Government intends to revise the PWS paragraph 2.5 which is now 2.4 as follows: "Currently, NMCI is the only tool developed that will be hosted by the Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI). The contractor shall ensure the software is developed to be compatible to NMCI or the follow on program or run on NMCI equivallent workstations that will be certified for NMCI and comply with NMCI policy."
		56	9	PWS	2.7	AIR-7.2.3 no longer exists on NAVAIR’s organizational chart.	Would the Government confirm that another entity is available to verify the TTS Architectures?	The government will verify the TTS architectures.
		57	9	PWS	2.7		Will the Government confirm that the NAE Enterprise Architecture will be provided to contractors and identify if there a classified component?	Access to NAE Enterprise Architecture may be available. There maybe a classified component. Details will be provided at the order level.
		58	12	PWS	3.10		Will the Government confirm if the Web-Accessible Database currently exists or if it is new development, where the Web-Accessible Database will be hosted, and whether or not it is required to contain classified information?	Paragraph 3.10 of the PWS speaks to an already existing database. This database is GFP and is currently hosted at the contractor facility. There will not be a requirement containing classified information.
		59	6	B	Clause 5252.211-9503	The solicitation reads, “(d) The contractor agrees that effort performed in fulfillment of level of effort obligations under this contract shall include only verifiable effort in direct support of the work specified. It shall not include efforts such as work performed in transit to or from an employee's usual workplace, work during lunchtime activities, or effort performed at other non-work locations.”	Work such as telework during COVID-19 restrictions would be verifiable. Will telework be permitted?	The Government intends to adhere to clause 5252.211-9503 as written. Understandably, unique situations such as COVID-19 during contract execution will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
		60	17	C	Ref 3.15.7	Based on the Description of Key Personnel, “General and Operations Manager (11-1021), Senior-Functions as the Deputy,” it appears a Deputy Program Manager is Key. However, paragraph 5252.211-9503 of the draft solicitation only indicates a PM at the contract level and doesn’t list the deputy.	Please clarify if both positions are Key.	The Deputy PM has been removed from Key Personnel table in PWS Paragraph 3.15.7.
		61	20	C	FAR 5252.216-9535	The solicitation reads, “(c) All costs associated with presentation, and/or discussion of the contractor’s Task Order proposal, post award Task Order administration (including applicable personnel cost allocations by Task Order) shall not be a direct charge under the task order unless authorized in the contract or Task Order.”	Is it the Government’s intention to authorize at the TO level?	The Government intends to adhere to clause 5252.216-9535 as written. Per the clause, Post Award Task Administration, shall not be a direct charge under the contract/task order unless otherwise allowed. Any other authorization would be on a case-by-case basis.
		62	62	L	2.0 ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL FORMAT	The solicitation reads, “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.”	We respectfully request 8-pt or legible font for graphs, graphics, and tables.	The Government is unable to accomodate this request.
		63	63 & 65	L	3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES	The Table in Section 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes lists requires 4 electronic copies.	Please confirm that one electronic copy of each volume is required.	One electronic copy is required and the table has been updated in Section L, Part A, 3.0
		64	63 & 65	L	3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES PART B 1.0 Executive Summary	The solicitation reads, “The Executive Summary volume should be divided into the sections outlined below.” However, the Executive Summary volume is not listed as a volume in paragraph 3.0.	Please clarify if an Executive Summary volume is required.	Section L, Part B, 1.0 header, has been changed to: "Volume 1: Technical" and the Executive Summary is now incorporated within this section. The Executive Summary is limited to 2 pages within Volume 1.
		65	66	L	Table 1. Offeror Summary	The solicitation requires a Contractor Name (Prime, Team Member, or Subcontractor). However, teammates are not required at the MAC level.	Will the final solicitation include a Task Order that will permit Offerors to include teammates?	The Government does not intend to include a Task Order in the final solicitation. The intent of teaming requirement at the basic contract level, is for companies that are only able to meets some the of the 3.0 PWS requirements, to team up with others in order to meet all requirements listed in section 3.0 of the PWS.
		66	69	L	1.4.2 Staffing and Transition	The solicitation reads, “(2) Identify the number of personnel by labor category that will be maintained on staff in order to be ready to respond to emerging delivery/task order requirements. Describe the approach used to fill all positions required for each labor category in a time phased staffing chart.”	Are Offerors required to maintain a staff on standby for TO awards?	Offerors are not required to maintain a staff on standby. The intent of this requirement is for the Government to gain an understanding of the approach the bidder intends to use to fill labor categories.

Note: This requirement has been renumbered to 1.5.2 (4).

67 74 M PART C: , Section 1.0 TECHNICAL EVALATION RATINGS The Technical Evaluation Rating and Description read, “Acceptable - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.” How will the Government measure strengths? The Government has revised the language in Section M, Part C, Section 1.0 to clarify Technical Evaluation Rating and Descriptions as follows:

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

68	PWS 15	PWS	Section 3.15.3	The Substitution in the Masters Degree listed in PWS Section 3.15.3 Substitution for Levels of Education and Experience is a Bachelors Degree plus 12 years work experience in the specific functional area to be performed.	Is this a complete description, or is this additive to the Paragraph 3.15.2 description for Senior positions?	Paragraph 3.15.2 is meant to provide clarification regarding the experience and/or education required to be considered a senior level employee.
69		I	clauses 52.219-9 & 252.219-7003	Small Business Subcontracting Plan are included – Is a Small Business Plan required to be submitted, if so, should it be added to Section L and based on percentages only as there is no cost proposal?		A small business plan is required to be submitted purusant to clause 52.219-9, though cost will not be evaluated at the basic level, the Government intends to include ceiling amounts associated with each CLIN.
70		K	General Section K	should this be submitted and included under Section L instructions?		Section K is the appropriate section.
71		L	FAR 52.204-22	Alternative Line Item Proposal	should this be removed?	No as this is meant to flow down to the order level.
72		L	FAR 52.222-46	Evaluation of Compensation For Professional Employees	should this be removed?	No, this is a required clause.
73		L	DFAR 252.215-7009	Proposal Adequacy Checklist	should this be removed?	The Government intends to remove DFARS 252.215-7009.
74		L	DFAR 252.234-7001 (DEV)	Notice of Earned Value Management System – as the limit for EVM is now $100M	Is it likely that the govt will issue a task order for that amount under this contract, is this clause required?	The Government intends to remove DFARS 252.234-7001(DEV).
75		L	Part B, 1.0 Executive Summary		Is there a page limitation to this section that includes the offeror’s response to 1.1 – 1.3?	Section L, Part B, 1.0 header, has been changed to: "Volume 1: Technical" and the Executive Summary is now incorporated within this section. The Executive Summary is limited to 2 pages within Volume 1.
76		L	Section 2.0		Are the 4 sub-elements in Section L, part B, 2.0 Technical of equal value in proposal evaluation?	Yes, all of the subelements listed in Section L, 2.0 (now 1.0) Technical will be of equal value during the evaluation.
77		PWS	Section 5.4		Please confirm that the requirements in PWS Section 5.4 Facilities are as required by individual T/DO and thus not required as a condition of award for the IDIQ.	Pursuant to: PWS Section 5.4 "Facilties" are not required as a condition of award for the basic IDIQ. However, they will be required for award of an individual order.
78		M	Part C Section 1.0		Please confirm whether “Marginal” is an evaluation rating since Section M, Part C, 1.0 Technical Evaluation Ratings does not include “Marginal” while Section M 3.0 Evaluation Factors for Award which does include Marginal.	The Government intends to revise Section M, Part C, Section 1.0 language to remove the word "marginal".
79		L	Section 3.0		The table states 4 electronic copies are required for both volumes, however, this is an electronic submittal via DoD SAFE. Please confirm the number of electronic copies to be submitted.	The Government intends to revise Section L, 3.0 to state "1 electronic copy" is required.
80		L	Part B Section 1.0		Could the government please clarify the page count requirements/restrictions for the Executive Summary section? Is this considered a Volume?	Section L, Part B, 1.0 header, has been changed to: "Volume 1: Technical" and the Executive Summary is now incorporated within this section. The Executive Summary is limited to 2 pages within Volume 1.
81		L	Secton 2.0	The RFP states that Transmittal Letter and Acronym list do not count against page count.	Could the Government please clarify if the Cover Page and Table of Contents will count against page count?	The Table of contents and Cover Page are not considered in the required page counts.
82		L	Part B Section 2.0	There doesn’t appear to be a “Contract Effort Description” in Attachment L-3.	Does the Government want us to create this ourselves? Do we create this in Attachment L-3, or in our own document?	The Government intends to remove the Language in section M that states "The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional". Additionally, the Government intends to remove the statement "there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations", also located in Section M.
83		L	Part B Section 2.0		Can offerors convert the table in Attachment L-3 from an Excel file into a Word document?	Yes, attachment L-3 can be coverted from an Excel file into a Word document.
84		L	Part B Section 2.0		As the proposal response requires information that facilitates a one-to-one comparison, could the Government release an updated RFP to ensure the RFP Section numbering continues seamlessly. In the Draft RFP, the RFP numbering reset at 1.1 Understanding of the Work, and therefore both Volumes 1 & 2 are referenced as L-B.2.0.	The Government will take this into consideration.
85		H	52.219-31	In the notice of small business reserve (Mar 2020), the clause states that "The small business concern(s) eligible for participation in the reserve shall submit one offer that addresses each portion of the solicitation for which it wants to compete. Award of the contract will be based on criteria identified elsewhere in the solicitation."	Are large businesses also allowed to submit one offer that addresses the portion of the solicitation that it wants to compete on. Or is this only reserved for small businesses?	The Government erroneously included 52.219-31 which will be removed.
86		L	Part B Section 1.4	Per the Draft RFP, the Government is considering alloting 5 pages for the Management Plan. We feel this may not be enough space to cover all of the requirements.	Will the Government allow for a 10 page response?	The Government will revise the Section L of the RFP to state a 15 page limit for the Management Plan.
87		C	3.15.8		Data Management Specialist is missing qualifications. Please provide.	The Government will add the qualification to PWS 3.15.8 which is now 3.15.7 to correct number that was skipped.
88		C	4.4		Please adjust formatting for 4.4 Configuration Management in final RFP.	The Government will take this into consideration.
89		C	62		Please provide projected number of clearances/levels for entire staff.	Task Orders are issued based on Sponsor requirements. These requirements are generated based on fleet requirements. As such, it is impossible for the Government to project the number of clearences and levels required for the entire staff. The security classification level set for the contract is Secret.
90		C	2.6		The proposal shall include all technical data required to engage in collaboration with the security control assessor, the authorizing official (staff) and PIT designating official(s). Please clarify what technical data is required and which volume.	Section 2.0 has been updated and the new section for Cyber Security is now Section 2.5.
91		G	G-TXT-0002		The RFP states: Consistent with billing instructions, the contractor shall segregate and accumulate costs for the performance of this task order by the appropriate Accounting Classification Reference Number (ACRN) listed in the Accounting Data provided in Section G. Please clarify wording associated this being a task order.	It is the intent of the Government to have awadees bill cost and fee at the order level.
92		H	5252.216-9535		Please provide projected number of and type of task orders for each year.	Task Orders are issued based on Sponsor requirements. These requirements are generated based on fleet requirements and funding availability. As such, it is impossible for the Government to project the number and type of task order for each year.
93		L	Section 2.0	Drawing may be of any size and will count as one page.	Please clarify what is meant by drawing, and if only a quarter or half page, will it still be counted as a full page.	Section L, Section 2.0, states "Drawings may be of any size and will be counted as one page." Therefore, if you submit a page with a partial drawing only, the rest of the page consists of blank space, it will be counted as one page.
94	74	M	Sections 2.0 & 3.0	Therefore only the Technical Compliance Rating definitions of Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable will be used to relate the results of the evaluation. Table on page 72 only lists Acceptable and Unacceptable ratings.	Please clarify	The Government has updated Section M, 3.0 by removing the term marginal.
95		B			Please clarify what inputs/responses are required in Section B.	The Government is not requiring a response to Section B, as cost is not being evaluated at the Basic Level.
96		C & L	L.3.0, L.B.1.2.1, C.3.15.7	The table on Page 63 states no page limit for Key Personnel, but Page 67 states that there is a one page summary, and each resume 4 page limit. Additionally, it states that only the Program Manager is considered Key Personnel. The PWS lists a Project Manager and Deputy as Key Personnel.	Please clarify how many key personnel are required, are they Project or Program Managers, and what are the proposal response requirements.	Only the Program Manager is considered Key Personnel at the basic level. The Government intends to modify the Section C to remove the Key Personnel reference to the Deputy PM. Section L, 3.0 has been updated to align with Section L, Part B, 2.2.1 (was 1.2.1) allowing a 5 page limit on Key Personnel Summary and Resume.
97		L	Part B Section 2.0		Please clarify if Past Performance is required to be provided for Subcontractors as part of a Prime team.	If the offeror is proposing a teaming agreement then Past Performance is required to be submitted for the entire team. Additional clarification has be added in Section L.
98		L & M	L.B.1.1.1.1, L.B.1.1.1.2, M.3.0	The RFP states in 1.1.1.1 that any planned approach that will demonstrate effective performance that exceeds standards or addresses approaches, or features that reduce risk inherent in upgrade of legacy EW threat systems.	Please clarify	RFP Section L, Part B, 1.1.1.1 (now 1.2.1.1) has been reworded to clarify as follows:

1.2.1.1 Any planned approach that will demonstrate effective performance and/or features that reduce risk inherent in upgrade of legacy combat training systems.

99	QASP		Enclosure 1 is missing PWS 3.10 and the performance standards/AQL for each PWS element are all exactly the same.	Please clarify	QASP, Enclosure 1 has been updated to include the performance standards/AQL for the PWS element 3.10 Web-Based Database. Additionally, performance standards have been added to all elements for 3.1 - 3.14 in the QASP and PWS.
100	CDRL	A007	The CDRL states: Submit plan as part of the proposal.	Please clarify if and where the SDP should be provided and any details on content and page count.	CDRL A007 has been reworded. The Government does not require a Software Development Plan to be submitted as part of the Basic Contract Award proposal. The SDP shall be submitted at the Order level as required.
101	H	52.234-4		Is it incumbent upon the Government or the Offeror to have an EVMS?	The Government intends to remove the EVMS clauses.
102	H	52.234-4		What EVMS application(s) is the Government running under its NMCI architecture?	EVMS will not be applicable in this contract and the clauses will be removed.
103	M	Section 3.0	States that cost and price will not be evaluated at the basic award. Section L indicates that only two volumes (Technical and Past Performance) are to be submitted. Section L does not address pricing or other proposal elements.	o Please clarify whether or not offerors are required to submit completed section B proposed CLIN prices with their proposal submission?

o Are offerors required to include completed section K representations and certifications with their proposal submission?

o Are offerors required to include signed SF33 acknowledging all amendments to the solicitation with their proposal submission?	The Government does not require the offerers to submit a completed Section B as part of their proposal submission. However, completed Section K - Representations and Certifications and a signed SF33 and all ammendments are required.
		104		Clause 5252.216.9506	Minimum and Maximum Quantities indicates that the maximum quantity as paragraph (b) of 52.216.22 Indefinite Quantity will be as shown in each CLIN in Section B.	How will the prices (or ceilings) for CLINs 0001 through 0004 be established in the IDIQ contract?	The Basic Contract CLIN ceilings will be established based off of the Independent Government Estimate.
		105	B	CLIN 0001	CLIN 0001 is a CPFF line item for a maximum quantity of 615,574 hours over 5-year period of performance. 52.216-1 Type of Contract indicates that both CPFF and FFP orders or line items may be awarded under this IDIQ contract.	Should Section B include a CLIN for FFP as well as CPFF?	Purusant to Section B of the RFP, the Government included a total of 5 CLIN's, 3 of which are cost reimbursable, 1 is Firm Fixed Price, and 1 Not Separately Price.
		106	B	5252.211-9503	Level of Effort (Cost Reimbursement) and indicates that fixed fee will be adjusted if less than 100% of the 615,574 hours are delivered. Section B CLIN 0001 narrative indicates a ceiling of 615,574 hours over 5 years at the IDIQ level.	o How will the Level of Effort (LOE) clause be applied at the Delivery Order level?
o Will the LOE clause in the IDIQ state hours TBD at the order level with an order specific LOE identified in the award of cost reimbursable orders?	The Government does not intent to issue delivery orders with a LOE. Delivery orders will be tied to the FFP price efforts contained on CLIN 0004.

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 Feb 26, 2021.