RFP Questions HDTRA1-20-R-0002 Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 54 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DTRA A&AS PMO RFP Amendment Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HDTRA120R0002Amend1
- Issued by
- Defense Threat Reduction Agency
About this file
This document contains answers to questions asked on the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's (DTRA) solicitation for Program Management Office (PMO) support services. The solicitation seeks proposals for scientific, technical, and program management support services. Key details include that the competition is a total small business set-aside for firms with annual revenue under $16.5 million. The period of performance is a base year starting in November 2020 with four optional one-year periods. Proposed labor categories, staffing levels, and pricing should account for a 120-day transition period. Plug values are provided for surge support, materials, equipment, travel and other direct costs with no deviations permitted.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| HDTRA1-20-R-0002 Amended.pdf | ||
| Programmatic Support PWS 1.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question No. | Reference | Question Category | Question | Response | RFP Revision |
| # | Solicitation or Attachments, and Section | Contract or Technical | |||
| 1 | L.1.2 | Contract | Within Table L.1.2 - Proposal Organization, the government outlines Sub-Factor B - Technical Approach as a 30 page limit. Please advise if this should be interpreted as either of the following: |
1) A 30 page limit for the three components of Sub-Factor B: Key Personnel Resumes, Sample Resumes, and Sample Challenge tasks.
2) A separate 30 pages for a technical response to the PWS*
3) An error, the page limits are included for each sub section for Subfactor 2, Technical Approach. There is no separate 30 page technical approach section required.
| *L.3.3.3 does not provide instructions for a separate PWS response/technical approach and section M.2.2.2 does not provide evaluation criteria for a separate PWS response/technical approach. If it is the government's intent for offerors to provide a separate Technical Approach, instructions for such a response should be included within Sections L and M given the introduction to Table L.1.2 notes "In the event that the table conflicts with the detailed instructions in the paragraphs that follow, the detailed instructions shall take precedence." | The reference to a 30-page technical approach limit has been omitted for the RFP amendment. It is NOT to be interpreted as a separate 30 pages for a technical approach OR as a 30-page limit for the three components. Updated Section L&M to delete the 30-page requirement. | Section L revised. | ||||
| 2 | L.5.0 Volume IV - Cost/Price | Contract | The government notes that the Surge CLINs are "average values per CLIN, not the minimum or maximum per CLIN" and that "the offeror shall provide a detailed cost proposal for accomplishing the requirements of the PWS." The PWS for each of the surge CLINs (5.1.8, 5.3.9) states "the contractor shall respond to rapidly emerging developmental technologies or operational mission requirements." | |||
| Without metrics regarding the frequency, duration, or scope of emerging requirements falling under 5.1.8 or 5.3.9, offerors are unable to estimate labor or costs for the surge CLINs. It is recommended the government state that the surge CLINs, similar to the Travel CLINs where the frequency of travel is unknown, are plug numbers with no deviations permitted. | The Government agrees and the RFP amendment will identify surge CLIN values as plug values without deviation. | Section L.5.6.1 revised | ||||
| 3 | On 17 June, DTRA published MEMORANDUM TO OFFERORS, Subject: Request for Proposal HDTRA1-20-R-0002. The memorandum stated, “It is DTRA’s intent to conduct this selection as a small business set aside under NAICS 541330, Engineering Services, size standard $16.5M.” After reviewing the RFP, there is no indication this is set-aside for small business; furthermore, page 120 includes, “The Government anticipates awarding one contract under full and open competition.” Can you please clarify? Is this competition set-aside for Small Business or is it a Full & Open competition? | |||||
| This RFP is a total Set-Aside for Small Business. The reference to "full and open competition" in the RFP will be corrected. | Section M.3.3.3 revised to say "The Government anticipates awarding one contract under Total Small Business Set-Aside (FAR 19.5)". | |||||
| 4 | RFP - Section L.1.2, page 71, Paragraphs a and b. | Contract | Paragraphs a and b indicate that the proposal will be submitted through Wide Area Workflow, but the beta.SAM Notice indicates that proposals will be emailed to DTRA's email address - How should proposal documents be submitted to the government? | |||
| Proposals shall be submitted as indicated in the RFP Section L.1.2 The SAM Notice will be corrected. | RFP Letter revised removing email address and will be added to addendum | |||||
| 5 | Section L.4.1 and L.4.2, Description of Team and Present and Past Performance References, page 86 and 87. | Technical | In L.4.1 the Government states "The Offeror shall provide a matrix of all proposed subcontractors/team members/joint venture partnersand the specific areas within the proposed PWS for which they will be utilized...This information will be utilized to determine relevancy for the subcontract references." In L.4.2 the Government states "The Offeror shall identify a maximum of five references for the prime Offeror as well as a maximum of three references per team member for other divisions, subcontractors, teaming contractors, or joint venture partners expected to perform aspects of the effort that are critical to the overall success of the program." Can the Government clarify what defines 'critical to the overall success of the program'? Are offerors to provide past performances for ALL subcontractor partners, or just those perceived to be critical to the overall success of the program? | Offerors are to provide past performances for those subcontractor partners perceived to be "critical" (important or necessary for) the overall success of the program | No revision text necessary. | |
| 6 | Section L.4.3, Present and Past Performance References. | Technical | Can the Government confirm, based on the previous draft RFP Q&A, that a Single Award Department or Agency specific ID/IQ may be cited as a single reference? | Yes, this may be cited as a reference. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 7 | M.3.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded page 120. | Technical | States that “The Government anticipates awarding one contract under full and open competition…” Please clarify that this procurement is limited to small business under the designated NAICS code and size standard. | Refer to Question 3 | Refer to Question 3. | |
| 8 | L.5.6. page 90. | Technical | Planned transition is 120 days. Is the current incumbent responsible for operations during the transition period? | The current incumbent is responsible for operations during the transition period. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 9 | L.5.6. page 91. | Technical | The table indicates historical average of 121 FTEs. Does that number include Surge? | The historical average includes any surge additions during that time period. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 10 | Table L.1.2 pg 71. | Technical | The RFP limits Sub-Factor B to 30 pages. Sub-Factor B includes Key Personnel Resumes; Sample Resumes; and Responses to Challenges. That is potentially 61 pages. Please clarify the page limit for Sub-Factor B. | Refer to Question 1 | Refer to Question 1 | |
| 11 | DD-254. | Technical | Please clarify the Level of Safeguarding is NONE. | No SIPR or JWICS safeguarding is required at the contractor facility | No revision text necessary. | |
| 12 | L.5.3.3 pg 88. | Technical | The RFP states, The Government’s intent is to have each PMO contractor assigned a DTRA IT2S approved and imaged laptop. Please clarify every Contractor - on-site and off-site - will be assigned a DTRA IT2S laptop. | Every contractor --on-site and off-site--will be assigned a DTRA IT2S laptop. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 13 | L.4.3 pg 87. | Technical | The RFP requires each reference to complete a PPPQ. If the customer has completed a CPAR, will DTRA accept a CPAR in lieu of a PPPQ? | See L.4.3. A CPAR may be submitted "in addition to." This is not in lieu of and is an optional choice. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 14 | L.5.0 Volume IV - Cost/Price | Contract | The government notes that the Surge CLINs are "average values per CLIN, not the minimum or maximum per CLIN" and that "the offeror shall provide a detailed cost proposal for accomplishing the requirements of the PWS." The PWS for each of the surge CLINs (5.1.8, 5.3.9) states "the contractor shall respond to rapidly emerging developmental technologies or operational mission requirements." Without metrics regarding the frequency, duration, or scope of emerging requirements falling under 5.1.8 or 5.3.9, offerors are unable to estimate labor or costs for the surge CLINs. It is recommended the government state that the surge CLINs, similar to the Travel CLINs where the frequency of travel is unknown, are plug numbers with no deviations permitted. | See answer to Question 2. | See answer to Question 2. | |
| 15 | Volume III - Past Performance, L.4.3 Present and Past Performance References | Contract | The RFP States, "Offeror shall identify a maximum of five references for the prime Offeror as well as a maximum of three references per team member for other divisions, subcontractors, teaming contractors, or joint venture partners expected to perform aspects of the effort that are critical to the overall success of the program." |
Based on the RFP language, JV's are permitted to submit up to 11 past performance references, 5 references for the JV ("the Offeror) and 3 from each JV partner. Since JV partner references are the references for the JV which is the prime Offeror, it is assumed the government's intent is to limit JV's bidding as prime to a total of 5 references combined from the JV's and JV partners. If this assumption is correct, a recommended edit to the language is provided below.
| "Offeror shall identify a maximum of five references for the prime Offeror as well as a maximum of three references per team member for other divisions, subcontractors, or teaming contractors, or joint venture partners expected to perform aspects of the effort that are critical to the overall success of the program. Joint Ventures are limited to a maximum of 5 combined references from the JV or JV partners." | The RFP language as written is not intended to limit JVs to five total references. In the event that a JV prime Offeror actually has past performance as a joint venture entity, then it is in the same position as a non-JV prime Offeror and may submit up to five references. Individual joint venture partners individually are in the same position as subcontractors and may submit up to three references each. | |||||
| 16 | Attachment L-1: Present And Past Performance Information Form (Solicitation Page 96) | Contract | Attachment L-1 states, “Provide the information requested in this form, for each contract being assessed for past or present performance. Provide frank, concise comments regarding your performance on the contracts you identify.” It is assumed, if all requirements are met, the Government will allow offerors to provide the same information prescribed in L-1 in a table format. Is this assumption correct? | Yes, this assumption is correct. The L-1 5-page limit will be applied to information presented in a table format. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 17 | L.2.6.1 Joint Ventures | Contract | The government notes "The Offeror shall provide a complete copy of the agreement(s) that describe(s) the business arrangement between the entities, including its corporate governance construct that will be utilized to effectively manage and accomplish the work required by this contract." |
| If a JV is operating under the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program, it is assumed the JV must provide a letter of approval from the SBA for the Mentor-Protégé relationship between the JV partners as part of the JV documentation. This approval from the SBA is required in order for a JV to bid as a Small Business. Is this assumption correct? | Yes, this assumption is correct and a statement will be added to the RFP. | Section L.2.6.1 revised | ||
| 18 | M.3.2 General Considerations | Contract | Section M.3.2 states, "The Government also will evaluate the Offeror’s professional employee compensation plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46." |
Is it a correct assumption that professional employee compensation plans should be provided in Volume IV - Cost/Price?
| Is it a correct assumption that subcontractors should submit a separate professional employee compensation plan within their sealed packages? | Professional employee compensation plans shall be reflected in the Cost/Price volume as cited in section L.5.4 . Offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. Subcontractors should submit their plans in their Cost/Price proposals as well. | Section L.5.4 revised per legal comments. | ||
| 19 | L.3.3.3.3, Challenge #4 | Contract | The government notes "the management approach should include the proposed skill levels, labor hours and categories, along with milestones to execute the different tasks within this approach." Out of the 4 sample challenge tasks, this is the only task which asks for the offeror to outline the number of hours and labor categories required to accomplish the challenge task. |
| With limited page count and limited detail associated to scope the challenge task to support an estimated number of hours, it is requested the government remove the requirement for an offer to provide hours and labor categories in response to this sample challenge task. | The Government agrees and this will be omitted in the RFP amendment. | Challenge 4 revised | ||||
| 20 | L5.6.1, L5.6.2, L5.6.3 | Contract | Pages 91-93 sections L5.6.1, L5.6.2. Each value in the CLIN estimate is listed in thousands, and the header indicates ($M) which would make it a billion. The same goes for the travel and materials tables in the sections that follow, which are including ($k). This would indicate multiplying the already-listed average estimates by a thousand. Please confirm the true value by either removing the ($M)/($k) or the decimal places necessary to factor the correct estimate. | The Government agrees and this will be corrected in the RFP amendment. | Section L.5.6.1 header revised. Tables corrected in sections L.5.6.2 nor L.5.6.3 | |
| 21 | L.1.1.1 | Contract | The RFP states, “If amendments to the solicitation are issued, all Offerors must acknowledge the amendments by signing the accompanying Standard Form (SF) 30 and returning the signed SF 30 for all amendments issued with the Offeror’s proposal submission.” In the event of a potential amendment, should Offerors put the SF 30 in Volume I – Proposal Documentation as an Appendix? | That is correct add the signed SF30's as an appendix to Volume I. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 22 | L.1.3.3 | Contract | Should the Validity statement be included with Vol. I – Proposal Documentation or Vol. IV – Cost/Price? | Validity statement should be in Volume I | No revision text necessary. | |
| 23 | L.1.3.7.c | Contract | The RFP states, “c. Each electronic file shall be clearly named in accordance with solicitation provision L-1 Submission of Proposals. Electronic proposal files shall not contain classified data.” Does the Government have a preferred naming convention Offerors should adhere to and is there a file size limitation when uploading files to the WAWF PIEE? | Offererors should use the Proposal Organization table (L.1.2) in naming files. File limit size is 15megabyte. | Section L.1.3.7. revised | |
| 24 | L.1.3.7.F; L.5.4, Cost_Spreadsheet | Contract | It is assumed all subcontractors need to fill out and submit the Cost Spreadsheet provided within the RFP as part of their discrete, substantiating rate and pricing data. Is this assumption correct? | That is correct, if subcontractors do not provide the Prime with their cost breakdown they will be required to submit their complete cost proposal to the Government. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 25 | L.1.3.7.F; L.5.4, Cost_Spreadsheet | Contract | The current Cost Spreadsheet is set up for a prime. Assuming subcontractors are required to submit unsanitized pricing using this sheet, are subcontractors populating the "Cost Spreadsheet" to fill out the sheet in a particular format (a separate attachment to be released by the Government for subcontractors, or are allowed to tailor/augment the naming in the current sheet to represent "subcontractor" rather than "prime"? | The subcontractor will use the same cost spreadsheet but only populate the areas of their costing reflecting their total proposed cost. The cost spreadsheet can be tailored to show subcontractor cost proposal. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 26 | L.1.3.7.F; L.5.4, Cost_Spreadsheet | Contract | The current Cost Spreadsheet is set up for a prime. If subcontractors are required to submit unsanitized pricing using this sheet, it is assumed subcontractors populating the "Cost Spreadsheet" are permitted to alter the sheet to represent "subcontractor" rather than "prime." Is this assumption correct? | This assumption is correct. Subcontractors will complete the cost spreadsheet and populate areas/sections that pertain to their complete cost proposal. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 27 | L.5.6.2, Cost_Spreadsheet | Contract | Travel plugs are provided on page 93. However, in the cost spreadsheet attachment there is a Travel tab to provide the travel breakdown. Since the travel amounts are a plug number, it is assumed the Travel tab can be amended to only include the travel plug number. Is this assumption correct? | That is correct; provide the plug numbers as given in the RFP. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 28 | L.5.6.3 | Contract | Material plugs are provided on page 93. However, in the cost spreadsheet attachment there is a Material-Supplies tab to provide the material breakdown. Since the material amounts are a plug number, it is assumed the Materials-Supplies tab can be amended to only include the travel plug number. Is this assumption correct? | That is correct; provide the plug numbers as given in the RFP. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 29 | Cost_Spreadsheet | Contract | For the following sheets within the Cost Spreadsheet, there is only room for the Base and Option 1. It is assumed offerors are permitted to edit the sheet to account for Options 2-4. Is this assumption correct? |
- Consultants
- Materials-Supplies
- Equipment
- Travel
| - ODC Details | This assumption is also correct. Edit spreadsheet to show all appropriat costs for each CLIN, Base year, and all Option years. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 30 | Section 3.0 - Applicable Documents | Section 3.0 indicates that "DTRA OPERATING INSTRUCTION, Research and Development Directorate, Enabling Capabilities Department, Operating Instruction 2 for Test Operations, March 9,2020" is an applicable document. |
| Will the Government please provide this document? | This is an agency internal instruction, for official use only, and cannot be posted to the public for potential Offerors. | No revision text necessary. | ||||
| 31 | Programmatic_Support_PWS_Final, Multiple Sections including; 5.1.3.1 , 5.1.3.2, 5.1.3.6, 5.1.3.7, 5.1.4, 5.1.6, 5.2.3.1, 5.2.2.4, 5.2.4, 5.3.3.1, 5.3.3.4, and 5.3.3.8) | Technical | The final PMO A&AS RFP PWS added a number of tasks that had not appeared in the draft PMO A&AS RFP PWS, but are in the draft SME A&AS PFP PWS. A few such tasks specifically highlighted the need to work in collaboration with the SME A&AS contractor, per the required Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA), while many others did not. Is it correct to assume that the ACA would also apply to the tasks which reside in both PWSs, but do not mention working in collaboration with the SME contractor? | Yes, that is a correct assumption. Where collaboration with the ACA is required to execute a task, it is needed. | No revision text is necessary | |
| 32 | Programmatic_Support_PWS_Final, Multiple Sections including; 5.1.3.2, 5.1.3.5, 5.1.5, 5.3.6 and 5.3.3.7 | Technical | Several tasks under the headings of Requirements Management (5.1.3.2), Policy Support (5.1.5 and 5.3.6), and Project Planning (5.1.3.5 and 5.3.3.7) would appear to benefit from the thought leadership that the SME A&AS contractor may bring to DTRA/RD, but collaboration with the SME A&AS contractor is not specified. Does the Government intend to include these tasks in the SME PWS, as well? Should integration with the SME contractor on these tasks be included in the Associate Contractor Agreeement? | (1) The PWS includes such general statements as "The contractor shall perform as an associate contractor to the SME S&T A&AS contractor, who shall be in an associate contractor role to the Program Support A&AS contractor via an Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA)." and "The contractor shall work closely with the S&T SME A&AS contractor to ensure all scientific and technical analyses, studies, reviews, requirements, etc., are correctly captured and tracked in the performance of their support activities.” This association is implicit in any task that necessitates it and is not explicitly stated throughout the PWS. As written in the PWS, "Any question or issue regarding interaction with the S&T SME A&AS contractor should be brought to the attention of the contracting officer." Therefore, these tasks do not need to be duplicated in the S&T SME PWS. (2) See clause H.3 in the S&T PMO RFP, which sufficiently covers the content for the ACA. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 33 | HDTRA1-20-R-0002 RFP, L.1.3.5.1 (p. 73) | Contract | This section states that 11x17 foldout sheets will be accepted for tables, charts, and graphs. Are foldout pages counted as one (1) page in accordance with stated page limitiations and pages counted? | Each foldout sheet is counted as one page. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 34 | HDTRA1-20-R-0002 RFP, Sections L.4.3 (p. 87) and Attachment L-1 (p. 96) | Contract | This section references use of attachment L-1 for submission of past performance references. Attachment L-1 as provided in the RFP is 3 pages prior to input of any evaluated data by Offerors. To maximize the page limit of 5 pages per reference, can Offerors format Attachment L-1 to utilize tables (with associated 10pt font) which will greatly reduce the "white space" in the current format and allow sufficient page count to address the evaluated factors? | Yes, this is acceptable. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 35 | HDTRA1-20-R-0002 RFP, Section L.3.3 (p. 81) | L.3.3 references inclusion of an Executive Summary with requirements for information on teaming structure, team member roles and responsibilites, etc. The Executive Summary is not included as an evaluation factor. | ||||
| Given the amount of information required, to include introduction of the team, request the government increase the page count for the executive summary to be 4 pages, or allow a Team Table to be provided as part of the executive summary that is outside page count. | The executive summary page limit will be increased to 3 pages. A team table may be provided, but it will be counted within the 3 page limit. | RFP page limit revised from 2 to 3 AND in L.3.2, the executive summary added to the table of contents. | ||||
| 36 | HDTRA1-20-R-0002 RFP, Section L.5.6 (pg 90-91) and Section F - Deliveries or Performance (p. 18) | Contract | This section states, "For purposes of pricing, the contract award will be followed by a planned transition period (estimated at 120 days) prior to requiring the fully operational capability start date of 7 April 2021." However, the POP reflected for CLIN 0001 in Section F is 11/16/2020. 120 days from 11/16/2020 is March 16, 2021 which presents a ~3 week delta in the contract start date. Can the Government please clarify which dates should be used for purposes of accurately factoring transition into pricing? | The sentence will be reworded to state "For purposes of pricing, the contract award will be followed by a planned transition period (starting approximately 16 Nov 2020) prior to requiring the fully operational capability start date of 7 April 2021." | RFP revised adding statement as indicated in response cell. | |
| 37 | PWS Section 3.0, Applicable Documents, pg. 2, bottom | Contract | Request the Government provide the referenced document " DTRA OPERATING INSTRUCTION, Research and Development Directorate, Enabling Capabilities Department, Operating Instruction 2 for Test Operations, March 9, 2020" | See answer to Question 30. | See answer to Question 30. | |
| 38 | Section F, Delivery Information, CLIN 0001, pg. 18, top | Contract | The PoP 16 Nov 2020 - 15 Nov 2021 includes the transition period of 120 days. Current performers may have the opportunity to reduce its transition costs by carrying proposed and existing PMO FTEs on the current A&AS contract. To level the transition cost evaluation, will the Government consider removing transition costs from the evaluation? | The award will be a small business set aside; the incumbent is a large business prime; the Government does not view transition costs as an advantage to the incumbent in this situation. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 39 | Section L.1.2, Organization/Distribution/Number of Copies/Page Limits, Table L.1.2, Volume II, Sub-Factor B, pg. 71, middle | Technical | Table 1.2 Lists 30 pages corresponding to Technical Approach and then includes specific sub-bullets with their own corresponding page limits. In a notice posted on June 23, 2020 on Beta.SAM.gov notice referencing this instruction, Government posted: “The reference to a 30-page technical approach limit has been omitted for the RFP amendment. It is NOT to be interpreted as a separate 30 pages for a technical approach OR as a30-page limit for the three components.” |
| Does the Government require a separate Technical approach to the PWS over and above the requirements for Sample Challenges, Sample Resumes and Key Personnel Resumes? If so, please clarify the number of pages allocated to provide such an approach. And please provide any additional guidance on what specifically Offerors should address. | A separate Technical approach (30-page technical approach limit) is NOT required or asked for over and above the Sample Challenges, Sample Resumes and Key Personnel Resumes. | Text revised to delete 30-page technical approach limit was deleted. | ||||
| 40 | Section L.1.3.5.1 Page Size, pg. 72, bottom | Technical | Instructions state that “Pages shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. The Government will allow 11X17 foldout sheets for tables, charts and graphs (landscape orientation only).” An 11 x 17 foldout sheet is the equivalent to 2 8.5 x 11 inch pages. As a result, extensive use of foldout sheets would allow an Offeror to significant exceed the page limit if such sheets count only as a single page. Please confirm that each side of an 11 x 17 inch foldout sheet counts as 2 pages against the page count. | Refer to Question 33 | Refer to Question 33 | |
| 41 | Section L.1.3.7, Electronic Delivery, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, Travel Tab, note 2, pg. 73, bottom | Contract | Cost spreadsheet, travel tab, note 2 reads "Include a separate section in the above table for the base and each option" Can offerors modify the cost template to include pricing within the travel tab to reflect travel by CLIN as well as by base and each option? | Refer to Question 29 | Refer to Question 29 | |
| 42 | Section L.1.3.7 Electronic Delivery, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, Sheet 1 Tab, pg. 73, bottom | Contract | Attachment 5, Sheet 1 in the cost template is blank. Is that intentional? | The tab on the Cost Spreadsheet is blank and will be deleted. | Tab deleted from cost spreadsheet | |
| 43 | Section L.1.3.7, Electronic Delivery, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, pg. 73, bottom | Contract | Cost spreadsheet in the general and total amount tab does not provide for cost/price by CLIN, only a rollup of total cost/price. Can offerors modify the spreadsheet accordingly to show cost/price by CLIN either through additional worksheets in the cost spreadsheet or modifying the existing cost template? | Offerors may modify spreadsheet by adding additional worksheet tabs to provide costing per CLIN. The added tabs shall be linked to existing tabs . | No revision text necessary. | |
| 44 | Section L.1.3.7, Electronic Delivery, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, pg. 73, bottom | Contract | Are offerors allowed to modify the format of the cost spreadsheet, including adding additional worksheets? | Refer to Question 43 | Refer to Question 43 | |
| 45 | Section L.1.3.7, Electronic Delivery, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, pg. 73, bottom | Contract | Can we add headers and footers to the cost spreadsheet? | Yes headers and footers can be added. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 46 | Section L.1.3.7, Electronic Delivery, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, pg. 73, bottom | Contract | Can we adjust the print ranges in the Excel cost attachment? | Print range to remain as is in existing spreadsheet. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 47 | Section L.1.3.7, Electronic Delivery, pg. 73, bottom | Contract | Paragraph f. reads "In the event proposed subcontractors desire to submit discrete, substantiating rate and pricing data directly to the Government based on the existence of proprietary data, subcontractors may submit their substantiating rate and pricing data directly to the Contracting Officer via email at dtra.belvoir.al.mbx.dtra-rd-services@mail.mil." Are subcontractor required to submit sealed packages directly to DTRA? Should the phrase "may submit" be replaced with "shall submit"? | Subcontractors may submit cost proposals directly to DTRA if they have proprietary information they do not want to provide to the Prime contractor. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 48 | Section L.1.3.7, Electronic Delivery, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, pg. 73, bottom | Contract | Are teaming partners required to use the DTRA furnished Attachment 5 cost template? | All costing is to be provided on the attached Cost spreadsheet. Teaming members cost information can be included in place of subcontractors. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 49 | Section L.2.6, Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Commitment, pg. 76, top | Contract | L.2.6 TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS AND/OR LETTERS OF COMMITMENT states In the absence of these documents, the Offeror and its first-tier subcontractor(s) will not be considered a “Team” and will not be evaluated as such. Are offerors allowed to provide either the teaming arrangements or letters of commitment to meet this requirement, or conversely are both required? | The RFP states "or", which means either one or the other is acceptable (both are not required together). | No revision text necessary. | |
| 50 | Section L.3.3.3.2, Sample Resumes, Attachment L-3: Job Descriptions, pg. 83, bottom | Contract | Are the L-3 positions only applicable to the sample resumes, meaning that offerors are permitted to propose further labor categories and KSAs based on their technical solution? | The L-3 positions are ONLY applicable to the sample resumes and DO NOT include all potential desired / required labor categories and KSAs needed within the technical solution. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 51 | Section L.3.3.3.1, Key Personnel Resumes, pg. 83, middle | Contract | Is a signature required in the Letters of Commitment from the individual named in the letter? If so, are digital signatures acceptable? | Per L.1.3.5.3, the letter must be signed. To clarify, the letter must be signed by the individual and digital signatures are acceptable. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 52 | Section L.4.3, Present and Past Performance References, pg. 86, bottom | Technical | Acknowledging the intention for CPARS was to lessen the administrative burden that numerous past performance citations may place on contracting personnel within federal agencies. Will DTRA allow CPARS to be submitted instead of PPQs? | See answer to Question 13. | See answer to Question 13. | |
| 53 | Section L.4.3, Present and Past Performance References, pg. 86, bottom | Technical | L.4.3 on page 87 of the RFP states that Present and Past Performance Questionnaires “shall be submitted directly to the Government from the reference; questionnaires received from the Offeror will not be considered.” However, L.1.3.5.3 on page 73 of the RFP states that Present and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPPQs; Attachment L-2) shall not be counted against any page limit, which could be interpreted to imply that PPPQs should be included in offerors’ proposals. Please confirm that offerors are NOT required to include completed PPPQs in their proposal volume, in addition to the completed PPPQs provided to the Government by offerors’ references? | Offerors are NOT required to included completed PPPQs in their proposal volume. See L.4.3. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 54 | Section L.5.3.3, Government Furnished Property (GFP)/Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), pg. 88, bottom | Technical | Would the Government please confirm that no additional GFP/GFE currently utilized will be transitioned to the PMO Contractor except for laptops? | No additional GFP/GFE currently utilzed is planned to be transitioned to the PMO Contractor except for Laptops | No revision text necessary. | |
| 55 | Section L.5.3.4.3, Accounting System, pg. 89, middle | Contract | Given the importance of an auditable accounting system for CPFF contracts, recommend the Government require a DCAA approved system. Will the Government modify the RFP to include a DCAA approved accounting system at time of submission? | The RFP will remain as written (see M.3.2). | No revision text necessary. | |
| 56 | Section L.5.4, Cost or Pricing Information and Supporting Documentation, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, Labor&Ind Rates Tab, Note 2, pg. 89, bottom | Contract | Cost Spreadsheet, Labor&Ind Rates Tab, Note 2 reads "Provide the location (section, page) in the proposal's Cost Narrative/Supporting Documentation (BAA para 3.5.2.2.1) to support your price basis (e.g. copy of current payroll record or signed offer letter)" Can DTRA please clarify the location in the solicitation of BAA para 3.5.2.2.1? | The reference to BAA para 3.5.2.2.1 was an over sight and will be removed. | BAA reference removed from cost spreadsheet. | |
| 57 | Section L.5.4, Cost or Pricing Information and Supporting Documentation, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, Labor&Ind Rates Tab, Note 3, pg. 89, bottom | Contract | Cost Spreadsheet, Labor&Ind Rates Tab, Note 3 states "Provide the location (section, page) in the proposal's Technical Basis of Estimate (BAA para 3.5.2.1.1.4) of the rationale for the appropriateness and necessity of the proposed labor categories and the labor hours allocated to each." Can DTRA please clarify the location in the solicitation of BAA para 3.5.2.1.1.4? | Refer to Question 56 | Refer to Question 56 | |
| 58 | Section L.5.4, Cost or Pricing Information and Supporting Documentation, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, Subcontractor Tab, Note 1, pg. 89, bottom | Contract | Cost Spreadsheet, Subcontractor Tab, Note 1 reads "Provide the location (section, page) in the proposal's Cost Narrative/Supporting Documentation (BAA para 3.5.2.2.1) of the cost/price analysis for each individual subcontractor." Can DTRA please clarify the location in the solicitation of BAA para 3.5.2.2.1? | Refer to Question 56 | Refer to Question 56 | |
| 59 | Section L.5.4, Cost or Pricing Information and Supporting Documentation, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, Equipment Tab, Note 1, pg. 89, bottom | Contract | Cost Spreadsheet, Equipment Tab, Note 1 reads "Contractors are normally required to furnish all equipment and/or facilities necessary to perform Government contracts (see FAR 45.102(a)). The Government may allow equipment and/or facilities only under special circumstances. If equipment and/or facilities are proposed, the specific description should identify the component, nomenclature, and configuration of the equipment/hardware that it proposes to purchase for this effort. Q: Given the current facility requirement, is DTRA expecting that the associated facility costs are to be covered under the Materials CLIN? | See L.5.6.3 for material pricing; any other non-labor direct cost should be identified as an ODC or per the contractor's estimating or pricing methodology. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 60 | Section L.5.4, Cost or Pricing Information and Supporting Documentation, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, pg. 89, bottom | Contract | BAA para 3.5.2.1.1.4 and BAA para 3.5.2.2.1 are throughout the cost template. Is this an error? | All BAA references are an error and will be removed. | All BAA references have been removed from cost spreadsheet. | |
| 61 | Section L.5.4, Cost or Pricing Information and Supporting Documentation, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, pg. 89, bottom | Contract | There are references to the BAA throughout the Cost Template, which do not seem appropriate to this type of procurement/contract. Please clarify the relevance of these references. | Refer to Question 60 | Refer to Question 60 | |
| 62 | Section L.5.4, Cost or Pricing Information and Supporting Documentation, Attachment 5: Government Cost Spreadsheet, Travel Tab, pg. 89, bottom | Contract | Within the Travel Tab, should offerors propose the plug numbers? | Refer to Question 27 | Refer to Question 27 | |
| 63 | Section L.5.6, Government Estimates, pg. 90, middle | Contract | Government states that one FTE is equivalent to 1,920 hours with no deviation. The Base Period includes a transition period during which contractor staff will be on boarded in phases (i.e., at different times during the transition period). Because not all contractor staff will be onboard at the start of the contract, please confirm that Offerors should pro-rate the 1,920 hours corresponding to an FTE consistent with the proposed start date of the employee during the transition phase of the Base Period. | Yes, this is correct. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 64 | Section L.5.6.1, Estimated CLIN Costs, pg. 91, top | Contract | Surge PMO RDT&E and CBDP PMO RDT&E Average Value per CLIN ($M) are provided in the RFP. Based on the limited description of the surge task in the PWS and the uncertainty of future events, it is very difficult to estimate the level of effort that might be required under this task. Different assumptions by offerors will result in very different estimated LOEs and Prices, thereby making the Government's evaluation more difficult. For purposes of pricing these surge CLINS, should offerors use the historical values as plug numbers that all offerors are to propose without deviation? If not, please provide additional information on the Government's expectation of support required to allow offerors to accurately price the Surge CLINs. | See answer to Question 2. | See answer to Question 2. | |
| 65 | Section L.5.6.1, Estimated CLIN Costs, pg. 91, top | Contract | This section lists three anticipated categories of education and experience (Entry, Mid-level, Senior). Given the broad scope of the PWS, additional Labor Categories (LCATs) would allow offerors to propose a more specific staffing mix and offer more precise pricing to support this contract. Will the Government allow offerors to propose additional LCATs to provide greater precision in staffing and pricing? | Yes, additional LCATs are allowable. This is implied in the RFP as it states "anticipated." The RFP further states "However, during the contract period of performance, fluctuations in the level of effort of and the specific knowledge, skills, and abilities may occur in response to emerging needs." This allows for flexibility | No revision text necessary. | |
| 66 | Section L.5.6.3, Material Pricing Assumptions, pg. 93, bottom | Contract | For material (software, licenses, tools, etc.) requirements, a plug-in value per year for the DTRARD PMO RDT&E, CBDP PMO RDT&E and RD PMO O&M CLINs is provided below. The material pricing plug values do not apply to the Surge PMO RDT&E and Surge CBDP PMO RDT&E CLINs. Are the values plug number inclusive of applicable burdens? Shall all offers include the plug number in their Volume IV submission? | Yes, the plug number is inclusive of applicable burdens. Yes, all offers shall include the plug numbers where indicated in their Volume IV submissions. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 67 | 252.204-9006 - DTRC SPACE ALLOCATION (JUN 2013) | Technical | Section (a) states DTRA will allocate 50 contractor workspaces. (1) Therefore, is it the contractors responsibility to provide approximately 45 workspace in/around Ft Belvoir, 18 in Crystal City, and 8 in Albuquerque? (2) Is there a Government requirement for these individuals to work daily from a contractor provided office space or is telecommuting authorized for the duration of the PoP? (3) If office space is required, is there a mandatory radius from these locations the office has to be located within at the different site locations? | (1) The 50 contractor workspaces are contractually obligated work spaces that the Government will provide and will be the individual's primary work location. All other contractor personnel should be bid for off-site locations. (2) The contractor work site is dependent on the work and security classification required--where work is classified, it must be performed at a site that is authorized for that classification level, (3) For the PMO contract, there is no mandantory radius between the contractor site/facility and the government site locations. | No revision to text necessary. | |
| 68 | 252.204-9006 - DTRC SPACE ALLOCATION (JUN 2013) | Technical | Without greater detail regarding the Government's actual or preferred FTE breakdown requirements at the Fort Belvoir, Herndon and Reston locations, it is extremely difficult to accurately price or provide office space for off-site personnel. Only the incumbent's team will have this level of information and therefore have a huge competitive advantage over all other competitors based on this knowledge. We request the Government provide off-site staffing requirements for all locations so other competitors have the same level of knowledge the incumbents team has in order to level the playing field and better address the Governments requirements. | This is a small business set aside, which is less of an impact given the incumbent is a large business. The Government would be willing to break out further, but is unable to do so. | No revision to text necessary. | |
| 69 | L.1.3.7 Electronic Delivery | General | Is there any file size limitation for proposal submissions? | Refer to Question 23 | Refer to Question 23 | |
| 70 | L.2.1 VOLUME ORGANIZATION | Technical | Is this the Volume I instructions section? If so, please correct the header so it is identifiable as such. | Editing to add "1" after VOLUME | Updated text | |
| 71 | L.3.3.2.1; Management Approach - Integrated Management Plan | Technical | The Government is requiring us to respond "at a high level" to five bullet areas, one of which contains seven sub-elements and asking for us to address these requirements "at a high level" within 10 pages. We do not believe these response areas can adequately be addressed "at a high level" in the allotted number of pages. Request the Government either raise the IMP page limit to 20 pages or remove the IMP requirement all together and roll all bullet response areas in to the Management Approach section below where we are being asked to provide greater information on much of the same topic areas identified in the IMP. | The government is not intending to change the Management Approach - Integrated Management Plan requirements. | No revision to text necessary. | |
| 72 | L.3.3.2.1; Management Approach - Integrated Management Plan - 1st Bullet | Technical | The Government asks that each offeror provide a "description of the methodology for validating and optimizing the proposed organizational structure during the transition period." We are unsure of what the Government is asking for here and request they provide greater clarity on what they are requesting for us to provide in this statement. | Provide a description of how the offeror will refine (methodology, validation and optimization process) their proposed organizational structure during the transition period, resulting in a final proposed organizational structure at contract start on 7 April 2021. | No text revision necessary | |
| 73 | L.3.3.2.1; Management Approach - Integrated Management Plan - 3rd Bullet | Technical | The Government asks each offeror to "Describe the approach and milestones to effectively work with RD leadership during the transition and post-transition program execution time period to define strategic vision." We are unsure of what the Government is asking for here concerning "to define strategic vision" and request they provide greater clarity on what they are requesting for us to provide in this statement. | Based on "approach and milestones to effectively work with RD leadership during the transition and post-transition program execution time period", be able to define company strategic vision based on RD leadership discussions | No text revision necessary | |
| 74 | L.3.3.2.1; Management Approach - Integrated Management Plan - 5th Bullet | Technical | Within the opening bullet title of "Innovation/Continuous Improvement, Subcontract Management, Workforce, Recruitment and Retention, Risk Management, Personnel Security, Quality Control" there is a comma between Workforce and Recruitment and Retention. Is this a typographical error? The words are combined one page below in the Management Approach section titled "Workforce Recruitment and Retention?" If not an error, please elaborate on what information you are looking for under the subheading of "Workforce?" | There should be no comma between "Workforce" and "Recruitment" | Text revised to take out comma | |
| 75 | L.3.3.2.1; Management Approach - Management Approach - 7th Bullet | Technical | In the Personnel Security paragraph the Government is asking that each offeror "Describe the approach, processes, and milestones, including subcontractors and consultants, to identify, recruit, hire, train and sustain the required personnel needed to comply with security requirements and timelines stated in the PWS." These requirements might be better addressed in the Workforce Recruitment and Retention paragraph instead of this area. Are there any other Personnel Security topics the Government wants addressed here instead of identify, recruit, hire, train and sustain required personnel? | The Government does not intent to make any changes to this criteria. | No text revision necessary | |
| 76 | L.3.3.3 SUB-FACTOR B: TECHNICAL APPROACH | Technical | The Special Notice issued on June 23, 2020 omitted the reference to the 30 page for the technical approach in the amendment. Are offerors permitted to include a opening summary paragraph for this section or is it your desire that we skip straight to resumes? | An opening summary paragraph is not required. | No text revision necessary | |
| 77 | L.3.3.3.1 KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES | Technical | The last line in L.3.3.3.1 states "In support of the resumes, as required: Provide Letters of Commitment." Are these letters required for all Key Personnel candidates or just personnel who are not current employees of our company? If Letter of Commitment are required for all Key Personnel resumes, how does the phrase "as required" apply? | In L.3.3.3.1, the phrase "as required" will be deleted as the Letters of Commitment are required for all Key Personnel resumes. | Text revision made within L.3.3.3.1 | |
| 78 | L.5.0 VOLUME IV – COST/PRICE | Price | Is it the Government's intent that proposed subcontractors submit cost/price volumes? If so, what level of detail does the Government require in the cost/price submission from each proposed subcontractor? | See answer to Question 25 | See answer to Question 25 | |
| 79 | L.5.6. GOVERNMENT ESTIMATES - FTE Breakdown by Department Chart | Technical | With regard to the Full Time Equivalent Breakout by Department section of the table at L.5.6, does the RD-OP number of 20 FTEs also include the Front Office Support? | The RD-OP number of 20 FTEs includes the Front Office Support | No revision text necessary. | |
| 80 | L.5.6.1 Estimated CLIN Costs - Surge CLIN Table | Cost | The Government provides Average $ Value per Surge CLIN but does not provide any hours associated with these costs. Unless the government provides estimate surge hours for each CLIN based on required LCATS, we can not accurately estimate and price the surge CLINS. Please provide number of surge hours by LCAT for each Surge Period or provide guidance on how you want us to price each of the surge CLINS. | See answer to Question 2. | See answer to Question 2. | |
| 81 | L.5.0 VOLUME IV – COST/PRICE | Price | Are subcontractors required to submit their most recent balance sheet, profit and loss statement, and lines of credit certified by an independent accountant? | No, but see statement that follows regarding joint venture partners. | No revision text necessary. | |
| 82 | Attachment L-3: Job Descriptions | Technical | This section provides only the six labor categories (LCATS) with corresponding position descriptions associated with the six required sample resumes. Will the Government be providing any other LCAT descriptions? If you do not, the incumbents team will have an unfair advantage over all other competitors because they are the only ones who know what LCATS and seniority level are required within each of the Departments and Divisions. In order to level the playing field, we request the Government provide a break down by Departments and Divisions of the LCAT, the number of FTEs required for that particular LCAT, and the seniority level of each FTE LCAT that the Government is requiring for this effort. | The six labor categories (LCATS) are examples of potential LCATS only. They are not, nor were they intended to be all comprehensive. LCATs and FTE are dependent upon proposed methodologies, processes and procedures. | No revision text necessary | |
| 83 | M.3.3 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED | Technical | This paragraph states "The Government anticipates awarding one contract under full and open competition." Yet Section I contains 52.219-6 (Dev) | |||
| Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (DEVIATION 2020-O0008). Additionally, the Government previously stated this procurement is a Small Business set aside. We request that the Government clarify its intent. | See answer to Question 3 | See answer to Question 3 | ||||
| 84 | PWS 5.2.3 Financial Management (FM) Support: | General | This section is incorrectly numbered because the previous section Portfolio/Programmatic Management Support is also numbered 5.2.3. We request that the Government correct the numbering in this section of the PWS. | Numbering was corrected | PWS text was updated. | |
| 85 | Attachment 5 - Government Cost | Cost | The spreadsheet has no tab or columns for pricing the CLIN 0005-4005 and 006-4006 surge requirements. Please correct spreadsheet by adding tabs or columns for this information or provide guidance on how you want surge efforts accounted for and priced within the worksheet. | See answer to Question 29 | See answer to Question 29 |
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 .