Government Responses to Solicitation Questions - Amendment 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 44 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W15P7T24R0021
About this file
This document is a set of government responses to vendor questions related to a draft solicitation for a Command, Control & Communications Tactical (C3T) Post Deployment Software Support (PDSS) & Post-Production Software Support (PPSS) requirement.
The key details are: This is a draft solicitation for a single-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed-price/cost-plus-fixed-fee/cost-no-fee contract with a 1-year base period and four 12-month option periods. The services are to support CECOM's Software Engineering Center for PDSS and PPSS maintenance and sustainment. An industry conference was held on March 19, 2024. Proposals will not be accepted past the due date, which has not yet been determined. All communications must be submitted to the identified Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer. The government provided responses to vendor questions on topics such as contract type, labor categories, duty locations, oral presentations, and past performance requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| CategoryC:C | Document | Vendor Question | Government Response | ||
| 1 | Contracting | Would the Government consider releasing this opportunity on CIO-SP3 8(a) or OASIS 8(a) Pool 1? | This requirement will be competed as a full and open competitive action on SAM.gov | ||
| 2 | Contracting | It appears there are identical DD254 documents (one labeled “continuation”). Could the Government provide the Attachment 3 DD254 Continuation document? | Attachment 0003 has two different attachments, 1st attachment is DD Form 254 and the 2nd attachment is the continuation page for DD Form 254. | ||
| 3 | Technical/Contracting | Would the Government consider sponsoring a safeguarding assessment and certification? | This question is unclear. Please clarify or expand upon your request | ||
| 4 | Technical | Are there any companies performing any parts of the work included in this PWS? If so: | |||
| a. | Can you please provide their names and contract numbers? | ||||
| b. | Are these companies eligible to bid on this RFQ either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor? | ||||
| c. | What is the current contract size? | ||||
| d. | Is the current contract Firm Fixed Price, Time and Material, Cost Plus and/or any hybrid cost structure? | ||||
| e. | How many full time and part time contractor FTEs are currently working on this contract or these contracts? | ||||
| f. | Are there any changes in the scope in this PWS compared to the current scope supported by the incumbent? | The Government does not have the requested information | |||
| 5 | Technical | How many labor hours are anticipated for each year of the contract (base and option years)? | See Attachment 0001 Labor Categories | ||
| 6 | Technical | What are the estimated resources including the Labor Categories and associated annual labor hours (base and option years)? | See Attachment 0001 Labor Categories | ||
| 7 | Contracting | When will the RFP be released? | The Government anticipates releasing the final RFP in the 3rd quarter of the Government Fiscal Year 2024 | ||
| 8 | Contracting | When do you anticipate making award? | The Government anticipates releasing the contract award in the 4th quarter of the Government Fiscal Year 2024 | ||
| 9 | Contracting | When do you anticipate start date? | The anticipated start date will be one day after award | ||
| 10 | Technical | Will the government take into consideration not having key personnel(s), as it is favorable to the incumbent? Our recommendation would be to provide “representative resume” for the government requested labor categories. | Key Personnel do not have to be employees currently in the position. The vendor should submit resumes and signed letters of intent for the personnel they are submitting as Key | ||
| 11 | Technical | Can the government provide what percentage of work will be done at government site and what percentage of work will be done at Contractor site? Without this information pricing cannot be determined | It is not possible to determine the proportion. The Government has specified the amount of seats accessible on base for contractors. All seats are expected to be full. Work will take place at both on and off site and all fully engaged. | ||
| 12 | Technical | What systems does the Mission Command and Control; Tactical; and Fires Systems Platforms system need to integrate with? | Note: Mission Command and Control; Tactical has been removed from W15P7T-24-R-0021 Section C PWS paragraph 1.1 |
Vendors are recommended to research the systems to understand the requirement.
| 13 | Technical | What kinds of data calls are expected? | This should be taskers which may require some research on the contractor's part like types of SW on network/systems which is mostly in the cyber security realm, inventory of equipment (types). |
| 14 | Technical | Can you provide an example of a typical data call? | No, see response for question 13 |
| 15 | Technical | What data management tools does Mission Command and Control; Tactical; and Fires Systems Platforms system currently use? | Note: Mission Command and Control; Tactical has been removed from W15P7T-24-R-0021 Section C PWS paragraph 1.1 |
Solarwinds, Confluence, Jira, Sharepoint, Mirosoft SCCM, ePO, Microsoft Active Directoy/DNS, Microsoft SQL, Microsoft Office 365
| 16 | Technical | What project management platforms are used currently? | The Government uses Atlassian Suite (Confluence, Jira, Sharepoint,) | ||
| 17 | Contracting | For future Task Order requests under this IDIQ, will the offeror be able to propose additional labor categories as needed? | No, Attachment 0001 provides the labor categories for this requirement | ||
| 18 | Technical | Would the Government provide a schedule of the planned release of all anticipated task orders? | This is not feasible given the potential number of tasks and unknown timing of requests (along with funding) | ||
| 19 | Contracting | Will the Government clarify the average number of days from the date a Task Order is posted to the date of Task Order award? In order to ensure key personnel are available to work immediately after Task Order award we need to complete the badging process which may be as long as 30 days to complete. | The first Task Order will be awarded concurrently with the Contract Award. All other Task Orders under this Contract will be awarded when a bonafide need arises. | ||
| 20 | Contracting | I wanted to send a note regarding the attached NDA, which was released with the subject DRFP documents (Section J, Attachment 0011, Appendix B). It seems this NDA may not apply to the Industry Offerors. If you could please clarify, that would be much appreciated! | See revised Attachment 0011 | ||
| 21 | Contracting | Fires Section L (draft) Section A - Volume I, 2, | |||
| Page 7 - Volume I - Technical Oral Presentations | Background: This section states "The Contracting Officer will schedule oral presentations for the offerors, and the dates/times will be emailed out on 25 April 2024." |
| Question: Is the date of 25 April 2024 a placeholder for the purposes of the draft document or does the government intend to contact offerors on the stated date to schedule oral presentations? | The date of the Government email notifying of the schedule for oral presentations is subject to change based on the issuance of the final solicitation and proposal submission. The final dates will be included in the final solicitation. | |||
| 22 | Contracting | Fires Section L (draft) - Section A - Volume I, 2, Page 7 - Volume I - Technical Oral Presentations | Background: This section states "The Contracting Officer will schedule oral presentations for the offerors, and the dates/times will be emailed out on 25 April 2024." |
Based on the date stated in this section and based on an assumed 30-day proposal period, the most likely RFP release date is approximately 22 MAR 2024.
| Question: Will the Government confirm that the intent is to release the Final RFP on 22 MAR 2024? | The Government anticipates releasing the final RFP in the 3rd quarter of the Government Fiscal Year 2024 | |||
| 23 | Contracting | Fires Section L (draft) - Section A - Volume I, 2, Page 7 - Volume I - Technical Oral Presentations | Background: This section states "Oral Presentations will be used to present the technical volume for this RFP. Slides are permitted to assist with the Offeror’s live oral presentations. Offerors shall provide their slide presentation during oral presentations. All slides must be presented in the oral presentation to be considered for the evaluation. In the event ambiguities or conflicts exist between the oral presentation and the written slide, the oral presentation will take precedence over the written slides. Any slides not presented in the Offerors allotted time will be removed from the slide presentation and disregarded by the Government. The Government reserves the right to delete any slied that are illegible. Unsolicited changes to the presentation submission will not be accepted." |
Based on the date stated in this section and based on an assumed 30-day proposal period, the most likely RFP release date is 22 MAR 2024." Previous drafts of this RFP have included a written technical volume and prior to the release of the current Draft, the Government has not provided any indication that oral presentations would be included as a component of this RFP.
The stated purpose of multiple Draft RFPs was to both provide Industry with suitable preparation time, increasing competition, and also to assist the Government's procurement through Industry's question, answer and comment submissions. However, a change of this magnitude on the eve of the RFP's release does more to hinder competition than increase it.
Orals take considerable time and planning to ensure the Government is receiving the best possible solution from Industry. To ensure a fair competition, offerors will need considerable time to prepare for a change of this scale.
| Question: Will the Government please explain the reasoning behind this change, which is a major departure from the 2 previous drafts. Also, will the Government ensure all offerors are provided sufficient time to prepare for 2+ hours of oral presentations by affording a minimum of 60 days preparation from the scheduled Industry Day? | Vendors will have 30 days to provide proposals from the release of the final RFP. The anticpated release of the final RFP is 3rd quarter of the Government Fiscal Year 2024. | |||
| 24 | Contracting | Fires Section L (draft) - Section A - Volume I, 2, Page 7 - Volume I - Technical Oral Presentations | Background: This section states "Oral Presentations will be used to present the technical volume for this RFP. Slides are permitted to assist with the Offeror’s live oral presentations. Offerors shall provide their slide presentation during oral presentations. All slides must be presented in the oral presentation to be considered for the evaluation. In the event ambiguities or conflicts exist between the oral presentation and the written slide, the oral presentation will take precedence over the written slides. Any slides not presented in the Offerors allotted time will be removed from the slide presentation and disregarded by the Government. The Government reserves the right to delete any slied that are illegible. Unsolicited changes to the presentation submission will not be accepted." |
The section further states "The Contracting Officer will schedule oral presentations for the offerors, and the dates/times will be emailed out on 25 April 2024. The maximum number of Contractor logins for Oral Presentations is limited to five individuals. The Government recommends Contractors utilize key personnel who will perform, or personally direct the work that describes their relevant portions of the presentations. This may include teaming partners."
Based on the date stated in this section and based on an assumed 30-day proposal period, the most likely RFP release date is 22 MAR 2024."
Previous drafts of this RFP have included a written technical volume and prior to the release of the current Draft, the Government has not provided any indication that oral presentations would be included as a component of this RFP. The addition of this requirement is likely to limit competition on this effort to the Incumbent Contractor and Large Businesses with the capital to rapidly respond to such a burdensome requirement. Furthermore, the Industry Conference appears to be scheduled immediately prior to the anticipated release of the RFP, Question: Will the Government explain how a major change to the RFP requirements with little to no reaction and preparation time from Industry does not explicitly favor the incumbent who has immediate and applicable knowledge to programmatic specifics? Final submission dates will be specified in the final RFP. Vendors will have 30 days to submit proposals when the final RFP is released. The final RFP is anticipated to be released in the 3rd quarter of the Government Fiscal Year 2024.
The draft RFP, which was released on 12 March 2024, included a change to the technical volume to incorporate oral presentations. Vendors should have sufficient time between the draft release and proposal submission dates to provide proposals in accordance with (IAW) the RFP’s specifications.
25 Contracting Fires Section L (draft) - Section A - Table 1 Proposal Volumes, II Past Performance (page 5) & Volume II-Past Performance (Page 10) - Volume I - Technical Oral Presentations Background: Table 1 - Proposal Volumes shows a 15 page limit for Volume II Past Performance. The Volume II - Past Performance section on page 10 of Section L states "This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. This volume shall not exceed 10 pages plus five pages for each major subcontractor, excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms." Additionally, the section further states "Major Subcontractor shall be defined as a subcontractor whose total expected subcontract value will be 25% or greater of the total proposed contract price..."
Depending on the number of Major Subcontractors on an offeror team, these sections may be contradictory.
| Question: Will the government clarify the page limit for Volume II? Furthermore, will the Government clarify if offerors are limited to a single Major Subcontractor? | See final RFP | ||||
| 26 | Contracting | PDSS and PPSS Industry Conference Notification | Background: The Industry Conference notice that the PDSS and PPSS Maintenance and Sustainment Industry Conference will be held 19 March 2024 between 12:00noon – 2:00pm EST on Microsoft Teams. A Teams link is provided in the notice as well as a dial in. | The date of the Industry Conference has passed; all relevant access information was provided prior to the start of the Conference. | |
| 27 | Contracting | Fires Section L (draft) - Section A - Volume II-Past Performance (Page 10) & Section 3 - Subcontracts (Page 12) | Background: Volume II states "Major Subcontractor shall be defined as a subcontractor whose total expected subcontract value will be 25% or greater of the total proposed contract price, including the Base Period and all Ordering Periods." |
Section 3 - Subcontracts states "This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 20 % of the total proposed cost/price."
| Question: Would the Government clarify in Section 3 whether offerors are supposed to include subcontractor's past performance if they're performing 20% , or is it 25% of the total proposed contract price as stated previously? | See final RFP | |||
| 28 | Technical | Section L, Volume I, Section I Technical Approach (Page 8) and Section M, C. Evaluation Approach, Vol I, Factor 1 Technical Approach (Page 4) - Technical Approach | Background: Section L states: "Oral Presentations will be used to assess the Offeror’s technical approach on demonstrating a clear understanding of the PWS requirements, and solutions to the following subsection of the PWS 3.1.3, 3.1.4, and the objectives stated in Performance sections 3.2, i.e. 3.2.1-3.2.7. The Offerors Oral Presentation shall demonstrate their knowledge and experience with examples of similar type of work that has been performed supporting similar tasks described in the PWS. The Offeror shall demonstrate their technical understanding and experience in technical domains similar to those identified in PWS 6.1-6.12." |
whereas Section M states:
"The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirement, provides a feasible approach to successfully perform the requirements identified in PWS section 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2, 6.1-6.12 and completely addresses each bullet in Section L, Instructions: Technical Approach."
The subject matter of PWS 3.2 subparagraphs vary significantly.
| Question: Will the Government please clarify which PWS subparagraphs of 3.2 the offeror should address in the Technical Approach Oral Presentation? | See final RFP | |||
| 29 | Cost/Price | Page 21 Note 1 and 22 item j - Volume IV - Cost Price | Background: Section states that direct labor rates proposed shall also serve as “ceiling direct labor rates” in the event of award. |
This is an unusual term in a CPFF type contract.
| Question: Would the Government consider changing contract type to Time and Materials (T&M) if they desire a cap on rates? | The effort is a CPFF contract type but the prospective Primes' subcontractors may propose on a FFP, T&M, and or LH basis. The Prime is required to propose on a CPFF basis and must make a business decision on its proposed direct labor rates; meet the government's cost realism baseline AND propose a rate for each LCAT that will also serve as a ceiling rate. This is intended to prevent buy-in while also preventing cost overruns. | |||
| 30 | Cost/Price | Section G page 73 - Contract Administration Data | Background: Section states that cost overruns in excess of 5 and 10 percent shall receive a Marginal or Unacceptable CPAR ratings respectively. this clause seems inconsistent with ceilings imposed on direct labor rates. |
Please clarify if the government will permit invoicing of costs in excess of ceiling rates proposed.
Question: Will the government consider removing the ceiling on direct labor rates? The ceiling on proposed direct labor rates will not be removed as it is intended to prevent buy-in while also preventing cost overruns.
The cost overruns in excess of 5 and 10 percent language has been removed. The government will NOT permit invoicing of costs in excess of ceiling rates proposed. Further, the ceiling rates will be written into the contract for the awardee.
31 Technical Background: Duty Location 2438 is listed in one of the drop downs.
| Question: Can the government clarify the location of Duty Locaction 2438? | The Duty Location for this requirement will be Fort Sill, Ok. | |||
| 32 | Cost/Price | Attachment 0002_Direct Labor Rate Sheet | Background: Row 3 of the DL Rate sheet contains " Yellow Fill Requires a Response". |
Question: We do not see rows with Yellow Fill. Should this read Green vs. Yellow? Cell M3 column heading reads: Does Proposed DL Rate deviate from current DCAA/DCMA "Approved" Forward Pricing? See column FC. A "Yes" response in column M triggers Conditional Formatting whereby the affected row, starting in column FC, turns yellow, which requires a response. Specifically, "Provide a justification for each proposed DL Rate that deviates from "Approved" DCAA/DCMA Forward Pricing.
Note: The original Attachment 0002 directs the User to column CB but has since been revised to column FC.
33 Technical/Contracting This email is to notify the Government of the significant concerns regarding the most recent Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) release of W15P7T-24-R-0021 supporting the CECOM SEC M&S – Fires Division (FD) for the life cycle software solutions, management, PDSS/PPSS, maintenance and sustainment, test, logistics, and FMS supporting the FD portfolio of software. The changes included in this Draft RFP will likely limit competition during the acquisition, strongly favoring the incumbent.
During this opportunity’s acquisition process, three (3) Draft RFPs were released to industry. The first two (2) drafts contained minimal changes to the requirements; however, the third draft replaced the bulk of the written proposal volume with a newly implemented oral presentation requirement. The indicated date for these Orals, 25 April 2024, is approximately thirty (30) days from the Industry Day (19 MAR 2024) and likely subsequent release of the RFP. While the Orals requirement is very effective in ensuring all offerors understand the requirements of the RFP, the impact on industry to properly prepare for the Orals is not possible in a limited thirty (30) days. Orals demand preparation which takes an immense amount of time and monetary investment. Without allowing industry suitable time to prepare, the Government will not receive the best possible competition, the best possible solutions and the best possible cost savings, which favors the incumbent.
This change is a surprise to industry and has not been communicated to the likely offerors of this opportunity. Industry is requesting the consideration for the RFP to be released no sooner than sixty (60) days after the Industry day to allow all offerors adequate time to prepare for the change in acquisition practices outlined in this most recent draft. Final submission dates will be specified in the final RFP. Vendors will have 30 days to submit proposals when the final RFP is released. The final RFP is anticipated to be released in the 3rd quarter of the Government Fiscal Year 2024.
The draft RFP, which was released on 12 March 2024, included a change to the technical volume to incorporate oral presentations. Vendors should have sufficient time between the draft release and proposal submission dates to provide proposals in accordance with (IAW) the RFP’s specifications.
| 34 | Contracting | Draft RFP Notice ID No. W15P7T-24-R-0021, Section L, A.1.d: | Respectfully requests the Government to clarify that we are correct in understanding this clause becomes applicable upon release of the Final RFP. All inquiries shall be conducted in writing and directly to the Government POCs identified above. Offerors shall not contact any Government personnel other than the Government POCs identified above concerning this requirement. Contacting any Government personnel other than the individual identified above may result in an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and may result in an Offeror being excluded from competition and award. | In response to the Draft and/or Final solicitation for this requirement all inquiries shall be conducted in writing and directly to the Government POCS identified within the soicitation. The Government POCs are the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. |
| 35 | Technical/Contracting | Section L and Section M: Page L -10, 12; M - 7 | Background: Major Subcontractor definition has 3 different definitions. Major Subcontractor shall be defined as a subcontractor whose total expected subcontract value will be 25% or greater of the total proposed contract price, including the Base Period and all Ordering Periods (Section L page 10);This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 20 % of the total proposed cost/price (Section L page 12); major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 20% percent or more of the proposed effort (Section M page 7). |
| Question: Will the Government please confirm that a Major Subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor whose total expected subcontract value will be 25% or greater of the total proposed contract price? | See final RFP. Major subcontractor total expected subcontract value will be 25% or greater of the total proposed contract price. | |||
| 36 | Contracting | Section L: Page 5, 10 | Background: Section L.1.m-Table 1 – Proposal volumes reflects the page count for past performance as 15 pages. Section L, Volume 2-Past Performance reflects the page count as not exceeding 10 pages plus five pages for each major subcontractor, excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms. |
| Question: Would the Government please update Section 1.m-Table 1 to reflect the same statement as Volume 2-Past Performance? | See final RFP | |||
| 37 | Contracting | Section M: Page 8 | Background: Section M, Volume II: Factor 1: Past Performance, 4.iii – discusses quality assessment |
| Question: Would the Government please provide a confidence or relevancy rating table for quality assessment? | See final RFP | |||
| 38 | Contracting | W15P7T-24-R-0021, Section A: Page 2 | Background: Section A states the Government “intends to award a one (1) year base period with four (4) option years…” |
| Question: Will the Government please confirm Transition CLIN hours are not included in the Base Year of “DRAFT Attachment0001+-+Labor+Categories+Sep+2023.xslx”? | See final RFP and Attachment 0001 | |||
| 39 | Contracting | W15P7T-24-R-0021, Section A: Page 2 | Background: Section A states “The period of performance (PoP) of the awarded Contract will consist of a sixty (60)-day Transition period, a base period of eight (8) months, and four twelve (12)- month option periods for a total PoP of sixty (60) months.” |
| Question: Will the Government clarify if the base period is a one-year period of performance or an eight-month period of performance? | See final RFP | |||
| 40 | Cost/Price - Contracting | Section L: Page 5,18 | Background: Table 1 – Proposal Volumes on page 5 lists Volume VI Cost/Price as an Excel file only. Page 18 references both a cost narrative in Word or pdf format and a cost file in Excel. |
| Question: Will the Government please confirm Offerors are required to submit both a cost narrative in Word or pdf format and a cost file in Excel? | See final RFP Table 1 | |||
| 41 | Contracting | W15P7T-24-R-0021, SECTION A - Section L: Page 19 | Background: In Section L, the base period of performance is stated as 04 October 2024 thru 09 July 2025 which is approximately nine months. This is in conflict with Section A which states in one place that the base period is eight months and another place that the base period is a one-year period of performance. |
| Question: Will the Government please clarify the period of performance for the base period? | See final RFP revised to a 5 Ordering years to include a 60 day Transition-in Period. | |||
| 42 | Technical/Contracting | Attachment0001+-+Labor+Categories+Sep+2023: LOE tab | Background: Adjustments to Base Year Pop resulting from Questions. |
| Question: Will the Government adjust the base year hours to align with any updates to the base year that are greater or less than 12 months? | See updates to Attachment 0001 | |||
| 43 | Contracting | W15P7T-24-R-0021, Section B: Page 9, 15, 21, 27, 32 and Section L: Page 19 | Background: Section B lists the Travel/Other Direct Costs (ODC) CLINs as Cost No Fee. Section L states “The Transition Period contract type will be FFP, with the Base and Option periods being performed on a CPFF Term basis.” |
| Question: Will the Government please clarify the contract type for the Travel/ODC CLINs? | Travel/ODC CLINs will be Cost No Fee | |||
| 44 | Contracting | Section L Vol II Past Performance: Page 10 | Background: Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three (3) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. |
| Question: Will the government consider limiting the number of PP references to a maximum of 3 for Primes and 1 for each Major Subcontractor? | See final RFP | |||
| 45 | Cost/Price | Section 1 Vol IV Cost/Price 3c Page 19 | Background: “Each offeror shall provide whatever information is necessary to assist the Government in understanding why the proposed costs are realistic in the xxxxCOSTNARRxxxx.docx (or PDF).” |
This document is not included in the Table 1 Proposal Volumes descriptions.
| Question: Will the government please amend Table 1 to include this Cost Narrative file? | Table 1 has been revised to include the Cost Narrative file. | |||
| 46 | Contracting | Section L Vol VII: Page 25 | Background: “Offerors shall use Volume V, to complete Provisions and Clause fill-ins required in Sections I thru Sections L.” |
| Question: Will the government please clarify where the fill-ins required in Sections I thru Sections L shall be included in the proposal? | Vendors must fill in the blanks as requested by the provision or clause | |||
| 47 | Contracting | Section L. 1. a: Page 3 | Background: The size per email shall not exceed 24MB |
| Question: Will the government consider allowing for submissions using SAFE? The presentation slide deck could contain CUI material and exceed 24MB. SAFE allows for upload of files > 24MB and CUI material. | Per Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) guidance, DoD SAFE should NOT be used for transmission of contract proposals or other contract award documentation. | |||
| 48 | Contracting | Section L Vol I 1: Page 8 | Background: The Government does not intend to ask questions about information contained in an Offeror’s written submission/slide deck for Oral Presentations |
| Question: Can the Government please clarify this statement? | The Government will not ask questions pertaining to the offerors slide deck, rather exchanges will take place in response to the oral presentation for clarification. | |||
| 49 | Contracting | Section L Vol I 4: Page 7 | Background: Offerors shall provide their slide presentation during oral presentations. |
| Question: Can the Government clarify that this means the Offeror is responsible for presenting the slides during the Teams meeting? | The Offeror can choose their own method of presenting Oral Presentations including the use of slides. See update in final RFP | |||
| 50 | Contracting | Section L Vol 4: Page 7 | Background: Offerors shall provide their slide presentation during oral presentations |
| Question: Are Offeror’s slides to be submitted prior to their oral presentation? Or are they to be submitted after their oral presentation? | The Offeror's slide presentation will be submitted after their oral presentations. See update in final RFP | |||
| 51 | Contracting | Section L A 1.d Page: 3 | Background: d. All inquiries shall be conducted in writing and directly to the Government POCs identified above. Offerors shall not contact any Government personnel other than the Government POCs identified above concerning this requirement. Contacting any Government personnel other than the individual identified above may result in an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and may result in an Offeror being excluded from competition and award |
| Question: Can the Government clarify that we are correct in understanding this clause becomes applicable upon release of the Final RFP?? | In response to the Draft and/or Final solicitation for this requirement all inquiries shall be conducted in writing and directly to the Government POCS identified within the soicitation. The Government POCs are the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. | |||
| 52 | Contracting | W15P7T-24-R-0021 Page: 4-32 | Background: The transition CLIN is numbered 0001, with all subsequent CLINs for the Base Year increasing by one (0002-0014). Each Option Year CLIN is then staggered by one. i.e. AFATDS is CLIN 0002 in the Base Year, but OY1 is 1001, OY2 is 2001, etc. |
| Question: Request the Government renumber the transition CLIN to either 0000 or 0099 to allow for consistent CLIN designation throughout the life of the contract. | See final RFP | ||||
| 53 | Technical | W15P7T-24-R-0021, Section C, Paragraph 3.2.1.4 Page 44 | Will the Government please clarify the reference to ‘Tasking Statement of Work’? Will the agile methodology be a requirement stated in the SOW for each Task Order or in some other tasking-related document? | Yes, the PWS will direct Scrum, Kanban, or other methodology to execute the effort. | |
| 54 | Technical | DRAFT W15P7T-24-R-0021, Section C, Paragraph 3.2.1.4: Page 50 | Background: There are requirements for transitioning teams to agile specified in this paragraph. |
Question: Does the Government anticipate any non-agile software teams? The PWS paragraph 3.2.1.4 refers to recruiting. Agile is referenced in PWS paragraph 3.2.1.1.
This contract is expected to execute Agile methodologies unless specifically outlined is the Tasking Statement of Work.
55 Cost/Price Attachment 0002 DIRECT LABOR RATE WORKSHEET Background: Hidden Tabs
| Question: Are the two hidden tabs 2023 Baseline DL Rates and Instructions - DL Rate Sheet (2) being used in the DL Rate worksheet? | The two hidden tabs have been removed from the Attachment 0002 Draft. The data included within the two former hidden tabs are very dated and not relevant to this effort. Significant changes with respect to NAICS code, escalation factors, etc., have been updated as well as multiple assumptions. The upcoming version will reflect these changes. | |||
| 56 | Cost/Price | Attachment 0002 DIRECT LABOR RATE WORKSHEET | Background: External Links |
| Question: Attachment 0002 contains external links that seem to be password protected and cannot be broken. In Section L VOLUME VI – Cost/Price the instructions state “No links to external worksheets or workbooks are acceptable.” Will the Government please remove the external links from the excel file or updated VOLUME VI – Cost/Price the instructions to allow for external links? | Any and all source information is self-contained within the "DL Rate Sheet" and is Password protected. No external links were utilized in the model build but we will test the next version by sending it to an outside source to determine if the external links notification is reflected upon opening the workbook before issuance of the next version of Attachment 0002. | |||
| 57 | Cost/Price | Section L: Page 17-18 | Background: VOLUME VI – Cost/Price The volume shall be organized into the following sections: 1. The contractor shall submit a Summary Cost Proposal, by Cost Element, as depicted in the sample provided below in Table 2 for its total proposed price. |
Also These cost element values shall roll up to each Period of Performance (PoP), which then rolls up to the Summary Total Cost as depicted in Table 2 below.
| Question: There is not a Table labeled Table 2. Will the Government please confirm Table 2 is really Table 3? | The RFP has been corrected to reflect Table 3 as opposed to the incorrect reference of Table 2. | |||
| 58 | Cost/Price | Section L: Page 24 | Background: Offeror shall propose all required labor categories and labor hours provided by the Government as depicted in Attachment A006 Fires_LCAT & LOE workbook and Descriptions without deviation |
| Question: Can the Government confirm the reference to Attachment A006 is really to Attachment A001? | The correct Attachment is A001. See final RFP | |||
| 59 | Cost/Price | Section L | Background: The summary cost proposal shall be a Microsoft Excel workbook (xxxxCOSTxxxx.xlsx) that includes a detailed cost element worksheet for each separate CLIN. These cost element values shall roll up to each Period of Performance (PoP), which then rolls up to the Summary Total Cost as depicted in Table 2 below. |
| Question: Is the “cost element worksheet” acceptable in Offeror format? Is it acceptable for this to be one worksheet that contains all the CLINs separated out to avoid an excessive number of CLIN tabs? | Note that Table 2 has been corrected to read Table 3. The government takes no issue in consolidating the Summary, and each separate CLIN, within one worksheet if that is the offeror's preference. | |||
| 60 | Cost/Price | Section M: Page 11 | Background: The Government’s Total Evaluated Cost/Price will consist of the following |
| Question: Will the Government please confirm that the Fixed Price Transition CLIN will be included in the Total Evaluated Cost/Price? | The FFP Transition CLIN will be included in the Total Evaluated Cost/Price and should be reflected in Section M (Evaluation). | |||
| 61 | Cost/Price | W15P7T-24-R-0021: Page 84 | Background: Option to Extend Services |
| Question: Does the Government intend to include the cost/price of an optional 6-month extension in the Total Evaluated Cost/Price? | For the purpose of evaluation and consistency, the Total Evaluated Price will include the 6-month extension values and be reflected in the Total Summary as reflected in the Sample provided in Table 3. Offerors are reminded that no escalation in labor rates are permitted between Order Period 5 and the 6-month extension. | |||
| 62 | Cost/Price | W15P7T-24-R-0021: Page 84 | Background: Option to Extend Services |
| Question: If the Government includes the cost/price of an optional 6-month extension in the Total Evaluated Cost/Price, how will it be calculated? | Offeror is to include the 6-month extension values in the Summary Rollup. Offerors are reminded that no escalation in labor rates are permitted between Order Period 5 and the 6-month extension. | |||
| 63 | Cost/Price | Attachment 0002 DIRECT LABOR RATE WORKSHEET: Page TAB "PN, MinYrsExp, LCAT” | Background: Reference to Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX-OK (Geographic Locality Factor) versus “NCR BASE” |
| Question: Will the Government please clarify the use of the text “Min DL Rate 50th Percentile NCR BASE” in cell E4, tab “PN, MinYrsExp, LCAT” in Attachment 0002? | The Min DL Rate 50th Percentile NCR Base is the equivalent of the U.S. Government Cost Realism Baseline at the 50th percentile. Further, the source data is pulled from an internationally recognized salary survey company from the National Capitol Region (NCR) to formulate the baseline. Upon selecting the Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX-OK, which is an appropriate Place of Performance PoP for the subject effort, the geographic adjustment factor will be applied to the NCR baseline to set the geographically adjusted US Government cost realism baseline for each LCAT. | |||
| 64 | Technical | Attachment 0001 Labor Category Qualifications Tabs | Background: 8140 Designation Column |
Question: Can the Government please confirm the links at https://www.cool.osd.mil/ to DCWF DOD 8140 work role qualifications can be used to Foundational Qualification Requirements? Note all links point to: https://www.cool.osd.mil/usn/docs/DOD_8140_Work_Role_Qualifications.xlsx If not, can the Government identify the link or document offerors should use for determining Foundational Qualification Requirements? Update link to https://dl.cyber.mil/dcwf/ElementsMap/story.html DoD has not currently established the DCWF Qualification Matrix for the following DCWF workroles 806 - Product Manager 621 - Software Devloper 461 - Systems Security Analyst 673 - Software Test & Evaluation Specialist 65 Technical Attachment 0001 Labor Category Qualifications Tabs Background: 8140 Designation Column
Question: Work Role ID: 673 Software Test & Evaluation Specialist is not listed in the references on https://www.cool.osd.mil/. Can the Government provide a link or document where the Foundational Qualification Requirements for the Software Test & Evaluation Specialist can be found? Update link to https://dl.cyber.mil/dcwf/ElementsMap/story.html DoD has not currently established the DCWF Qualification Matrix for the following DCWF workroles 806 - Product Manager 621 - Software Devloper 461 - Systems Security Analyst 673 - Software Test & Evaluation Specialist 66 Technical Attachment 0001 Labor Category Qualifications Tabs Background: 8140 Designation Column
Question: Work Role ID: 806 Product Manager is not listed in the references on https://www.cool.osd.mil/. Can the Government provide a link or document where the Foundational Qualification Requirements for the Product Manager can be found? Update link to https://dl.cyber.mil/dcwf/ElementsMap/story.html DoD has not currently established the DCWF Qualification Matrix for the following DCWF workroles 806 - Product Manager 621 - Software Devloper 461 - Systems Security Analyst 673 - Software Test & Evaluation Specialist 67 Contracting Section L, Volume I, 2 Page: 8 and Attachment 0006 5 Page: 1 Background: Reference to “The maximum number of Contractor logins for Oral Presentations is limited to five individuals.” And “5. Oral Presentations is limited to a maximum of five individual logins.”
| Question: Do these statements mean Offerors are limited to five presenters for their Oral Presentations? Or do these statements refer to the maximum number of MS Teams logins an Offeror may have? | The maximum number of log ons will be 5. | |||
| 68 | Contracting | A couple of questions: 1) are you going to post the slide to Sam, 2) Can you post a list of attendees to the industry day. Again, thanks for a good Industry day. | Industry Day slides will not be posted to SAM.gov. The Government does not intend to post a list of the Industry Day attendees. | |
| 69 | Contracting | Is it acceptable for past performance references to come from the team? Will the Prime offeror be required to submit a past performance reference of similar size, scope and complexity? | See final RFP. The Prime offeror is required to submit past performance and major subcontractors. | |
| 70 | Does the draft RFP for C3T support represent a consolidation of several contracts? If so: |
a. Please provide the incumbents’ names and contract numbers.
b. Are these companies eligible to bid on this RFQ either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor?
c. What are the current contract sizes?
d. Are the current contracts Firm Fixed Price, Time and Material, Cost Plus or a hybrid cost structure?
e. How many full time and part time contractor FTEs are currently working on these contracts?
f. Are there any changes in the scope in this PWS compared to the current scope supported by the incumbents?
| No, this requirement does not represent a consolidation of several contracts. | ||||
| 71 | Will the RFP be released on or before 8 May 2024? | The Government anticipates releasing the final RFP in the 3rd quarter of the Government Fiscal Year 2024 | ||
| 72 | Technical | How does this effort interface with or otherwise impact efforts at Orlando, Tobyhanna, and any other locations? | Nothing at Orlanda or Tobyhanna. | |
| 73 | Technical | Please clarify the requirement for safeguarding. PWS 1.2 indicates initial contractor place of performance is located within 2 buildings on Ft Sill, OK, and as more TOs are released the contractor is required to provide additional support in an unclassified contractor facility. However, the DD254 indicates safeguarding is required. | Please see the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) for safeguarding requirements. | |
| 74 | Contracting | Volume II, Section L, pages 10-11 Attachment 0009 - Section L Instruction (Past Performance) | CONTEXT: The Government has limited the Past Performance Volume (Volume II) to 15 pages IAW Section L Table 1. Additionally, the Government has stated this volume shall not exceed nine (9) pages, approximately three (3) pages per contract for the prime offeror and not to exceed six (6) pages, approximately three (3) pages per major subcontractor, excluding the Past Performance Questionnaire Form. However, the Government has required that the Offeror submits the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. |
| QUESTION: Is the requirement to submit written consent of Major Subcontractors considered part of the 15-page limitation for the PP Volume? | Yes | |||
| 75 | Contracting | Volume II, Section L, pages 10-11 Attachment 0009 - Section L Instruction (Past Performance) | CONTEXT: The Government has limited the Past Performance Volume (Volume II) to 15 pages IAW Section L Table 1. Additionally, the Government has stated this volume shall not exceed nine (9) pages, approximately three (3) pages per contract for the prime offeror and not to exceed six (6) pages, approximately three (3) pages per major subcontractor, excluding the Past Performance Questionnaire Form. However, the Government has required that the Offeror submits Letters of Commitment for all Major Subcontractors in order for their Past Performance to be considered. |
| QUESTION: Is the requirement to submit written Letters of Commitment for each Major Subcontractor considered part of the 15-page limitation for the PP Volume? | No, Letters of Commitment is not part of the 15 page limit. See Amended Solicitation | |||
| 76 | Contracting | Volume II, Section L, page 12 Attachment 0009 - Section L Instruction | CONTEXT: The Government has limited the Past Performance Volume (Volume II) to 15 pages IAW Section L Table 1. Additionally, the Government has stated this volume shall not exceed nine (9) pages, approximately three (3) pages per contract for the prime offeror and not to exceed six (6) pages, approximately three (3) pages per major subcontractor, excluding the Past Performance Questionnaire Form. However, the Government has required that the Offeror submits a copy of Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented. |
| QUESTION: Is the requirement to submit written copies of Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented considered part of the 15-page limitation for the PP Volume? | No, Cure Notices and Show Cause Letters is not part of the 15 page limit for Past Performance submission. See the Amended Solicitation | |||
| 77 | Contracting | Volume II, Section L, pages 12-13 Attachment 0009 RFP Section L Instructions (Section 3 - Subcontracts) | CONTEXT: The Government has limited the Past Performance Volume (Volume II) to 15 pages IAW Section L Table 1. Additionally, the Government has stated this volume shall not exceed nine (9) pages, approximately three (3) pages per contract for the prime offeror and not to exceed six (6) pages, approximately three (3) pages per major subcontractor, excluding the Past Performance Questionnaire Form. However, the Government has required that the Offeror provides an outline of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number, Unique Entity ID, and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS subparagraph number. This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed cost/price. This section will further include written consent of major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of their subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors. |
| QUESTION: Is the requirement to submit an outline of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors and also the requirement to submit written Consent Letters and Letters of Commitment considered part of the 15-page limitation for the PP Volume? | Yes, to exclude Letters of commitment. See Amended Solicitation. | |||
| 78 | Contracting | Volume II, Section L, page 13 RFP Attachment 0009 RFP Section L Instructions (Section 4 - New Corporate Entities) | CONTEXT: The Government has limited the Past Performance Volume (Volume II) to 15 pages IAW Section L Table 1. Additionally, the Government has stated this volume shall not exceed nine (9) pages, approximately three (3) pages per contract for the prime offeror and not to exceed six (6) pages, approximately three (3) pages per major subcontractor, excluding the Past Performance Questionnaire Form. However, the Government has stated that Offerors shall submit information substantiating the Offerors past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, maximizing opportunities for U.S. small business subcontractors. Additionally, the Government has stated that Offerors shall also provide a statement indicating whether any negative information has been reported in the past five years concerning the Offerors past compliance with FAR 52.219-8. If any such negative information has been reported, the Offeror may submit explanations or comments responding to such negative information. Offerors with no prior contracts containing FAR 52.219-8 shall certify the same. |
| QUESTION: Is the requirement to submit information substantiating the Offerors past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, maximizing opportunities for U.S. small business subcontractors part of the 15-page limitation for the PP Volume? | Yes | |||
| 79 | Contracting | Volume II, Section L, pages 13-14 Attachment 0009 RFP Section L Instructions (Small Business Participation Past Performance) | CONTEXT: The Government has limited the Past Performance Volume (Volume II) to 15 pages IAW Section L Table 1. Additionally, the Government has stated this volume shall not exceed nine (9) pages, approximately three (3) pages per contract for the prime offeror and not to exceed six (6) pages, approximately three (3) pages per major subcontractor, excluding the Past Performance Questionnaire Form. However, the Government has stated that new corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its offices and employees and the Government has required that the Offeror discusses in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited and that Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered. |
| QUESTION: Is the requirement to discuss new Corporate Entities and also the requirement to submit written Letters of Commitment considered part of the 15-page limitation for the PP Volume? | Yes, this is part of the 15 page limit, to exclude letters of commitments. See amended solicitation. | ||||
| 80 | Contracting | Section L page 26 Attachment 0009 RFP Section L Instructions | "Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in VOLUME V – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS /REPRESENTATIONS." Can the Government fix to be Volume VII due to the typo? | Updated see Amended Solicitation | |
| 81 | Technical | Section C - PWS 3.2.3, page 54 W15P7T-24-R-0021.pdf | The PWS paragraph 3.2.3 Engineering Objectives states, “AQLs for Engineering Objectives. Applicable Performance Standards and AQLs are included in Engineering Objectives Subsections 3.2.2.13.2.2.12, Pages 13 - 18.” Did the government intend the referenced subsections to be 3.2.2.1 – 3.2.2.12? Also, the listed page numbers are inaccurate when the PWS is incorporated into the larger solicitation document. | Referenced page numbers removed, the subsections are 3.2.3.1-3.2.3.12 | |
| 82 | Technical | PWS Section 3.2.3 W15P7T-24-R-0021.pdf | The PWS paragraph 3.2.3 Engineering Objectives states, “AQLs for Engineering Objectives. Applicable Performance Standards and AQLs are included in Engineering Objectives Subsections 3.2.2.13.2.2.12, Pages 13 - 18.” Did the government intend the referenced subsections to be 3.2.2.1 – 3.2.2.12? Also, the listed page numbers are inaccurate when the PWS is incorporated into the larger solicitation document. | Referenced page numbers removed, the subsections are 3.2.3.1-3.2.3.12 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .