Questions and Answers through 28 March 2025.pdf

Question

Volume Section / Page Question Response

Request+for+Propos al+-

+W911QY25RA001

3.2.1, p. 54

2.2.1, p. 62

Reference the solicitation numbering below. To enable sequential and unique cross-referencing, please will the Government correct the numbering so that the 3.2.1 proposal instructions align in structure with the 2.2.1 evaluation criteria and that the numbering used is sequential so there are no duplicates (there are currently three

"3.2.1(a)" requirements and two "2.2.1(3)(a)" requirements). Recommend that 3.2.1 be titled "Tasks" and "Program Management (Contractor Task Management" be numbered (1), with the subordinate requirement being numbered (a). Recommend

"Logistics Analysis - Materiel Fielding (Fielding), which is currently unnumbered, be numbered (2), with the subordinate requirement being numbered (a), etc.

3.2.1 Program Management (Contractor Task Management)

a. Demonstrate the ability to provide technical support for all tasking areas of Section

2.1 of the PWS. Logistics Analysis - Materiel Fielding (Fielding)

a. Demonstrate the ability to provide technical support for all tasking areas of Section

2.3 of the PWS. Logistics Analysis - Medical Liaison Support Services (LNO)

a. Demonstrate the ability to provide technical support for all tasking areas of Section

2.4 of the PWS.

Transportation Coordinator

c. Demonstrate the ability to provide technical support for all tasking areas of Section

2.5 of the PWS.

2.2.1 Tasks

(1) Program Management (Contractor Task Management)

a. Whether the proposal demonstrates the ability to provide technical support for all tasking areas of Section 2.1 of the PWS.

(2) Logistics Analysis - Materiel Fielding (Fielding)

a. Whether the proposal demonstrates ability to provide technical support for all tasking areas of Section 2.3 of the PWS.

(3) Logistics Analysis - Medical Liaison Support Services (LNO)

a. Whether the proposal demonstrates the ability to provide technical support for all tasking areas of Section 2.4 of the PWS.

(3) Transportation Coordinator/Logistics Analyst Support Services for FID (Materiel

Fielding)

a. Whether the proposal demonstrates the ability to provide technical support for all

Numbering and formatting corrected.

Request+for+Propos al+-

+W911QY25RA001

4.2, p. 55

Reference the solicitation numbering below. To enable sequential and unique cross-referencing, please will the Government correct the numbering below so it is sequential? Currently, the list skips "d."

Offerors shall include in the past performance volume a list of all the POCs who were sent questionnaires. The POC list shall be submitted in Table

Format to include the following fields:

a. RFP Number

b. Offeror Company Name

c. Contract Number

e. Government Agency

f. Point of Contact: Last Name, First Name; Title; Telephone Number; e-mail address

g. Date the questionnaire was sent to Point of Contact (month/day)

List is corrected

W911QY-25-R-A001 - Materiel Fielding and Medical Liaison Support Services

Questions and Answers through 13 March 2025

Request+for+Propos al+-

+W911QY25RA001

6.0, p. 55

Reference the solicitation numbering below. To enable sequential and unique cross-referencing, please will the Government correct the numbering below so it is sequential? Currently, the numbering skips "5.0."

4.5. Past Performance Information regarding Subcontracting. For proposed subcontractors, recency and relevancy is defined as above, but only in the area of expertise the subcontractor is projected to actually perform under this contract, (i.e. specific areas in the Performance Work Statement

/labor categories).

6.0. VOLUME V: PRICE (FACTOR 3).

List is corrected

Request+for+Propos al+-

+W911QY25RA001

4.1; 4.12, p. 63

Reference the solicitation numbering below. To enable sequential and unique cross-referencing, please will the Government correct the numbering below so it is sequential? Currently, the numbering skips "4.2" through "4.11."

4.1 Total Evaluated Price. The total evaluated price (TEP) consists of the Offeror's fully burdened labor rates proposed in Pricing Sheet (Attachment

0010) that includes a Government estimated Travel and ODC amount, to include all years and option years for the entire contract performance period.

The TEP is a calculation of the full-time equivalent work year (defined as 1880 hours) for each labor category to determine price reasonableness (to include the Governments estimate of Travel and ODC costs).

4.12 Other Pricing Considerations. The assessment of the Price proposal will include consideration of reasonableness and completeness:

List is corrected

Attachment+0001+-

+PWS+PEO+SMD+

Fielding+

Services+staffing

(3)

Attachment+0003+L abor+Cat egories+Position+De scription

+2025FEB20

PWS 2.1.7, p. 5

For the PWS requirement below, there does not appear to be a corresponding labor category. Please advise as to how to assign this work to a labor category. Will the government add an appropriate labor category qualified to perform this work?

PWS-2.1.7 The Contractor shall assist with Government Information (Requirements)

Managers by providing automated information system testing prior to fielding, during and after activities related to deployment of new releases of currently in-use logistics information management systems such as Theater Enterprise-Wide Logistics System

(TEWLS), LOGICOL System, Army Enterprise System Integration Program (AESIP), Global Combat Support System-Army (GCSS- A), Lead Materiel Integrator Decision

Support Tool (LMI-DST), Medical Materiel Mobilization Planning Tool (M3PT) and other systems that are specifically authorized by the PEOS,S, PM SMD FID.

1. Updated 2.1.7 to reflect the resposnibilites of the prgogram manager. 2. Added section 2.3.2.3 to clarify data management responsibilies for pre-fielding task.

Attachment+0001+-

+PWS+PEO+SMD+

Fielding+

Services+staffing

(3)

Attachment+0003+L abor+Cat egories+Position+De scription

+2025FEB20

PWS 2.1.4, pp. 4-5

For the PWS requirement below, there does not appear to be a corresponding labor category. Please advise as to how to assign this work to a labor category. Will the government add an appropriate labor category qualified to perform this work?

PWS-2.1.4 The Contractor shall provide integration of information management business practices and rules into the operational architecture; data dictionaries, and data standards to achieve the objective of cost reductions, performance gains and optimization of resources.

The Govt suggests this task to be fullfilled by a Program

Manager (PM).

Review 2.1.

Attachment+0001+-

+PWS+PEO+SMD+

Fielding+

Services+staffing

(3)

Attachment+0003+L abor+Cat egories+Position+De scription

+2025FEB20

PWS 2.4.13, p. 14

For the PWS requirement below, there does not appear to be corresponding labor categories (this requirement varies in scope). Please advise as to how to assign this work to labor categories. Will the government add the appropriate labor categories qualified to perform this work?

PWS-2.4.13 Provide subject matter expertise and technical, administrative, editorial, and graphics assistance as necessary for the purpose of preparing special reports;

studies; analyses; and briefing papers on various process matters related to FID business support operations.

The Govt suggests this task to be fullfilled by a Medical

Liaison Support Services (LNO). Review 2.4.

Request+for+Propos al+-

+W911QY25RA001

1.11(b)

There are 10 key personnel positions that require resumes, but there is no proposal instruction indicating where resumes should be included, what page count is allocated

(recommend at least 30 for 10 resumes), and what format should be used for the resumes.

b. Resumes and Past Performance may be single spaced and shall be no smaller than equivalent to Times New Roman 10 Point.

Key Personnel Resumes will be included under the Technical factor. These will not count against the page count.

Request+for+Propos al+-

+W911QY25RA001

EO 11246, p. 40

Executive Order 11246 has been rescinded. As such, should para (d) (and any other portions citing EO 11246) of the Reps/Certs be removed (52.212-3 Offeror

Representations and Certifications-Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

(May 2024))?

(d) Representations required to implement provisions of Executive Order11246-

(1) Previous contracts and compliance. The offeror represents that-

(i) It [ ] has, [ ] has not participated in a previous contract or subcontract subject to the

Equal Opportunity clause of this solicitation; and

(ii) It [ ] has, [ ] has not filed all required compliance reports.

(2) Affirmative Action Compliance. The offeror represents that-

(i) It [ ] has developed and has on file, [ ] has not developed and does not have on file, at each establishment, affirmative action programs required by rules and regulations of the Secretary of Labor (41 CFR parts 60-1 and 60-2), or

(ii) It [ ] has not previously had contracts subject to the written affirmative action programs requirement of the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Labor.

Please see Amendment 0001 with corrections.

10 Request+for+Propos al+-

+W911QY25RA001

1.11(b) Will the Government consider extending the proposal by three weeks to enable (1) the

Government to correct issues in the solicitation, (2) a fix for the technical issues identified with the opportunity record on SAM.gov that are preventing bidders from following the opportunity (which puts timely notifications of changes at risk for bidders, and (3) bidders the time required to identify and prepare resumes for all ten key personnel?

No extentions will be made. You may follow the RFP in

SAM.gov by selecting the "Follow" button located on the upper right hand corner of the listing: RFP_SMD_Fielding

Request+for+Propos al+-

+W911QY25RA001

4.2, p. 55

Will the Government please clarify whether you expect to receive one (1) PPAQ for each past performance contract reference (up to three (3) for the prime and one (1) per subcontractor), which could be 7 PPAQs for a prime with four subcontractors, as an example. Or is the requirement to submit no more than three (3) PPAQs, even if the submitt past performance references include a total of 7 or more contracts? This impacts what PPAQs we send out to be received by Government by the proposal deadline, so a timely answer is critical.

Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire: The offeror shall send out up to but no more than three (3) Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires (PPAQs) to each of the Points of Contact (POCs) identified in the Past Performance Volume. Only one

PPAQ is needed per Past Performance. The POCs should submit completed questionnaires directly to the government POCs patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil and trisha.r.scott.civ@army.mil no later than the proposal submission deadline specified in the RFP. The Subject Line of the emailed questionnaire submission shall be:

"PPAQs RFP # W911QY-25-R-A001 - (Offeror's Company Name)" as specified in the questionnaire.

We only require one (1) PPAQ per Past Performance example.

Attachment+0001+-

+PWS+PEO+SMD+

Fielding+Services+s taffing (3)

Attachment+0003+L abor+Categories+Po sition+Description+

2025FEB20

PWS 2.1.7, p. 5

PWS 2.1.4, pp. 4-5

PWS 2.4.13, p. 14

We seek clarification regarding the recent amendments to the scope of work for key personnel, specifically pertaining to the roles of Program Manager and Medical

Liaison Support Services (LNO). As you are aware, these positions are highly specialized, and the recent scope expansion introduces non-traditional responsibilities that are not typically associated with these roles. Given the limited timeframe of three weeks remaining for proposal submission, we are concerned about the potential challenges in identifying and securing candidates who not only meet the original qualifications but also possess the skill set required for the expanded duties. This situation may inadvertently create a competitive advantage for the incumbent, who may have pre-existing resources and relationships aligned with these new requirements. We are committed to ensuring the highest quality of personnel for this project but are concerned about the feasibility of achieving this under the current constraints. In light of these circumstances, will the government consider extending the proposal submission deadline to allow all bidders a fair opportunity to adjust to the changes and ensure compliance with the updated requirements?

Response for 2.1.7 - The government clarified the roles and responsibilities of the existing PM and Logistic Analyst (Not the

LNO). The government added language into sect. 2.3.2.3. The

Logistics Analyst responsibilities for data download and synchronization is not a new task. It was added to clarify the difference bewtween PM and Logisitcs Analyst duties. Response

2.1.4 - The government views this as the PM's responsibilty.

Response 2.4.13 - This task has historically been the responsibility of the LNO. No extention will be granted.

Section L, Section

2.4, page 53

Could you please confirm if the DD Form 254 should have Block 1a marked as

"Secret" and Block 1b marked as "Confidential"?

Blocks 1a and 1b are correct. No KTR will store classified material at vendor location.

3 All volumes

RFP pg. 59, Section

1.3.3: Factor 2

Evaluation Scale

Question: Would the government please confirm that the "Neutral Confidence" and

"Unknown Confidence (Neutral)" are the same Performance Confidence Assessment?

Recommendation: Eliminate "Unknown Confidence (Neutral)."

Justification: Reduce the likelihood of an administrative error.

We will remove "Unknown Confidence" rating.

Questions and Answers through 18 March 2025 mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil mailto:patrick.j.wallace3.civ@army.mil

Volume III -

Technical (Factor 1)

RFP pg. 62, Section

2.4: SUBFACTOR 4

Question: Would the government please confirm that Section 2.4 (SUBFACTOR 4) is not relevant and should be deleted?

Recommendation: Delete Section 2.4.

Justification: Reduce the likelihood of an administrative error.

Reference to 2.4 (Subfactor 4) will be removed from the RFP.

Volume III -

Technical (Factor 1)

RFP pg. 54, Section

3.2.2: Experience

"Question: Would the government please verify that bidders do not require a signed letter of intent for Key Personnel they intend to hire who are current employees of the current prime contractor (incumbent)?

Recommendation: Replace the statement to read, ""Offerors do not have to provide a letter of intent for individuals proposed as key personnel who are current employees of the incumbent contractor.""

Justification: The way the RFP is currently worded is not clear if the government is referring to the current ""prime contractor"" or the future ""prime contractor.""

Requiring LOIs for incumbent personnel does not serve the government's best interest because it introduces unnecessary administrative burdens, limits competition, and does not provide assurance of personnel availability. In lieu of this, the government is already focusing on transition planning and the management approach."

(Update: Refer to answer posted in Question 1 within the Q&A from March 19th - 20th.)

This is correct. RFP pg. 54 - "Offerors do not have to provide a letter of intent for individuals proposed as key personnel who are current employees of the prime contractor. Offerors shall include a letter of intent for any other individual proposed as key personnel to include subcontractor employees, teaming partner employees, and consultants."

The Govt will add the term incumbent to this section for clarification; "Prime/Incumbent".

Volume III -

Technical (Factor 1)

PWS pg. 8, Section

2.1.17: Continuity

Of Operations Plan

(COOP) –

Deliverable 7 –

CDRL A007; PWS

pg. 20, Section 4.6:

Deliverable/Delivery

Schedule

Question: Is Deliverable 7/CDRL A007 a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) or a

Contingency Operations Plan (COP)?

Recommendation: Choose between a COOP and a COP and update the appropirate section(s) of the PWS.

Justification: PWS pg. 8 lists Deliverable 7 as a COOP, whereas the

Deliverable/Delivery Schedule table on PWS pg. 20 lists Deliverable 7 as a COP.

Corrected to be Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) in the deliverable schedule in PWS 4.6 pg 19

Volume III -

Technical (Factor 1)

PWS pg. 4, Section

2.1.1

Question: Will the government please clarify that transition in and out are discussed in

PWS Section 2.1.14, not 2.5?

Recommendation: Correct Section 2.1.1 to reference Section 2.1.14: Transition

Support.

Justification: PWS pg. 4 states, "The Contractor will oversee and supervise staff assigned to this contract, including transition in and out as described in PWS section

2.5." PWS Section 2.5. is Transportation Coordination.

Corrected PWS 2.1.1 to reflect correct PWS location of 2.1.14.1.

The transition in plan is a required document with your proposal.

It will not be listed in the PWS 4.6 delivearble/delivery schedule for post award.

Technical (Factor 1)

PWS pg. 17, Section

2.7.2: Fielding

Mission Support

Question: Will the government please provide the correct Logistics Analysis PWS sections that offerors shall reference when responding to PWS 2.7.2: Fielding Mission

Support?

Recommendation: Correct Section 2.7.2 to reference accurate Logisitcs Analysis sections/subsections (e.g., 2.3: Logistics Analysis, 2.4: Medical Liaison Support

Services, etc.).

Justification: PWS pg. 17 states, "The Contractor shall support all tasks listed in

Section 2.1.5 Logistics Analysis - Fielding and Section 2.1.7 Logistics Analysis -

Medical Liaison Support Services." PWS Sections 2.1.5 and 2.1.7 are subsections to

Program Management (Contractor Task Management), not Logistics Analysis.

Corrected PWS 2.7.2 to align to sections 2.3 Logisitics Analysis -

Fielding and 2.4 Medical Liaison Support Services.

"2.7.2 Fielding Mission Support The Contractor shall support all tasks listed in Section 2.3 Logistics Analysis- Fielding and

Section 2.4 Logistics Analysis– Medical Liaison Support

Services"

W911QY25RA0010

003 (Conformed +

Copy) RFQ

Section 3.2.2, Page

54, paragraph starting with "For those individuals proposed as Key

Personnel…."

In order to avoid the possibility of an improper “bait and switch” for an offeror’s proposed key personnel and to avoid knowingly misrepresenting the availability of key personnel to the offeror, for those individuals who an offeror is not required to provide a signed Letter of Intent pursuant to Section 3.2.2. of Addendum to 52.212-1, will the Government require evidence that an offeror has discussed with each individual proposed for a key personnel position the intention of the offeror to propose him/her as a key personnel and that he/she has confirmed his/her willingness to perform as a key personnel in the identified position for the offeror should the offeror be awarded the contract?

(Update: This response supercedes Question 5 of Questions and

Answers dated 3/18/2025.)

This is an internal business decision. Letters of Intent must be provided IAW Section 3.2.2 of Addendum 52.212-1.

Revision to Section 3.2.2 of Addendum 52.212-1:

"All offerors are required to provide letters of intent for all proposed key personnel."

2 RFP

3.1.2, page 54

2.1.2, page 62

Seeking guidance on how detailed our Quality Control Plan (QCP) needs to be: RFP

3.1.2 refers to the development of a "self-inspection plan." Addendum to Evaluation section 2.1.2 later refers to the incorporation of the QCP into the awarded contract.

For the current / incumbent contract, did the Government solely incorporate the awardee's QCP, or did it require the awardee to develop a Quality Assurance

Surveillance Plan (QASP) post-award to be used ? Put another way, does the

Government intend to utilize this "self-inspection plan" as the basis for a QASP on this new contract, or it is solely expressed through the Offeror's QCP?

The government intends to update the QASP to incorporate elements of the offeror's QCP to create an approapriate evaluation tool of deliverables and services. The government has provided the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) -

Attachment 0007 in the solicitation which will assist in the development of your QCP. Attachment 0007 will be a living document throughout contract performance.

The QCP is the contractor's internal playbook for doing the work right. The QCP should focus on the offeror's internal processes for delivering services to meet the contractual requirements.

3 PWS 2.1.2, page 4

This question relates to contributing to the "efficient and effective operation of assigned programs." Will the Contractor be required to develop and/or enhance

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)?

The government is not directing offerors to develop SOP's.

However, Offerors can add value / enhance operations by making recommendations to improve processes that would support the "efficient and effective operation of assigned programs."

Questions and Answers through 20 March 2025

4 PWS 2.1.2, page 4

What does the reference to the Contractor's conduct of "life-cycle management reviews" relate to? Medical product life-cycle? Product life-cycle analysis and support? Other?

The definition of Lifecycle Management regarding this PWS is -

Research and review of equipment items and data systems in coordination with the materiel developers and Chief of Fielding.

(ie. review and provide instructions on dispostion instruction/ review unit authorizations to identify dead-line or obsolete equipment it is also to identify shortages or overages / data managment of equipment items into Army automation systems etc).

5 PWS

2.1.17, page 8

2.1.13, page 6

Section 2.1.17 states: "The Contractor shall prepare and submit a COOP (Deliverable

7) to the Government. The COOP shall be due ten (10) calendar days after the award of the order…" Can the Contractor assume that certain COOP information needs to be coordinated during the Kickoff meeting? If so, that the COOP may contain information requested and/or received by the Contractor during the Kickoff meeting

(Section 2.1.13, page 6), will the Government commit to providing the Contractor with information relevant/needed in the COOP between the Kickoff meeting

(potentially as late as D+7) and the COOP delivery date (D+10)?

The vendor will be issued the Govt's COOP at the Kickoff

Meeting and will be provided 30 days to develop their own

COOP.

An element of consideration for devloping the KTR's COOP is the Govt authorization memo that allows the contracted staff to enable fielding mission to continue in the absence of government personnel in case of government shut down or environmental emergencies.

6 PWS

2.2.1, page 10

Attachment 3

Section 2.2.1 refers to the Contractor handling Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements. Are the "Management Analyst - Materiel Fielding" resources identified in Attachment 3 responsible for conducting FOIA activities? Alternatively or jointly, is the Administrative Assistant - Junior, Materiel Fielding, involved in these activities as well? What is the level (count) of FOIA cases being handled per year? Are

Contractor resources assigned to this project expected to process FOIA cases using a system such as FOIAExpress?

The term FOIA will be removed from the PWS as the Govt is responsible for processing FOIA.

7 PWS 2.5.3, page 15

What system or application is the Contractor expected to use to "... monitor and track the transportation and receipt of global medical equipping needs in operational mission requirements and contingencies"? Put another way, is this "monitoring" or

"tracking" functionality Government or Contractor provided?

Yes, the systems are government systems. Contractor will support tracking and monitoring. Some of the following sytems and applications, but not limited too, include Theater Enterprise-

Wide Logistics System (TEWLS), IGC -- Intgrated Data

Environment (IDE) and Global Tranportation Network (GTN), LTS (AF Logistics Tool Suite), Single Mobility System (SMS), Distribution Material Tracker (DSS) Material Tracker, GCSS-A-

Global Combat Support System, DHL, FEDEX, National Air

Cargo and many other carrier sites.

8 PWS 2.5.4, page 15

This section states "Contractor shall assist with providing transportation guidance.."

Please clarify the level of "guidance" the Government expects the Contractor to provide. Example: Routing and shipping options?

Contractor will be expected to track and monitor shipments departing from DLA Assembly sites as well as three maintenance depots. Coordination is expected for POCs assigned at those locations to gather tracking information to update running tracking spreadsheet with all relavent tracking informatoin and expected delivery dates. This information will be utlized to sync

RM and FID leadership.

9 PWS 2.5.6, page 16

This section states: "The contractor shall collaborate with stakeholders in resolving transportation related conflicts/discrepancies. The contractor shall validate shipments to ensure proper placard markings." 1) Please define who the "stakeholders" are in this requirement. 2) Please confirm if the Contractor is expected to physically inspect the packaging of materiels (i.e., during kitting) prior to shipment.

1. The stakeholders are DLA Assembly, Medical Maitnenance

Depots (MMODs), Gaining Units and FID RMs and leadership.

2. The contractor will not be required to physically inspect the packaging of materiels prior to shipment.

10 2.4.17. Attachment 1 PWS

Will the government support granting full access to authorized Army Automation

Systems and offer training for any new key personnel during and after the 30-day transition period?

Yes, the government will support gaining full access to all relevant systems. Training will be provided as needed and required for key personnel during and after the 30 day transition period.

11 3.5 Attachment 1 PWS

Considering new limitations on use of GOV Purchase Cards by DOD Personnel, will contractor be able make minor credit card purchases of supplies at fielding sites in order to ensure mission success? Office supplies, tools, etc.

Yes, contractor will be authorized to make minor purchases in relation to materials and supplies required to directly support mission. These purchases must be annotated with receipts provided to the COR for approval via WAWF billing against the

ODC CLIN.

12 5.1 Attachment 1 PWS

Will the Med LNOs have access to previously arranged office space (via incumbent) at AFSBs or other prior negotiated gov owned office/cube space with access to a Gov

Network switch and printer? Or is the expectation for the contractor to lease office space off base?

Medical LNOs will have access to space currently occupied at assigned AFSBNs (Ref PWS 5.1). Space is available at Fort

Detrick as referenced on Attachment 10, Reference on

Attachment 10 to contractor site will be the contractors requirement to obtain

13 Vol. V Attachment 0010

Pricing Sheet

The pricing sheet provided with Amendment 2 does not correspond with Attachment

0003. Will the government please clarify row ten in the pricing sheet is for Logistics

Analyst II instead of Logistics Analyst III?

Attachment 10 and Atttachment 03 are correct: Lines 8, 9 and 10 on the pricing sheet (attachment 10) make up the Log Analyst III as well as the Log Analyst III Transportation Coordinator (total hours 24,440) on Attachment 03. Line 11 on the pricing sheet

(attachment 10) aligns with attachment 03 for Logistics Analyst

II (total hours 26,320)

1 PWS 2.1.22 / 10

Section States: The Contractor shall utilize the key personnel on this contract for those areas of support indicated in section 2.11, Key Personnel. There is no Section 2.11

Key Personnel in the PWS or RFP, will the Government identify the sections of the

PWS or RFP for which key personnel are required to be utilized?

Changed to: "The Contractor shall utilize the key personnel on this contract for those areas of support indicated in section 1.4, Key Personnel."

2 RFP 1.13 / 53

Section 1.13 Proposal Submission Requirements and Page Limitations describes a searchable PDF Price Narrative to be included with Volume V - Price (Factor 3). Will the Government please provide instructions or guidance as to what should be included in the Price Narrative document?

The pricing narrative is used to justify the pricing of the proposal.

3 PWS 2.1.14.1 / 54

Due to the criticality of ensuring continuity of Government operations at contract transition, we recommend that the Government add the following requirement to PWS

Section 2.1.14.1 as an issue to be addressed by offerors in the Incoming Transition

Plan: “Quality and availability of key personnel at contract award date.”

The government does not accept the recommendation. Reference change or edit in 2.1.21 "Substitutions of proposed Key

Personnel shall not be allowed for a period of six months after the incoming transition period".

1 Week Extention on the Proposal Due Date made Submissions Due 16 April 2025

Questions and Answers through 28 March 2025

4 RFP 1.13 / 52

Below Volume III, it states "Quality Control Plan, Resumes, and Incoming Transition

Plan do not count towards page limitations." The Program Management Plan appears to have been omitted and would currently be included in the page limitations. Will the

Government please add the Project Management Plan to the list of documents not included in the page limitations?

PMP will not be counted towards page limitations for Subfactor

1. RFP will be revised accordingly.

5 RFP 3.0 - 3.2.1 / 53-54

Section 3.2.1 of the RFP states: "The Offeror should submit a written technical approach which effectively demonstrates the Offeror's clear understanding of all the tasks in PWS Sections 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 to include a description of appropriate techniques, methods, and processes the Offeror plans to use to accomplish the tasks and how the approach is likely to yield the required results within the required time frame."

There is no mention in Volume III evaluation factors of PWS Section 2.2, Management Analysis Support Services; Section 2.6, Specific Tasks; or Section 2.7, Surge Support – (Optional Tasks). Is an Offeror required to address these three sections? Are these three sections not subject to evaluation as part of the award decision?

The Govt will add evaluation factors of PWS Section 2.2, Management Analysis Support Services; Section 2.6, Specific

Tasks;Sections 2.2 to Section L and M and to the RFP. The Govt determines that an extention of a week is warretned for the addion of these sections.

Refer to edits made to the listing in 3.2.1 in Addendum 52.212-1 as the ordering of the list has changed.

Revised Soliciation Due DATE: 16 April 2025

6 RFP 1.13 / 53

Under Volume IV - Past Performance (Factor 2), it states that "Each Past

Performance Information Sheet shall not exceed three (3) pages. The Table of

Contents, Consent Letters, if required, do not count against the page count." Consent

Letters are not mentioned anyplace else in the RFP. Will the Government please clarify the intent and requirements for Consent Letters?

Consent letters are used to obtain authorization from a subcontractor or teaming arangement to provide their past performance information. The consent letters to not count towards PP. The Govt is increasing the page limitations of PP to six (6) pages. Please review Question 9 in the Q&A dated 28

March 2025.

7 RFP 3.2.2 / 54

At Section 3.2.2 Experience, the last paragraph describes the requirement for Letters of Intent for Key Personnel. The RFP does not state where the Letters of Intent should be included in a proposal and whether the Letters of Intent will count against page limitations. Will the Government clarify where Letters of Intent should be located in the proposal and whether the Letters of Intent are not to be counted toward page limitations? We recommend that the Letters of Intent be included in Volume III –

Technical (Factor 1), Subfactor 1: Management Approach with the Letters of Intent not being counted towards page limitations.

The Govt will clarify that the LOI are to be submitted under

Subfactor 2 and do not count towards page count.

8 Attachment 0011 Cover Letter for

PPAQ

Will the government please correct the NAICS in the cover letter from 541611 to

541990 to coincide with the solicitation NAICS?

The correct NAICS code for this requiremnt is 541990.

9 RFP 4.2, p. 55

To enable a comprehensive response of directly relevant work against the PWS and to satisfy the evaluation criteria for past performance, we are requesting an additional three pages for each past performance contract reference.

The Govt accepts your recommendation and will adjust the page count to 6.

10 RFP 4.2, p. 55

To enable comprehensive response of directly relevant approaches and experience against the PWS and to satisfy the evaluation criteria for Subfactor 2, which requires we address the PWS elements twice (in technical and again in experience) we are requesting an additional five pages for Subfactor 2.

The Govt reviewed and does not accept the recommended change.

11 PWS 5.1 8

Regarding the "contractor site" requirement: The PWS specifies work at the contractor's facility. Does this specifically refer to a centralized facility provided by our organization, or does it also allow for our personnel to perform work remotely from their individual locations?

The site needs to support the Army NIPR circuit and MFD. FAR

7.108 allows contractors to telecommute (remote work).

However, printing must occur at the contractor site with the

Army NIPR connected MFD.

Regarding clearance requirements for candidates: Do proposed candidates need to have an active Secret clearance at the time of submission, or would candidates whose

Secret clearances expired within the past two years be acceptable? Our experience has been that an expired Secret clearance can typically be reactivated within approximately 45 days, with interim reactivation achievable within two to three weeks

The Govt clarrified Phase 1 evaluations to state that sectret clearences on an individual level must be active for Key personnel at date of proposal submission. There are no interim clearances allowed. See pg 58 of the RFP.

13 Volume IV 52

1.13 of the RFP references a "Past Performance Information Sheet", however this is not included as an attachment with the RFP or further referenced. Does the government have a template/sheet with a format you'd prefer that we place past performance information into

Refer to Volume IV - Past Performance. The PPI are the elements listed under 4.0. Contract Description, Performance

Description

14 Volume IV

Offerors are to include a list of all POCs past performance questionnaires were sent

to. Offerors are allowed 3 pages per past performance information sheet. Would this list of customer POCs be included in that page limitation?

Yes. The page limitations for Volume IV Past Performance will be increased to six (6) pages.

15 Volume IV Are consent letters required to be included with past performance information from subcontractors?

Yes, they are required for subcontractors teaming arangments.

(All information that is not your own company's)

16 Volume IV

"The offeror shall also submit no more than 1 reference for each Subcontractor proposed" - is this in addition to the 3 references that can be included from the Prime, or is the subcontractor reference included in the 3?

The offeror who is proposing as the Prime Contractor for this effort, shall provide no more than 3 PP of its own. If an offeror is subcontracting part of the work, provide no more than 1 PP of theirs.

17 NA

Attachment 0011

(PPQ)

Can the government please provide an editable version of Attachment 0011 so that government/customers will be able to fill it out.

The Govt will upload a copy that may be easier to edit. However, you may fill out the form manualy and scan.

18 III

Subfactor 2:

Fielding Support

Will the government please confirm that PWS Section 2.2: Management Analysis

Support Services was intentionally ommited from being addressed in Subfactor 2.

Refer to question 5 in this Q&A response dated 28 March 2025.

This element of fielding support will be included in Sections L and M.

19 III

Subfactor 2:

Fielding Support

If PWS Section 2.2: Management Analysis Support Services is to be addressed by

Offerors in their proposal, will the government please clarify where you would like

Offerors to put our response?

See above

20 III

Incoming Transition

Plan

In order to not be counted towards Subfactor 1: Management Approach, can Offerors submit their Incoming Transition Plan via separate file similar to the PMP and QCP?

Incoming Transition Plan do not count towards page limitations.

21 NA Resumes and LOIs Can the government clarify where Resumes and LOIs are to be included in the

Offerors proposal?

Adjustments have been made to the RFP. Resumes and LOI shall be submitted under Subfactor 2: Fielding Support and do not count towards page limitations.

22 NA PWS 5.1

Is there an acceptable required distance from Ft. Detrick for the contractor site with the Government network switch and multi-functional printer/copy/scanner?

The contractor must be within the United States. However, the vendor should consider commerical space that is intergrated with the Army NIPR network. For non-intergrated office space, the

Contractor would have to pay to add an Army NIPR ciruit to the site.

23 NA PWS 5.1 What capacity printer/copy/scanner is required?

The MFD for use at the contractor's facility is a contractor's decision. The estimated pages printed per month is less than

5,000 pages.

24 Attachment 0009 Q & A Does the Q&A from the Draft Solicitation apply to the Final Solicitation?

Govt revisions were made from the draft solictiation Q&A input to the final RFP. However, Amendments have been issued to the final RFP which may or may not alter some of our initial responses.

Volume III -

Technical (Factor 1)

RFP pg. 54, Section

3.2.2: Experience

Question: Will the government please verify that bidders are not required to submit resumes for key personnel they intend to hire who are current employees of the incumbent contractor?

Recommendation: Amend Section 3.2.2 to read, "Offerors do not have to provide a resume or letter of intent for individuals proposed as key personnel who are current employees of the incumbent contractor."

Justification: The current instructions regarding resumes do not clearly indicate whether the government requires resumes for key personnel who are current employees of the incumbent contractor. Requiring resumes for incumbent personnel does not serve the government's best interest because it introduces unnecessary administrative burdens and limits competition. In lieu of this, the government is already focusing on transition planning and the management approach.

Revision to Section 3.2.2 of Addendum 52.212-1:

"All offerors are required to provide letters of intent for all proposed key personnel."

Volume III -

Technical (Factor 1)

RFP pgs. 53-54, Section 3.1.1:

Program

Management Plan

(PMP); RFP pg. 52, Section 1.13:

Proposal Submission

Requirements and

Page Limitations

Question: Would the government please clarify whether the Program Management

Plan (PMP) shall be included as an external attachment to the non-cost proposal or within Volume III - Technical (Factor 1) Subfactor 1: Management Approach?

Recommendation: Require the PMP to be an attachment to the non-cost proposal, not included within Volume III - Technical (Factor 1) Subfactor 1: Management

Approach.

Justification: RFP Section 3.1.1 (PMP) states, "Offerors shall include, as an attachment to their non-cost / price proposal, a PMP. This is confusing because RFP page 52, Section 1.13 states that only the Quality Control Plan, Resumes, and the

Incoming Transition Plan do not count towards page limitations. We are currently planning to submit a Volume III (Technical) that does not exceed 40 pages (consisting of 20 pages for Management Approach and 20 pages for Fielding Support), as well as a separate PMP.

PMP will not be conted towards the page limitations for Volume

III.

Technical (Factor 1)

RFP pg. 54, Section

3.2.1: Program

Management

(Contractor Task

Management); PWS pgs. 4-9, Section

2.1: Program

Management

(Contractor Task

Management)

Question: Will the government please consider moving evaluation criteria Program

Management (Contractor Task Management) in RFP Section 3.2.1 from SubFactor 2

(Fielding Support) to SubFactor 1 (Management Approach)?

Recommendation: Move evaluation criteria Program Management (Contractor Task

Management) in RFP Section 3.2.1 from SubFactor 2 (Fielding Support) to SubFactor

1 (Management Approach).

Justification: The scope of tasks in PWS Section 2.1 encompass more than the

Fielding Support segment of work and reflect the overall scope of the program.

The Govt reviewed and does not accept the recommended change. PMP addresses policy of a contractor that impacts the overall effort. However, the tasks in Subfactor 2: Fielding

Support are directed at the Program Managers tasks.

Volume IV - Past

Performance (Factor

2)

RFP pg. 54, Section

4.0: Volume IV: Past

Performance (Factor

2); RFP pgs. 59-60, Section 1.3.3: Factor

2 Evaluation Scale;

RFP pg. 63, Section

3.0: Factor 2: Past

Performance

(Volume IV)

Question: How is an offeror's past performance evaluation rating impacted by the number of past performance references they submit? For example, if Offeror A submits only 1 very relevant reference and Offeror B submits 1 very relevant and 1 somewhat relevant reference (2 references total), who would receive an overall higher confidence rating? Would Offeror B's overall rating be brought down by their 1 somewhat relevant reference, leaving Offeror A with a superior rating even though they only submitted 1 reference?

Justification: RFP 3.0(4): Past Performance Rating Methodology states, "...A negative finding under any aspect may result in an overall low confidence rating. Offerors are encouraged to include all relevant past efforts regardless of perceived evaluation rating. Each contract submitted by the Offeror to substantiate past performance will be rated for relevancy...This relevancy rating will be used when considering how much weight to ascribe to each contract in determining the overall confidence rating as described in Section 1.3.3 above." The criteria above is unclear and seems contracdictory: While it is beneficial to the government to have several references to evaluate from each offeror, it seems like a risk for an offeror to submit multiple references if some references are potentially weaker than others. If "a negative finding under any aspect may result in an overall low confidence rating," it does not seem to be in the offeror's best interest to "include all relevant past efforts regardless of perceived evaluation rating," as the RFP states. In other words, it seems to be in the best interest of the offeror to only submit those references they anticipate being rated as very relevant, even if that is just a single reference.

Evaluations will be conducted IAW to Section 1.3.3 Factor 2

Evaluation Scale.