MTSS_QA_11March24_ForIndustry.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 46 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Synopsis - Yuma Mission Test Support Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
This document provides a presolicitation synopsis for the Yuma Mission Test Support Services contract. The United States Army Test and Evaluation Command requires test support services at Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona, including designing and conducting experimental operations, collecting and analyzing data, and reporting findings. The incumbent contract is set to expire on 31 March 2025. The new requirements are anticipated to result in a single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a seven-year period of performance comprising a five-year ordering period and two one-year option periods. The request for proposal is projected to be released on 1 April 2024. The services will support testing military weapons and equipment for the Department of the Army Materiel Command Mission and Installation Contracting Command at Yuma Proving Ground.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| W9124R24R0004_11MAR24_Letter_from_the_KO.pdf | ||
| W9124R24R0004_1MAR24_Letter_from_the_KO.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
| Yuma MTSS- W9124R-24-R-0004 - Question & Answer Log |
| CS: Amanda Ramirez, Amanda.M.Ramirez24.civ@army.mil PCO: Jennifer Hastedt, Jennifer.L.Hastedt2.civ@army.mil |
| Q # | Subject | Attachment or # RFP Section | Document Paragraph # | Question/Comment | A # | Answer | |
| Q.1 | Industry Day | N/A | N/A | Will the slides presented at Industry Day be made available to potential offerors? We recommend they be made available, as a minimum, to Industry Day attendees. All of them contained the footer "Unclassified. Approved for Public Release." None were labeled CUI. The expectation from many attendees was the slides would be provided via SAM.gov, via email, or secure portal to attendees. In a conversation with the Contract Specialist at Industry Day, it was communicated they would not be made available due to OPSEC considerations. If any OPSEC information is contained in the slides it could be redacted, and the slides can be posted. | A.1 | The slides will be posted to SAM.gov. | |
| Q.2 | Technical | N/A | N/A | Will the status of future infrastructure improvements be communicated to potential offerors? In at least one of the briefings, there was mention of critical infrastructure improvements (i.e., digitizing the range) that could significantly impact offeror's approach to bidding on the contract. These improvements would be known by the incumbent contractor andcould be factored into their proposal. Other offerors would not be aware of the variables to consider for their proposal. | A.2 | All known future improvements will be included in the RFP and PWS or amended RFP. | |
| Q.3 | Acquisition Timeline | N/A | N/A | Will the solicitation schedule be communicated to potential offerors? During Industry Day, there was no timeline for future acquisition activities except the projected award date of 21 March 2025. At this point | |||
| in the acquisition cycle, Draft and Final RFPs release dates should be made available to potential offerors. | A.3 | An acquisition timeline will be posted to Sam.gov. The RFP is anticipated to be released on or about 1 April 2024. | |||||
| Q.4 | Industry Day | N/A | N/A | Will opportunities to meet one-on-one with the end-user (Division and Branch Chiefs) be provided as in previous acquisition cycles? This exchange of information is invaluable to the Government and contractors to level the playing field. During the Industry Day briefings. there was no discussion of issues they are trying to fix, what they want to see for introduction of new technologies, innovations they would like to see implemented, and the challenges they are facing over the next contract. | |||
| While one-on-ones may not have been the best place to communicate this information, at least they could have been asked since no questions were permitted during the briefings. | A.4 | No one-on-one meetings between Industry and end-users are anticipated | |||||
| Q.5 | Acquisition Timeline | N/A | N/A | Can the Government provide information on the general content of the solicitation (i.e., will there be orals as there have been in the past, how many key personnel, small business requirements, etc.)? Again, at this point in the acquisition cycle (post-industry day), this information should be known and communicated to potential offerors. | A.5 | An acquisition timeline will be posted to Sam.gov. The RFP is anticipated to be released on or about 1 April 2024. | |
| Q.6 | Industry Day | N/A | N/A | During the Industry Day brief, the Ground Division provided details on the historical hours and personnel supporting each division. However, this information was not provided by the other divisions. Will other divisions provide similar information on historical work hours and number of personnel? Will current workload data covering hours and current staffing levels broken down by Division and Test Branch be provided? If yes, will the transportation time moving to and from Test Ranges be | |||
| segregated? | A.6 | The solicitation will provide further information regarding historical level of effort and the projected maximum level of effort for this contract. Historically transportation time has not been segregated. | |||||
| Q.7 | Acquisition Timeline | N/A | N/A | The Acquisition Strategy was partially briefed as the period of performance was stated TBD. Has the government finalized their Acquisition Strategy to include period of performance? If yes, will the Government provide the period of performance? | A.7 | The period of performance is anticipated to begin on 1 April 2025. The period of performance will be released with the draft RFP. | |
| Q.8 | Industry Day | N/A | N/A | During Industry Day, the Government brief that they were in the midst receiving Radars for testing from TRMC as part of their modernization efforts. Will the Government provide the current state and future plans for the modernization of Radars and other equipment from TRMC and the type of equipment received to include OEM warranties to assist in development of support? | A.8 | Radars are currently being replaced as budget allows. Warranty POP is one year. Type of equipment can be viewed on GFP attachment. All known modernization efforts will be included in the RFP and PWS. | |
| Q.9 | Industry Day | N/A | N/A | Safety was emphasized during the Industry Briefings by the Government. Will the Government provide the last three year Safety Incidents to include Safety Board Reports to help ID unique Safety Hazards to mitigate? | A.9 | Historical Safety data and Board Reports will not be provided. YPG Safety Hazards include Extreme weather, explosives, radiation, hazardous waste/chemicals, slips, trips, falls, pinching, musculoskeletal injuries, Insecst, critters/animals, vehicle operations (dust, mishaps, environmental factors). | |
| Q.10 | Industry Day | N/A | N/A | During Industry Day, the Government briefed that Yuma was part of the Army's Project Convergence exercises. Will the Government provide projected Yuma participation in upcoming Army Project Convergence Exercises? | A.10 | No specific test/exercise related data will be provided. The RFP labor categories and estimated hours will include all projected scope, including exercises. | |
| Q.11 | Industry Day | N/A | N/A | During the Industry Day, the Government discussed Range Modernization and Surges (especially for the Cold Region Test Center) and Digital Engineering but this is not called out in the PWS. Will the Government provide the following: 1) Current Range Modernization Plan/Strategy, 2) Normal Surge/Sag historical time periods, 3) Long Range Test Schedule for Service Line Exercises (i.e. Project Convergence) and ACAT 1 Programs, and 4) Digital Engineering current state and future desired state? | A.11 | 1 & 4. All known future improvements will be included in the RFP. |
2. Historical level of effort will be provided.
3. No specific test/exercise related data will be provided. The RFP labor categories and estimated hours will include all projected scope, including exercises.
| Q.12 | Acquisition Timeline | N/A | N/A | To allow Offeror's time to effectively address the Government's requirements and acquisition strategy, we recommend the Government provide an on the acquisition strategy. Will the Government provide an update on a tentative timeframe for a full draft RFP and anticipated final RFP release date? | A.12 | An acquisition timeline will be posted to Sam.gov. The RFP is anticipated to be released on or about 1 April 2024. | |
| Q.13 | Acquisition Timeline | N/A | N/A | What is the anticipated turnaround time for proposal submittal after the RFP is released? | A.13 | An acquisition timeline will be posted to Sam.gov. The RFP is anticipated to be released on or about 1 April 2024. | |
| Q.14 | Acquisition Timeline | Draft PWS 1.10.3 | N/A | The Contractor shall submit a Small Business Plan IAW with Contractor goals and goals and requirements from the KO at least ten (10) business days prior to full performance (Deliverable P-04). The plan will be approved by the KO or Small Business Advocate 30 calendar days after submission. The Contractor shall review and update the plan annually. | |||
| QUESTION: To allow Offerors time to effectively develop their teaming strategy, will the Government provide additional information regarding specific Small Business goals to include all socioeconomic categories? | A.14 | The Government is still finalizing the Small Business Participation goals. See draft PWS and proposed Small Business goals and provide your thoughts. | |||||
| Q.15 | GFP | Draft PWS 4.1.1 | N/A | The contractor shall include within its property management system, a process for the accountability and management of Controlled Cryptographic Item (CCI). Contractors in possession of classified or CCI GFP shall dispose of the classified contractor inventory in accordance with applicable security guides and regulations or as directed by the PA. Contractor GFP identified as inherently dangerous to public health or safety shall not be disposed of unless rendered innocuous or until adequate safeguards are provided. | |||
| QUESTION: What is the Government's approved accountability system for reporting of all Government Property? | A.15 | Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE), GFP module | |||||
| Q.16 | ODCs | Draft PWS 3.1.9 | N/A | The contractor shall procure material, equipment, and supplies, (other than official forms and publications) which are incidental to the provision of services of this PWS. | |||
| QUESTION: Will the Government provide an historical annual contractor cost for procurement of material, equipment, and supplies? Will the Government provide plug numbers for all Offeror's to use for ODCs (i.e., materials, equipment, supplies, training, studies, etc.) in development of pricing? | A.16 | The Government intends to provide an ODC value for contractors to utlize in the development of the cost proposal. | |||||
| Q.17 | Instrumentation Reports | Draft PWS 5.3.3 | N/A | Instrumentation Tracking Radar Scope - Radar systems include permanent fixed sites and mobile equipment on USAYPG ranges or other ranges. The Contractor shall participate in the development or procurement of new equipment for replacement of old equipment or for new or revised requirements as they are identified. Repair of instrumentation radar is primarily accomplished through the Instrumentation Radar Support Program (IRSP) for replacement parts and services; the Contractor shall order and return repairable parts directly with the IRSP support contractor. As directed by the government, the Contractor shall participate in the IRSP Range Manager meetings conducted on a semi-annual basis. The Contractor shall support specific test missions by modifying, adjusting, and selecting appropriate radar equipment. | |||
| QUESTION: Will the Government provide the EXSUM/Notes from the previous IRSP Range Manager semi-annual meetings on Instrumentation Tracking Radars? | A.17 | No notes will be provided. | |||||
| Q.18 | Threat Systems and Target Simulations | Draft PWS 5.3.6 | N/A | Scope - Threat systems and target simulation systems include foreign, surrogate/hybrid, and domestic threat target vehicles on YPG ranges and other ranges. Tasks under this function require participation in and support of the Central Asset Pool of the Threat Systems Management Office (TSMO) foreign vehicle parts supply and inventory system to include control and reporting of foreign parts and equipment, completion of parts transactions, and cooperation with the central supply warehouse and parts database administrator operation and maintenance of moving target equipment, remote control instrumentation, and signature simulation equipment to include maintaining a supply of spares, repair of the equipment, periodic inspections, reporting of any unsolvable problems, preventive maintenance, and authorized modifications or upgrades; and production of signature baseline data, target scoring data, or other data produced by these systems as required by Test Officers. The Contractor shall participate in and support the efforts to solve moving target test support shortfalls and participate in the development of target and remote-control system upgrade and modernization initiatives. This work shall be performed IAW technical manuals, directives, SOPs, and safety and environmental requirements. | |||
| QUESTION: Will the Government provide some historical records on the on the sustainment of Threat Systems and Target Simulations to include development of target and remote-control system upgrade and modernization initiatives? | A.18 | No test related information will be provided. All known future improvements will be included in the RFP. | |||||
| Q.19 | Threat System Radio Frequency (RF) Engineering and | ||||||
| Spectrum Support | Draft PWS 5.3.8 | N/A | Scope - Contractor shall be responsible for the planning, design, development, implementation, installation, networking, programming, operational maintenance, and management of YPG threat RF Spectrum devices/systems and instrumentation as they relate to the test and |
evaluation mission. The Contractor shall provide threat RF spectrum and time domain measurement capabilities for configuration management of, or to verify the configuration of threat RF transmitting systems, use signal generating equipment to generate an Electromagnetic Environment (EME), and monitor and record the threat RF environment as required for mission support. The Contractor shall also provide Radiation Hazard (RADHAZ) measurements. The Contractor shall provide support for Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) tests which includes but is not limited to bonding and grounding, and voltage measurements. The Contractor shall assist in the creation and submission of Radio Frequency Assignment (RFA's) and DD-1494, (Application for Equipment Frequency Allocation) for RF spectrum requests. The Contractor shall provide advance telecommunication capability support to recreate cellphone network technologies as required for mission support.
| QUESTION: Will the Government provide the unique RF Parameters associated with the Yuma geographic locations? Will the Government provide the current Radio Frequency Assignment (RFAs) and DD-1494, for RF Spectrum? | A.19 | RF parameters will not be provided. The Government has a spectrum manager. | |||
| Q.20 | Database Development and Maintenance | Draft PWS 5.7.4 | N/A | Scope - The Contractor shall design, organize, and develop databases appropriate for storage and retrieval of a wide range of test data such as TIR's, mission, service, tools, daily summaries, firing, business, and other data as directed by the Government. |
The Contractor shall create and maintain databases used for storage of software and test data IAW DA PAM 73-1 (Test and Evaluation in Support of Systems Acquisitions) and other applicable Army documents. The Contractor shall provide instruction for installation of the software and support programs and systems like Observer Data Input Nexus II (ODIN II) software on PC's and laptop computers, including configuring the database server access tables and databases for use by ODIN II (or similar) and providing training and documentation to users. The Contractor shall develop and generate various standard output reports for the end user. The Contractor shall provide a wide range of reports to Government requestor and their customers such as TIR's, scoring documents, and various database reports.
| QUESTION: Will the Government provide the current database parameters that it is currently using for storage and retrieval of wide range of test data and other data required as directed? | A.20 | No test related data will be provided. | |||||
| Q.21 | Vehicle Maintenance | Draft PWS Section 5.8.6, 5.8.7, 5.8.9; | N/A | The Contractor shall perform scheduled and unscheduled maintenance IAW the priorities established by USAYPG. Maintenance repairs shall be performed IAW the current rates in the Maintenance allocation chart. Maintenance performed on all equipment shall meet the Army Maintenance Standard as prescribed in AR 750-1, paragraph 3-2. Total Logistics Response Time (TLRT). TLRT shall be determined by utilizing the policy outlined in AR 7501, Para 3-3, 3-7 and figure 3-1. TLRT shall be minimized at all times to enhance readiness while reducing Customer Wait Time (CWT). Turnaround Time (TAT). This is the period of time that elapses between the time contractor personnel accept the work order followed by completion of the work and the time at close out. Maintenance turnaround time (TAT) shall be maintained at a minimum of 90% of work orders closed IAW AR 750-1, Para 3-3, figures 3-2 and 3-4. The Contractor shall provide a Total Logistics Response Time-Maintenance (LRT-M) Status Report, see figure 3-1 AR 750-1, on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis to the Maintenance Quality Assurance Branch.... The Contractor shall ensure that mechanics and technicians maintain an 80% efficiency rate. QUESTION: Will the government provide a list of vehicles and quantity of vehicles by model number that Contractor is being asked to maintain to allow a better determination of support? | A.21 | A generalized list of vehicles and quantites for PWS section 5.8.5 Fleet Vehicle Maintenance will be provided. No test related data will be released. | |
| Q.22 | Logistics | Draft PWS Section 5.8.6, 5.8.7, 5.8.9; | N/A | How is the Government measuring the metrics associated with calculating TRLT, CWT, TAT? | A.22 | IAW AR 750-1. Performance standard will be included in RFP, PWS, and PRS | |
| Q.23 | Vehicle Maintenance | Draft PWS Section 5.8.6, 5.8.7, 5.8.9; | N/A | How is the Government measuring the metrics associated with a mechanic or technician work efficiency? | A.23 | IAW AR 750-1. Performance standard will be included in RFP, PWS, and PRS | |
| Q.24 | Vehicle Maintenance | Draft PWS Section 5.8.6, 5.8.7, 5.8.9; | N/A | What is the historical mechanics and | |||
| technicians efficiency rate? | A.24 | Data will not be provided | |||||
| Q.25 | Collective Bargaining Agreements | Draft PWS Section 5.9.4 | N/A | Are there any Collective Bargaining Agreements | |||
| associated with the labor force that will be used to support this contract? | A.25 | Any applicable collective bargaining agreements (CBA) will be provided as an RFP attachment. | |||||
| Q.26 | Collective Bargaining Agreements | Draft PWS Section 5.9.4 | N/A | If yes, what labor categories will fall under those CBA's? | A.26 | Any applicable collective bargaining agreements (CBA) will be provided as an RFP attachment. | |
| Q.27 | Collective Bargaining Agreements | Draft PWS Section 5.9.4 | N/A | If yes, what Union is associated with the CBA's? | A.27 | Any applicable collective bargaining agreements (CBA) will be provided as an RFP attachment. | |
| Q.28 | Collective Bargaining Agreements | Draft PWS Section 5.9.4 | N/A | If yes, when will those CBA's be required to be re-negotiated? | A.28 | Any applicable collective bargaining agreements (CBA) will be provided as an RFP attachment.The CBA is negotiated between the Contractor and the Union. | |
| Q.29 | Industry Day | N/A | N/A | Will the Government post the names of those companies that did attend the Industry day event? | A.29 | The attendee list will not be posted to SAM.gov | |
| Q.30 | Acquisition Timeline | N/A | N/A | What Set Aside classification is the opportunity expected to be released? | A.30 | The Government is still finalizing the acqusition strategy. At this time, it is anticipated the RFP will be full and open competition. | |
| Q.31 | Acquisition Timeline | N/A | N/A | When is the Solicitation expected to be released? | A.31 | The RFP is expected to be released on or about 1 April 2024. | |
| Q.32 | Industry Day | N/A | N/A | Will the Solicitation be released under any contract vehicle? If so, which one? | A.32 | The RFP is expected to be released on or about 1 April 2024. It is anticpated the RFP and resulting contract will not be under an existing contract vehicle. | |
| Q.33 | Industry Day | N/A | N/A | Would the Government post the questions and answers that were provided during the Industry Day? | A.33 | No questions were asked and answered during Industy Day. | |
| Q.34 | Proposed SB Goals | Attachment | Your Small Business Goals do not include General Small Businesses in NAICS code 541330 (with Exception 1) i.e., those small businesses with no special socio-economic qualifications. The current contract includes all SB categories. | ||||
| Question: Will the Government please include General Small Businesses in your Subcontracting goals? | A.34 | The small business participation goals will not include 100% for small businesses that are only classified in various small business socio-economic categories. | |||||
| Q.35 | TRTC | PWS | 1 | This Mission Test Support Services (MTSS) contract shall focus on support services for Yuma Test Center (YTC) and Cold Regions Test Center (CRTC) with occasional reach back support required to the Tropic Regions Test Center (TRTC). Please describe the support required for TRTC and conflict with TRCT separate support contract. | A.35 | No conflicts exist between the TRTC TTSS contract and the YPG MTSS contract. The MTSS contract provides reach back support to TRTC testing when the TTSS contractor cannot provide support for specific resasons, such as uniqueness of equipment. | |
| Q.36 | TRTC | PWS | 1 | This MTSS contract shall focus on support services for YTC and CRTC with occasional reach back support required to the TRTC. Is it the Government's intent to combine all three range support contracts into this one? | A.36 | No. See answer to question 35. | |
| Q.37 | IDIQ TO | PWS | 1.1 | At a minimum, there will be at least one Task Order (TO) per year in support of normal testing activities described in the associated PWS. What is the government strategy and expectation on TO proposal? | A.37 | The Government anticipates task orders to be issued for a 12 month period of performance for the PWS scope based on the projected test plan; The Government anticipates issuing six 12-month task orders plus a 10-month task order for first year after the 60 day phase-in. Additional task orders are anticipated for additional or unplanned tests. For example, a test that must be completed immediately for national security reasons and the work needs to be separately tracked may be a task order. A request for task order proposal will be issued to the contractor. | |
| Q.38 | CRTC | PWS | 1.2.1 | PWS 1.2.1 only discusses the duty day at USAYPG and is silent about duty day/work hours at CRTC, especially in light of the more extreme daylight and weather cycles there. Please provide similar information for the CRTC. | A.38 | PWS Para. 1.2.1 includes details about hours of operation external to YPG. |
| Q.39 | Range requirement | PWS | 1.3 | PWS 1.3 states, "...and reach back support may support the TRTC in Panama." Please provide additional information on what the TRTC support includes. | A.39 | See answer to question 35. |
| Q.40 | Range requirement | PWS | 1.3 | PWS 1.3 states, "...and reach back support may support the TRTC in Panama." Is travel ever required as part of this TRTC support? | A.40 | Yes |
| Q.41 | Key Personnel | PWS | 1.4.12 | The PM and Alternate PM qualification requirements of at least 15 years of contract management experience and graduate studies will eliminate many highly qualified candidates, including those who may have served in Government positions most of their career and have 5-10 years of contractor management experience. We highly recommend the Government lower this requirement to 10 years for the PM and 8 years for the Alternate PM or identify equivalent substitution experience. | A.41 | PWS paragraph has been edited to 12 years experience with BS, and 8 years with Masters. The requirement applies to both the PM and Alternate. |
| Q.42 | Key Personnel | PWS | 1.4.12 | PWS 1.4.12 states, "Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering, Physics, or equivalent technical field and graduate studies in business or technical field, or equivalent experience." Please clarify what "graduate studies" is referring to. | A.42 | See answer to question 41. |
| Q.43 | Key Personnel | PWS | 1.4.12 | For all three key personnel, the educational requirements list BS degrees "or equivalent experience" with no additional qualifiers. Is there a minimum number of years that are considered equivalent to a BS degree? | A.43 | See answer to question 41. |
| Q.44 | Key Personnel | PWS | 1.4.12 | PWS 1.4.12 states, "15 years or more managing a workforce of more than 100 in a government contracting and test engineering environment." Does this include time served as a Government Manager/Director that has a contractor workforce under their control? | A.44 | See answer to question 41. |
| Q.45 | Key Personnel | PWS | 1.4.12 | The stated requirement for Program Manager (PM) and Alternate PM includes "graduate studies in business or technical field, or equivalent experience". Please verify that any candidate who meets the other requirements such as "15 years or more managing a workforce of more than 100 in a government contracting and test engineering environment", etc., meets the "equivalent experience" pertaining to the "graduate studies in business or technical field" requirement. | A.45 | See answer to question 41. |
| Q.46 | Licenses | PWS | 1.5.2 | PWS 1.5.2 states, "shall have a valid state operator’s license for the category of vehicle being operated." The PWS does not state if the license must be AZ or just any valid state license. Please clarify. | A.46 | Contractor must comply with Army Regulation 190-5, Motor Vehicle Traffic Supervision, regarding vehicle licenses and operation of motor vehicles |
| Q.47 | Licenses | PWS | 1.5.2 | PWS 1.5.2 states, "shall have a valid state operator’s license for the category of vehicle being operated." The PWS does not state if the CRTC Operator license must be AK or just any valid state license. Please clarify. | A.47 | See answer to question 46. |
| Q.48 | Financial Tracking System | PWS | 1.6.6 | Given the importance of a proven, well-performing Financial Tracking System, we highly recommend that the Government require offerors provide a demo of their already developed system as part of the Technical response. This will avoid offerors proposing a tool that appears impressive in the proposal narrative but may have not yet been developed or deployed on a similar contract as Yuma. Will the Government consider requiring a demo as part of the Section L requirements? | A.48 | No demo will be requested. The PWS was changed to acceptable accounting system |
| Q.49 | Financial Tracking System | PWS | 1.6.6 | Given the importance of a proven, well-performing Financial Tracking System, we recommend the Past Performance volume requirements include proof of implementation of a Financial Tracking System on similar contracts. Will the Government consider adding these requirements as part of your Section L? | A.49 | See answer to question 48. |
| Q.50 | Range requirement | PWS | 5.3.1 | With regards to Telemetry systems O&M, does the contractor have any responsibility to support Flight Safety and Flight Termination telemetry systems? | A.50 | PWS paragraph was revised to include flight termination systems. |
| Q.51 | Range requirement | PWS | 5.4.1 | What is the current projected initial operational capability (IOC) for the future Multispectral Imaging Tracking System (MITS) and Advanced Range Tracking and Imaging Systems (ARTIS) on YPG? | A.51 | The Government cannot provide a projected schedule for the IOC of MITS and ARTIS. |
| Q.52 | Range requirement | PWS | 5.4.1 | When the Multispectral Imaging Tracking System (MITS) and Advanced Range Tracking and Imaging Systems (ARTIS) become operational, will they replace any current instrumentation (old instrumentation be removed from service) or will they augment the current on-range instrumentation? | A.52 | MITS and ARTIS will initally augment current instrumentation and eventually replace older instrumentation. |
| Q.53 | Range requirement | PWS | 5.4.4 | PWS 5.4.4 used to be Surveying and is now Reserved. Does that mean surveying is no longer required on the contract? | A.53 | Yes |
| Q.54 | Range requirement | PWS | 5.6.3 | The Rain and Dust Facility used to have its own PWS section (previously 5.6.6). Does PWS 5.6.3 now cover the Rain and Dust facility (PWS 5.6.3.2)? | A.54 | Yes |
| Q.55 | Staffing | General | General | Based on answers to questions, it appears that the Government is planning to provide historical workload data so that offerors can propose their own staffing/labor mix. One major risk, which has impacted other ATEC acquisitions, is prime contractors gaming the system by bidding unreasonable staffing levels either at contract start and/or out years in an effort to win on price. This approach can result in significant performance issues, increased attrition, and ultimately, mission failures. We recommend the Government provide labor category position descriptions as well as all required labor categories and number of hours for each labor category by year. | A.55 | The RFP will provide labor category names, labor category descriptions, and estimated hours per labor category. |
| Q.56 | Staffing | General | General | It appears that the Government is planning to provide historical workload data so that offerors can propose their own staffing/labor mix. One major risk, which has impacted other ATEC acquisitions, is prime contractors gaming the system by bidding unreasonable staffing levels either at contract start and/or out years in an effort to win on price. This approach can result in significant performance issues, increased attrition, and ultimately, mission failures. We recommend the Government clearly state that no deviations are allowed in the base or out years as a result of proposed efficiencies. By providing the required Level of Effort, it is easier for the Government to evaluate offerors’ price. It also increases competition and significantly reduces potential protests. This approach allows offerors to focus more on their management and technical approaches – providing a true best value proposal for the Government to evaluate. | A.56 | See answer to question 55. |
| Q.57 | Section L and M | General | General | We recommend that the Government release draft versions of Section L and M as soon as possible. This will clearly drive teaming decisions, potential SMEs needed to support the proposal, as well as critical industry feedback to help ensure there is no ambiguity which typically leads to costly protests. Will the Government provide Section L and M 45-60 days prior to Final RFP? | A.57 | The Government is planning to release draft versions of Sections L&M. The RFP is planned to be released on 1 April 2024. |
| Q.58 | One-On-One Discussions | General | General | Will the Government re-consider allowing one-on-one discussions with the Government. This dialogue is imperative for non-incumbent offerors to develop an understanding of customer issues, wants, and objectives, which the incumbent is already privy to through their day-to-day communications. In addition, this provides great value to the Government in understanding company capabilities and receiving feedback on how to ensure a successful acquisition based on industry lessons learned. If the Government will not conduct one-on-ones, will you please provide a Statement of Objectives (SOO) which outlines your overall vision and goals for the follow-on Yuma MTSS? This will help offerors ensure that their proposed solutions are tailored to support you on Day One and have adaptability over the 7-year period of performance. | A.58 | No. One-on-one- discussions with the Government will not occur. |
| Q.59 | Proposal Requirements | Section L and M | General | We recommend that the Government develop Section L requirements based on what is most important to them and include requirements that enable offerors to clearly discriminate themselves. These areas typically are the contractor organization, recruiting and retention, quality approach, corporate reach back, tools and processes such as Financial Tracking Systems, transition approach, and key personnel. In reality, your next contractor will inherit the majority of the incumbent personnel who are performing the technical requirements today. Therefore, highly technical RFP requirements, including Sample Tasks, does not provide the Government with comprehensive understanding of the offerors' management approaches. In addition, technical sections tend to favor the incumbent since they are likely performing some or all of the required tasks currently. We have seen this approach successfully executed in other ATEC acquisitions, including the recent EPG Scientific and Engineering Support Services contract. | A.59 | No questions to answer. |
| Q.60 | Small Business Goals | We agree that the 30% small business goal is reasonable given the size and nature of work of the Yuma MTSS contact. However, we highly recommend that the Government not dictate specific percentages for each of the socio-economic categories (e.g., WOSB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB, etc.). Requiring specific allocation for each of these sub-categories limits prime offerors’ ability to build a team that is made of up small businesses that complement and enhance the overall team’s offerings to Yuma. By leaving the 30% allocation to the discretion of prime contractors, offerors can develop a team based on the sole purpose of providing the highest quality of services to the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC). In addition, by requiring specific percentages for only the socio-economic subcategories, it unfairly eliminates highly qualified small businesses (those that do not fall within the specific subcategories of SDB, WOSB, VOSB, SDVOSB), from being considered by prime offerors. This would eliminate small business companies that have specific or niche capabilities and tools that would bring value to Yuma over the next seven years. The EPG Section L language is provided below: L.8.2. Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) Small Business Participation. Applies to All Prime Offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) only. Offerors shall meet the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) of 30 percent of the total contract dollars, excluding phase-in costs. There are no minimum requirements for individual small business socio-economic categories… | A.60 | See answer to question 34. | ||
| Q.61 | Small Business Goals | The SB goals contemplated in the draft RFP leave minimal room to negotiate with and reward highly qualified, well-performing subcontractors that may only meet one socio-economic category. The current draft RFP requirements would emphasize the SB goals over the mission and may introduce mission risk. | A.61 | See answer to question 34. | ||
| Q.62 | Range requirement | Previous PWS | old PWS 5.3.2 | It appears that Range Timing has been dropped from the PWS. Is the contractor no longer required to operate and maintain the USAYPG range time systems? | A.62 | Yes |
| Q.63 | Range requirement | Previous PWS | Old PWS 5.3.7 | It appears that Lasers have been dropped from the PWS. Is this correct and no longer needed? | A.63 | Yes |
| Q.64 | Key Personnel | PWS | 1.4.10 | PWS 1.4.10 states "After normal duty hours, the designated or alternate representative shall be available and on site at the directed location within one hour of notification/recall." Please clarify "at the directed location." Rationale: If the designated representative were to occupy Government quarters (best case), it would be impossible to safely drive to many locations within YPG and arrive on site within 60 minutes, assuming the representative is already dressed. Residing off post would compound the problem. A similar situation would occur at the Cold Regions Test Center (CRTC). The same clarification is required for the Safety Manager position, which requires the Safety Manager to be, "on site." | A.64 | PWS revised to 90 minutes. |
| Q.65 | Safety Items Required by OSHA | PWS | 1.17.3 | PWS 1.17.3 states "OSHA-The Contractor shall comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Contractor personnel shall wear safety items required by OSHA during the performance of tasks requiring protective equipment or clothing." Are such items reimbursable or provided by the Government? | A.65 | Government will not provide protective equipment or clothing. The contractor should include these costs as part of its contractor indirect rates. |
| Q.66 | Theatre Support | PWS | 1.23.5 | PWS 1.23.5 states "The contractor may be tasked to provide on a voluntary temporary duty (TDY) basis test engineering and related support services for testing, evaluating, and analyzing DOD systems in other theaters of operations." Would this support, which could be for of one or more systems, be considered as direct or indirect labor / expense? How would this support be calculated in accordance with PWS para 1.6.3? | A.66 | The labor could be reimburseable or non-reimbursable to ATEC or direct billed or indirect personnel depending on the task requirments. Upon notification of the TDY, contractor should discuss the invoicing specifics with the COR. |
| Q.67 | AQL Standards | PWS | Part 5 | PWS Part 5 provides AQLs in percentages. How are the AQLs calculated? Over what time period are the AQLs calculated? | A.67 | The AQLs will be measured on a monthly and annual basis. The calculation is the number of times requirement completed correctly/number of times requirement required |
| Q.68 | Operations Test Engineers & Test Technicians | PWS | 5.10.2.1 c) | PWS 5.10.2.1.c) states "Submit test reports or completion of raw test data in formats for data, letter, abbreviated and formal reports IAW YPG Test Director’s Guide and AR 73-1 - Test and Evaluation Policy." Is it the intent that the contractor shall author / write the above reports or only edit / construct / format the reports? | A.68 | Contractor collects and writes reports for Government review. |
| Q.69 | Operations Test Engineers & Test Technicians | PWS | 5.10.2.1 d) | PWS 5.10.2.1.d) states "Ensure no test related safety violations occur during test mission activity and Test Officer's conduct pre-operational safety meetings as described in Test Director's Guide." Is it the intent that the contractor ensures that the Government test officer conducts preoperational safety meetings, or is it the intent that contractors perform these duties? | A.69 | PWS revised to be more clear. |
| Q.70 | Cost Ratio - The Contractor shall manage the contractor workforce to maintain a reimbursable labor ratio between 70-90 percent. |
In relation to DPWS Requirement 1.6.1(ODCs), 1.6.2(Accounting for Direct and Overhead Charges), DPWS Requirement 1.6.3 (Cost Ratio) of 70% to 90% Q.16: Will the Government provide an historical annual contractor cost for procurement of material, equipment, and supplies? Will the Government provide plug numbers for all Offeror's to use for ODCs (i.e., materials, equipment, supplies, training, studies, etc.) in development of pricing?
| A.16: The Government intends to provide an ODC value for contractors to utlize in the development of the cost proposal. | 1.6.1, 1.6.2, and 1.6.3 | Will the Government please provide the Average cost ratio for institutional and reimbursable expenditures for each of the last 5 years? | A.70 | No | |||
| Q.71 | 1.6.11 & 1.6.12 | Will the Government please provide the fielding schedule for test equipment to include those from the Test Resource Management Center (TRMC) for the next 5 years? | A.71 | Vendors can view the TRMC Website as TRMC manages DoD's MRTFB's. | |||
| Q.72 | The Contractor shall provide representation at all mandatory conferences and workshops as deemed necessary by the KO. The Government will reimburse travel IAW FAR 31.205-46 (Travel Costs). The contractor shall follow current guidance and SOPs for all Outside Contiguous United States (OCONUS) travel requirements. |
Theatre Support- The Contractor may be tasked to provide on a voluntary temporary- duty (TDY) basis test engineering and related support services for testing, evaluating, and analyzing DoD systems in other theaters of operations. 1.23.1 and 1.23.5 Will the Government please provide historical Annual travel expediture for CONUS/OCONUS?
| Will there be any OCONUS travel outside Alaska, and Central America? | A.72 | The Government is providing the ODC amount, which includes travel. No travel expenditure information will be provided. Travel could inlcude OCONUS travel outside of Alaska and Central America due to mission requirements, but the locations and frequency cannot be predicted. | |||||
| Q.73 | 1.26 | Will the Government please indicate if they have upgraded to Microsoft 365 in order to support Microsoft's Power BI? | |||||
| If no, could the Government please provide a timeline in which the upgrade may occur? | A.73 | Government utilizes Microsoft 365 and utilizes Power BI | |||||
| Q.74 | The Contractor shall operate and maintain multiple Information Technology (IT) networks, servers, and infrastructure systems... | ||||||
| In relation to DPWS requirement 5.12.5 (Network and Automation Applications) and the Sub-Requirement 5.12.5.3 (monitoring the health of IT systems). | 5.12.5 | Would the Government please indicate whether or not the monitoring software will be provided to the offeror for use upon award? | A.74 | Contractor provides no software. All software provided by Government for use on Government systems | |||
| Q.75 | Specific Tasks Areas--Distributive Testing--In the DPWS Specific Task Areas there is no mentione of the ATEC CDR's priority of Distributive Testing (See US Army Report dated 15 NOV 23: https://www.army.mil/article/271659/rtc_supports_army_modernization_efforts_through_atec ) to support testing in in a Multi-Domain Operations, or MDO, environment and that’s exactly what the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, or ATEC, can now offer to the Army to support the Army of 2030. The benefits of distributed testing include saving time and money by allowing key leaders to evaluate testing in near real-time. | 5 | Q: Will the Government please consider adding a Task Area around supporting Distributive Testing to ensure Yuma is aligned with the ATEC CDR's priorities to support the Army of 2030? | A.75 | No. A separate task area is not required. YPG is nested in ATEC's modernization efforts, which includes Distributive Testing. | ||
| Q.76 | Specific Tasks Areas--MBSE and MOSA-- In the DPWS Specific Task Areas there is no mentione of the Army Acquistion Executive priority of Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) and Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) to support the Army's Cross Functional Teams Requirments of the 31+3 Modernization Priorities. To provide collaberate and persistent development with parllatized testing that results in an accelerated and more efficient and effective T&E Lifecyle, the Army leadership is emphaszing MBSE and MOSA in Development Testing. | 5 | Q. Will the Government please consider adding a Task Area around supporting MBSE and MOSA to ensure Yuma is aligned with the Army initiatives to support the Army CFT's/Modernization priorities to support the Army of 2030? | A.76 | No. A separate task area is not required. YPG is nested in ATEC's modernization efforts. | ||
| Q.77 | Key Personnel Qualifications. --Qualifications for all key personnel are listed below: |
Program Manager and Alternate Program Manager:
• Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering, Physics, or equivalent technical field and graduate studies in business or technical field, or equivalent experience.
• 15 years or more managing a workforce of more than 100 in a government contracting and test engineering environment.
• Significant experience in recruiting, staffing, training, and maintaining the technical capability of a large workforce.
• Skilled at delegating responsibility to managers and ability to inform, understand, evaluate, and communicate to the workforce all aspects of safety, quality, and CPI.
The current list of KP Education and length of Experience qualifications are very restricted and is not aligned to the “sweet spot” that is needed for innovation in the Digital understanding that the Army Modernization Program is stating it needs and does not address the professional certification (PMP/DAU Certification) to manage a program of this scope and importance. As we did a professional search to meet this specific requirements, we notice that of the few candidates we found, that most were not at the Corporate level and few had DOD expertise and removed from the actual field experience needed as describe by the PWS of this Opportunity. Also due to the time of the mentioned experience required that their digital understanding was not aligned to future needs that are associated with emerging trends of DOD Test and Evaluation of MBSE. When we put the professional experience to 10 years, we found 20X more candidates and many that were looking for a field experience opportunity with DOD Test and Evaluation Experience and there was 40X increase when we put the experience at 5 years. We also believe that the two positions should have different qualifications to facilitated an integrated approach and growth and career development for the Alternate Program Manager thus increasing retention. 1.4.12 Q: Will the Government considering revising the Key Personnel Qualifications for both Program Manager and Alternate Program Manager to provide a more diverse and qualified pool of candidates that meets the unique needs for this Opp?
Recommend that the Government Program and Alternate Program Manager be adjusted to the following to ensure candidates align with and have the qualifications to support the future mission of Army T&E.
Program Manager:
• Bachelor Degree and graduate studies in business or technical field, or equivalent experience required
• 10 years or more managing a workforce of more than 100 in a government contracting and test engineering environment.
•Professional Management Certification required with DAWIA PM Level III or Advanced DAU certification preferred over PMP
• Significant experience in recruiting, staffing, training, and maintaining the technical capability of a large workforce.
• Skilled at delegating responsibility to managers and ability to inform, understand, evaluate, and communicate to the workforce all aspects of safety, quality, and CPI.
Alternate Program Manager
• Bachelor Degree required a graduate studies in business or technical field, or equivalent experience preferred
• 5 years or more managing a workforce of more than 100 in a government contracting and test engineering environment.
•Professional Management Certification required with DAWIA PM Level II or Advanced DAU certification preferred over PMP
• Significant experience in recruiting, staffing, training, and maintaining the technical capability of a large workforce.
• Skilled at delegating responsibility to managers and ability to inform, understand, evaluate, and communicate to the workforce all aspects of safety, quality, and CPI.
| A.77 | See answer to question 41. | |
| Q.78 | A.78 | |
| Q.79 | A.79 | |
| Q.80 | A.80 | |
| Q.81 | A.81 | |
| Q.82 | A.82 | |
| Q.83 | A.83 | |
| Q.84 | A.84 | |
| Q.85 | A.85 | |
| Q.86 | A.86 | |
| Q.87 | A.87 | |
| Q.88 | A.88 | |
| Q.89 | A.89 | |
| Q.90 | A.90 | |
| Q.91 | A.91 | |
| Q.92 | A.92 | |
| Q.93 | A.93 | |
| Q.94 | A.94 | |
| Q.95 | A.95 | |
| Q.96 | A.96 | |
| Q.97 | A.97 | |
| Q.98 | A.98 | |
| Q.99 | A.99 | |
| Q.100 | A.100 | |
| Q.101 | A.101 | |
| Q.102 | A.102 | |
| Q.103 | A.103 | |
| Q.104 | A.104 | |
| Q.105 | A.105 | |
| Q.106 | A.106 | |
| Q.107 | A.107 | |
| Q.108 | A.108 | |
| Q.109 | A.109 | |
| Q.110 | A.110 | |
| Q.111 | A.111 | |
| Q.112 | A.112 | |
| Q.113 | A.113 | |
| Q.114 | A.114 | |
| Q.115 | A.115 | |
| Q.116 | A.116 | |
| Q.117 | A.117 | |
| Q.118 | A.118 | |
| Q.119 | A.119 | |
| Q.120 | A.120 | |
| Q.121 | A.121 | |
| Q.122 | A.122 | |
| Q.123 | A.123 | |
| Q.124 | A.124 | |
| Q.125 | A.125 | |
| Q.126 | A.126 | |
| Q.127 | A.127 | |
| Q.128 | A.128 | |
| Q.129 | A.129 | |
| Q.130 | A.130 | |
| Q.131 | A.131 | |
| Q.132 | A.132 | |
| Q.133 | A.133 | |
| Q.134 | A.134 | |
| Q.135 | A.135 | |
| Q.136 | A.136 | |
| Q.137 | A.137 | |
| Q.138 | A.138 | |
| Q.139 | A.139 | |
| Q.140 | A.140 | |
| Q.141 | A.141 | |
| Q.142 | A.142 | |
| Q.143 | A.143 | |
| Q.144 | A.144 | |
| Q.145 | A.145 | |
| Q.146 | A.146 | |
| Q.147 | A.147 | |
| Q.148 | A.148 | |
| Q.149 | A.149 | |
| Q.150 | A.150 | |
| Q.151 | A.151 | |
| Q.152 | A.152 | |
| Q.153 | A.153 | |
| Q.154 | A.154 | |
| Q.155 | A.155 | |
| Q.156 | A.156 | |
| Q.157 | A.157 | |
| Q.158 | A.158 | |
| Q.159 | A.159 | |
| Q.160 | A.160 | |
| Q.161 | A.161 | |
| Q.162 | A.162 | |
| Q.163 | A.163 | |
| Q.164 | A.164 | |
| Q.165 | A.165 | |
| Q.166 | A.166 | |
| Q.167 | A.167 | |
| Q.168 | A.168 | |
| Q.169 | A.169 | |
| Q.170 | A.170 | |
| Q.171 | A.171 | |
| Q.172 | A.172 | |
| Q.173 | A.173 | |
| Q.174 | A.174 | |
| Q.175 | A.175 | |
| Q.176 | A.176 | |
| Q.177 | A.178 | |
| Q.178 | A.179 | |
| Q.179 | A.180 | |
| Q.180 | A.180 | |
| Q.181 | A.181 | |
| Q.182 | A.182 | |
| Q.183 | A.183 | |
| Q.184 | A.184 | |
| Q.185 | A.185 | |
| Q.186 | A.186 | |
| Q.187 | A.187 | |
| Q.188 | A.188 | |
| Q.189 | A.189 | |
| Q.190 | A.190 | |
| Q.191 | A.191 | |
| Q.192 | A.192 | |
| Q.193 | A.193 | |
| Q.194 | A.194 | |
| Q.195 | A.195 | |
| Q.196 | A.196 | |
| Q.197 | A.197 | |
| Q.198 | A.198 | |
| Q.199 | A.199 | |
| Q.200 | A.200 | |
| Q.201 | A.201 | |
| Q.202 | A.202 | |
| Q.203 | A.203 | |
| Q.204 | A.204 | |
| Q.205 | A.205 | |
| Q.206 | A.206 | |
| Q.207 | A.207 | |
| Q.208 | A.208 | |
| Q.209 | A.209 | |
| Q.210 | A.210 | |
| Q.211 | A.211 | |
| Q.212 | A.212 | |
| Q.213 | A.213 | |
| Q.214 | A.214 | |
| Q.215 | A.215 | |
| Q.216 | A.216 | |
| Q.217 | A.217 | |
| Q.218 | A.218 | |
| Q.219 | A.219 | |
| Q.220 | A.220 | |
| Q.221 | ||
| Q.222 | ||
| Q.223 | ||
| Q.224 | ||
| Q.225 | ||
| Q.226 | ||
| Q.227 | ||
| Q.228 |
&D &T &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .