CTSO INC1 PPON W15QKN-22-R-0JKH Questions from Industry - 1FEB22.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Prototype Project Opportunity Notice (PPON) Close Terrain Shaping Obstacles (CTSO) Increment 1 (INC1)
- Solicitation number
- W15QKN-22-R-0JKH
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
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
PPON Questions
| UNCLASSIFIED | |||||||
| Item #1 | Government File Name | Page # | Para # / Line # | Question/Comment | Government Response | ||
| 1 | CTSO INC1 PPON - 6JAN22.pdf | 10 | 3.3.3 | PPON Paragraph 3.3.3 Page Size and Format states, "the font type shall be Arial." Is Arial Narrow acceptable? | Offerors must use the standard regular Arial font. Offerors may not use the Arial Narrow font. | ||
| 2 | CTSO INC1 PPON - 6JAN22.pdf | 10 | 3.3.8 | Referenced paragraph states that "Proposals shall be submitted in electronic (searchable) format…." Does the Government require that graphics also be text-searchable, or is that requirement only for text? | Proposals are not required to have text-searchable graphics. | ||
| 3 | CTSO INC1 PPON - 6JAN22.pdf | 15 | 3.4.4.3.3 | 3.4.4.3.3 Team Members/Subcontractors and Material/Equipment: Will Subcontractors be required to provide the same level of details for direct labor as required in 3.4.4.3.2 Direct Labor? If so, will the Subcontractors be required to request their own DOD Safe file transfer (per SOW 3.1.12) for delivery of unsanitized proprietary proposal data to the Government. | Team Members / Subcontractors are required to provide the same level of detail for direct labor as required in 3.4.4.3.2 Direct Labor. Team Members / Subcontractors may choose to submit their cost / pricing information directly to the Government using the DOD SAFE site. | ||
| 4 | CTSO INC1 PPON - 6JAN22.pdf | 19 | 4.1 | 4.1 General Evaluation Process The Government states "Offerors are cautioned that award may not necessarily be made to the Offeror that proposes the lowest evaluated cost or the Offeror whose proposal receives the highest rating." and "The proposal that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government will be eligible for award." If the highest rating per the defined evaluation criteria in section 4.2 does not determine the awardee, can the Government define what criteria they will use to evaluate "most beneficial"? | Section 4, Basis of Selection, describes the methodology that will be used by the Government to evaluate proposals submitted in response to the PPON. As noted in the PPON, this methodology will include evaluation of the offeror's Cost / Price proposal (Evaluation Factor 4 - Cost / Price). | ||
| 5 | Attachment 1 - CTSO INC1 SOW - 6JAN25 | 7 | 4.1.1 | 4.1.1. | TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION references the "FY21 Defense Exportability Findings Study". Will the Government provide the referenced study documents? | The "FY21 Defense Exportability Findings Study" will not be available before the CTSO INC1 PPON closes. Offerors do not need the study to develop and submit a proposal in response to this PPON. | |
| 6 | Attachment 1 - CTSO INC1 SOW - 6JAN25 | 7 | 4.1.1. | 4.1.1. | TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION states "the design will be delivered with a TA-capability compliant to US landmine policy". Will the Government provide the latest policy? | The latest version of the U.S. Landmine Policy has been attached to this SAM posting as a reference document. | |
| 7 | Attachment 1 - CTSO INC1 SOW - 6JAN25 | 8 | 4.1.1.2.1 | 4.1.1.2.1. TA CAVM FOR MIDDLE TERRAIN SHAPING OBSTACLES (MTSO) / DEEP TERRAIN SHAPING OBSTACLES (DTSO) states "The TA CAVM subcomponents should adhere to a form factor that allows for future integration into 155mm artillery and precision strike missile (PrSM) delivery to the maximum extent possible. " Will the Government provide the ICD or form factor requirements for the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) to be taken into account as part of the TA CAVM solution? | |||
| The Government will not be able to provide the PrSM ICD or form factor requirements before the PPON closing date. Offerors must develop their proposals without this information. The 155mm artillery constraints would be sufficient for PrSM. | |||||||
| 8 | Attachment 1 - CTSO INC1 SOW - 6JAN22 | 42 | 4.1.14.4 | "4.1.14.4 VISUAL TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE AID (VIDEO) The ITA visual training and performance aid shall include a demonstration of a maneuver force emplacing a point obstacle. The video shall be delivered seven months after agreement award." Does the Government expect this to be a concept video using mockups of the final product? Can the Government define the level of detail required for this video? | Section 4.1.14.4, Visual Training and Performance Aid (Video), of the SOW has been updated to address these questions. | ||
| 9 | Attachment 1 - CTSO INC1 SOW - 6JAN25 | 42 | 4.1.15 | 4.1.15. | INSENSITIVE MUNITIONS (IM) states "Rough Order Magnitude (ROM) cost to integrate available IM technologies shall be provided in the full proposal for the Government review and evaluation. " The ROM pricing requested in 4.1.15 conflicts with the pricing table instructions. The pricing instructions state ROM pricing shall be submitted for Tasks 7&8. Para 4.1.15 is part of Task 1. How would the Government like 4.1.15 priced? | The cost to integrate INSENSITIVE MUNITIONS (IM) technologies should be included in Task 1. This cost should not be included in the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for Tasks 7 and 8. The SOW section 4.1.15. INSENSITIVE MUNITIONS (IM) was corrected to remove ROM. | |
| 10 | Attachment 1 - CTSO INC1 SOW - 6JAN25 | 53 | 4.4.3 | 4.4.3. | ARMING OPTIONS This section references "3.2.1-13 in the SRD." There is no item numbered "3.2.1-13" in the SRD. What is the correct SRD reference? | Section 4.4.3, Arming Options, of the SOW has been revised to reflect the correct section in the SRD: 3.4.2 | |
| 11 | Attachment 1 - CTSO INC1 SOW - 6JAN22 | 53 | 4.4.6 | "4.4.6. | DESIGN FOR EXPORTABILITY FEATURES | ||
| The Contractor shall utilize the DoD’s Technology Security and Foreign Disclosure (TSFD) questionnaire to conduct a TSFD assessment to facilitate the identification of exportability concerns and develop recommended program protection measures". Can the government provide the DoD's Technology Security and Foreign Disclosure questionnaire? | The Government will not be able to provide the DoD's Technology Security and Foreign Disclosure (TSDF) questionnaire at this time due to its limited dissemination controls. Please see the following link from the Defense Acquisition University for information on TSDF, including the TSDF Pipes: |
https://www.dau.edu/cop/iam/Pages/Topics/TSFD%20and%20Export%20Control.aspx
The TSDF questionnaire asks to describe aspects of the system's design with respect to the TSDF Pipes.
| 12 | Attachment 1 - CTSO INC1 SOW - 6JAN22 | 55-58 | 5.1 | Hardware Deliverables. Table of required deliverables specifies QTY TBD for many deliveries. Will the Government provide the quantities marked TBDs in Table5.1 for proposal costing? | Section 5.1, Hardware Deliverables, of the SOW has been revised to indicate that these quantities are "To Be Proposed" by the offeror based their solution. The proposed quantity will represent the offerors best estimate of the quantity required for proving out and qualifying the solution in testing. |
| 13 | Attachment 1 - CTSO INC1 SOW - 6JAN25 | 63 | 6.0 | 6.0 MILESTONE PAYMENT SCHEDULE In the payment schedule table Milestone 6.42 & 6.43 Task 1 Soldier Touch Points - Year 1 & 2 reference SOW Paragraph 4.17. SOW paragraph 4.17 is not in the SOW, please provide the correct mapping of the SOW paragraph to this milestone. | The CTSO INC1 SOW has been revised to reflect the correct reference: Section 4.1.7. |
| 14 | Attachment 1 - CTSO INC1 SOW - 6JAN22 | 68 | 10.5 | The SOW 10.5 states that the Contractor shall only hire U.S. citizens to perform work on this contract. |
Considering a major objective of this program is to consider exportability to NATO/Coalition partners, will the USG accept tier 2 and 3 material and labor subcontracted support from NATO member country contractors with existing Technical Assistance Agreements in place with the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, with the intention that all required export or security guidance will be followed for discrete technical data or work packages.
| Section 10.5, Contractor Facility Clearance, of the SOW has been revised to clarify this requirement. | ||||||
| 15 | Attachment 1 - CTSO INC1 SOW - 6JAN25 | Appendix B | Appendix B | Appendix B: Contractor Data Requirements List (CDRL)s - Most of the CDRLs in Appendix B call out due dates as a number of days prior/after an event under the Schedule column. Some specify "calendar" days but the majority are "days." Please clarify if the Government intends CDRLs due dates not identified as calendar days should be in scheduled in business days. | The CTSO INC1 SOW has been revised to include the following statement: " All references to "days" that are not specifically identified as "business days" or calendar days" shall be interpreted as "calendar days". | |
| 16 | Attachment 6-CTSO INC1 Price Matrix-15DEC21.xlsx | Sheet1 | Row 43 | "Travel ODCs" has a comment that this does not have an input area and can be deleted. Does the Government require travel costs and ODCs be captured as a input per task as appropriate tasks per the blue shaded boxes? | The Travel ODCs line has been removed from Attachment 6 - Pricing Matrix. Offerors do not need to specify Travel ODCs in Attachment 6. Proposed travel costs should however, be fully detailed as part of the Offeror's Cost / Price proposal. | |
| 17 | Attachment 6-CTSO INC1 Price Matrix-15DEC21.xlsx | Sheet1 | Rows 40 & 53 | The Pricing Matrix has 2 entries for testing year three. Row 40 Task 1 "Milestone 6.41 Test & Evaluation - Year 3" and Row 53 Task 2/3 "Milestone 6.43 CTSO Increment 1 - Tests & Evaluation - Year 3" . Additionally Row 53 has the same Milestone 6.43 as row 42 "Soldier Touchpoint Year 2". If row 53 is correct for pricing, please provide direction on the scope of work to be included. | Attachment 6 - Pricing Matrix has been updated to address this question. The entry in Row 53 has been deleted. | |
| 18 | Attachment 6-CTSO INC1 Price Matrix-15DEC21.xlsx | Sheet1 | Rows 76 - 79 | The Pricing Matrix has 4 rows, 76 through 79 that all have the same Milestone number 6.65. Please confirm that the Manufacturing Readiness Assessment Years 1 through 3 should be numbered 6.66 through 6.68 to match the SOW table 6.0 | Attachment 6 - Pricing Matrix has been corrected to address this question. | |
| 19 | CTSO INC1 PPON - 6JAN22.pdf | 8 | Section 3.3.1 | |||
| Table 2 - Proposal File Organization and Page Limits | In section 3.3.1 Table 2 titled "Proposal File Organization and Page Limits" under Volume IV Cost/Price (Evaluation Factor 4); it requires a Sanitized Cost Proposal, Does the Government also require a Sanitized Cost Narrative? As per the direction in section 3.3.1 table a sanitized Cost proposal will be blank Excel sheets with headings. | In accordance with the PPON, the Sanitized Cost Proposal shall be the same as the cost proposal but with all the costs/prices deleted. Per Table 2, the sanitized Volume IV, Cost/Price proposal shall include both Item 1 - Element of Cost Proposal in Excel Format and Item 3 - Cost Narrative with Supporting Documentation. Note that the Element of Cost Proposal in Excel format will not be blank, but will include all cost elements other than price (for example, Labor Categories, Labor Hours, etc.). | ||||
| 20 | CTSO INC1 PPON - 6JAN22.pdf | 8 | Section 3.3.1 | |||
| Table 2 - Proposal File Organization and Page Limits | In section 3.3.1 Table 2 titled "Proposal File Organization and Page Limits" it has a list of files required for the submittal, can the Offeror add additional files (keeping to the page limitations) as needed to support the proposal, using the same naming convention? This applies mainly to the cost Narrative where additional files will likely be required to support the narrative. | Offerors must limit proposal submissions to the list of files in Section 3.3.1, Table 2. All required documents should be consolidated into the files listed. | ||||
| 21 | CTSO INC1 PPON - 6JAN22.pdf | 11 | Section 3.4.1.2.1 | |||
| Paragraph 1 / Line 3 | In Section 3.4.1.2.1 the government states "The Offeror shall clearly trace the proposed C5 design to the Government requirements as described in the SOW sections 4.1.1.3 – 4.1.1.5 and as defined in the SRD, as well as clearly identifying any areas where the SRD requirements are not fully met by the proposed design." To support this requirement in section 3.4.1.2.1 would the government consider allowing the Offeror to provide a Design to SRD Requirements Traceability Matrix (in excel) as an appendix to the technical volume that is not considered part of the proposal page count? | Offerors must address requirements traceability within the Technical Volume and adhere to the page count limitations specified in the PPON. |
| 22 | CTSO INC1 PPON - 6JAN22.pdf | 12 | 3.4.1.3.1 | |||
| Paragraph 1/Line 2 | In Section 3.4.1.3.1 it states that "Any exceptions to Unlimited Rights must be clearly stated in the proposal and Attachment 1 – Statement of Work must have Section 9 completed." If required should the offeror include section 9.0 only of the SOW in the offerors Technical Volume Data Rights Subsection or the entire SOW? | To support its Subfactor 3 - Data Rights proposal, offerors may include a completed version of Section 9.0 of the SOW. Offerors may reference other sections of the SOW as needed to adequately describe their Data Rights proposal. | ||||
| 23 | CTSO INC1 PPON - 6JAN22.pdf | 12 | 3.4.1.3.2 | |||
| Paragraph 1/ Line 1 | In Section 3.4.1.3.2 it states that "If the offeror does not propose unlimited rights that the offeror should submit an SLA..." The SLA is part of Volume V per the Table in section 3.3.1 titles ""Proposal File Organization and Page Limits" does the government also want the SLA in the offerors Technical Volume Subfactor 3 submittal as well? | Offerors do not need to include the Software License Agreements (SLA) in their Subfactor 3 - Data Rights proposal. Offerors may include references to the SLAs as needed to adequately describe their Data Rights proposal. | ||||
| 24 | CTSO INC1 PPON - 6JAN22.pdf | 14-18 | Section 3.4.4 Volume IV Cost/Price | Our assumption is that the Cost proposal and Cost Proposal Narrative for Volume IV Cost/Price is for CPFF tasks of the SOW only (Tasks 1-6) and will not need to include any information for the ROM tasks 7 and 8. The ROM pricing will be provided in Attachment 6 only. Does the Government concur with this assumption? | Additional supporting data is not required for the ROM prices provided for Task 7 and Task 8 in Attachment 6 - Price Matrix. | |
| 25 | CTSO INC1 PPON - 6JAN22.pdf | 14-18 | Section 3.4.4 Volume IV Cost/Price | Our assumption is that the Cost proposal and Cost Proposal Narrative for Volume IV Cost/Price is for CPFF tasks of the SOW only (Tasks 1-6) and will not need to include any information for the ROM tasks 7 and 8. The ROM pricing will be provided in Attachment 6 only. Does the government require any additional supporting data for the ROM prices provided in Attachment 6, and if so where should that information be included in the proposal? | Additional supporting data is not required for the ROM prices provided for Task 7 and Task 8 in Attachment 6 - Price Matrix. | |
| 26 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 5 | 1.0 Introduction / Background | |||
| Paragraph 1 / Line 6-8 | The government references that CTSO Increment 1 will support the CAVM based A-CDD. Can the government provide the A-CDD so the Offerors can fully understand the full scope of the picture to better ensure Inc 1 can leverage as much of the CTSO design as practical for future mid and deep systems? | The A-CDD will not be provided prior to the closing date of the PPON. Offerors do not need the A-CDD to develop and submit a proposal in response to this PPON. | ||||
| 27 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 5 | 2.0 Scope / Objective | |||
| Paragraph 4/ Line 4 | The SOW states that Soldier Touch Points will be held at a minimum every 12 months. However, the PPON section 1.2 Acquisition Approach states that there will be only 2 total STPs (at 6 months and 12 months). If the plan is to have more than 2 STPs can the government specify when the additional STPs will be held? | The SOW has been updated to address this question. | ||||
| 28 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 6 | 3.0 Applicable Documents | |||
| Paragraph 1 / Line 8 | Under Applicable documents, the government lists that the 4th document in order of precedence is the "Test and Evaluation Strategy (TES)" document. Can the government provide the TES document? | Offerors do not need the TES (or TEMP) to develop and submit a proposal in response to this PPON. |
| 29 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 7 | 4.0 | REQUIREMENTS | |
| Paragraph 1/ line 2 | In section 4.0 the Government states "Task 4 Additional INC1 Attributes may be initiated by the Government at award based on funding allocated to Task 4 milestones but may not be completed if the Government decides not to fund additional Task 4 milestones. " It also states in section 4.6 "The Contractor shall include Task SV4 Additional INC1 Attributes as part of Task 3 INC1 Government System Verification Tests." Thus we assume Task 4 will either be awarded with Task 1 at initial contract award or not awarded at all is this assumption correct? | The Government currently anticipates initiating work under Task 4 along with Task 1 upon initial award of this OTA. |
NOTE: The work under the various tasks / milestones in the SOW can be initiated independently. This structure allows greater project flexibility. For example, this flexiblity can be used to accelerate fielding or reduce capability based on available funding. The Government currently plans to initiate Task 1 for 18 months of rapid prototyping followed by Task 2 for 6 months of Contractor-System Verification Tests (C-SVT). These tasks remain consistent regardless of whether and when other tasks / milestones are initiated. After C-SVT, the Government may choose to initiate additional milestones for up to 32 months of Government-System Verification Tests (G-SVT) under Task 3 in pursuit of Type Classification and Full Material Release (FMR). Depending on funding availability, the milestones under Task 4 may also be initiated at OTA award and conducted in parallel with Task 1. If the Government initiates Task 4, then Task 5 and Task 6 may be initiated to supplement testing of the additional Task 4 attributes. Tasks 5 and Task 6 would then be conducted in conjunction with C-SVT in Task 2 and G-SVT in Task 3, respectively. If the Government chooses to pursue an Urgent Material Release (UMR), then it may not initiate all of the milestones under Task 3 and Task 6 due to the reduced testing scope required for UMR compared to that required for Type Classification and FMR.
| 30 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 17 | Section 4.1.4.1.5 | |
| Paragraph 1/Line 1 | SOW Paragraph 4.1.4.1.5 Says PRR will be at the completion of G-SVT. How many month after contract award does the government anticipate the completion of G-SVT? | Section 4.1.4.1.5, Production Readiness Review (PRR) of the SOW has been updated to address this question. The Government seeks completion of the PRR 18 months after the start of G-SVT. | ||
| 31 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 17 | Section 4.1.4.1.4 | |
| Paragraph 1/Line 1 | In 4.1.4.1.4 it states "The Contractor shall participate in the SVR/FCA 30 days after Contractor delivery of the Contractor System Verification Testing (C-SVT) samples. Normally the SVR/FCA are held after Government testing as an entrance criteria to LRIP and in-line with the timing of PRR. Based on this would the Government consider moving the timing of the SVR/FCA closer to PRR? | Section 4.1.4.4, System Verification Review (SVR)/ Functional Configuration Audit (FCA), of the SOW has been updated to address this question. The Government seeks the completion of the SVR/FCA 12 months after the start of G-SVT. |
| 32 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 23 | Section 4.1.8.1 Tracking and Implementation | |||
| Paragraph 1/Line 3 | In Section 4.1.8.1 it states "The Contractor shall track and implement security controls specified in the RMF Security Plan established by the Government with the potential security control items as listed in the RMF Control attachment extracted from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) SP 800-53, Attachment 11 - Security Control List. Can the Government please provide the Offerors Attachment 11 - Security Control List? | The Government does not have the list of potential security control items at this time. Section 4.1.8.1, Tracking and Implementation, of the SOW has been updated to remove the reference to Attachment 11. | ||||
| 33 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 24 | Section 4.1.9.5 - Inspection of Supplies and Services | |||
| Paragraph 1/Line 1 | It states that Contractor shall comply with FAR clauses 52.246-2 (Inspection of Supplies - Fixed Price) and 52.246-4 (Inspection of Services - Fixed Price). Shouldn't these be the FAR clauses for Cost Reimbursement (52.246-3 and 52.246-5) since this is expenditure based? | Section 4.1.9.5, Inspection of Supplies and Services, of the SOW has been revised to reflect an expenditure-based Agreement. | ||||
| 34 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 42 | Section 4.1.15 | |||
| Paragraph 1/Line 5 | Line 5 states, "The following IM tests in Table 1 shall be conducted on the proposed system to determine IM Characteristics of the system. " Should the contractor include the costs in our initial proposal to conduct these tests, or would these costs be in a subsequent proposal that the government evaluates during execution? | Offerors must include these costs in proposals submitted in response to this PPON. | ||||
| 35 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 43 | 4.1.16.1 | |||
| Paragraph 1/Line 1 | In Paragraph 4.1.16.1 Contractor Integrated Program Management Report it states " The Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report (IPMDAR) (DI-MGMT-81861B) shall be developed, maintained, updated, and/or statused, and reported monthly. It has been standard procedure on previous OTA awards that the IPMDAR can be modified. Since this is an OTA, can the requirements for a full Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report (IPMDAR) (DI-MGMT-81861B) be tailored? | The requirement for an Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report (IPMDAR) (DI-MGMT-81861B) in accordance with Section 4.1.16.1 of the CTSO INC1 SOW cannot be tailored. | ||||
| 36 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 43 | 4.1.16.1 | |||
| Paragraph 1/Line 2 | In Paragraph 4.1.16.1 - Contractor Integrated Program Management Report, EIA-748 (Industry Guideline for EV Mgmt. Systems) and DFARS 252.234-7002 are referenced, which would mandate that Full EV is required on the program. It has been standard procedure on previous OTA awards that the clauses relative to Earned Value have not been referenced. Is this a firm requirement for this OTA award or can this be tailored? | There is a firm requirement to implement a full Earned Value Management System (EVMS) in accordance with Section 4.1.16.1, Contractor Integrated Program Management Report, of the CTSO INC1 SOW. | ||||
| 37 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 45 | 4.1.16.10 CONTRACT WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (CWBS) | |||
| Paragraph 1/Line 6 | In Section 4.1.16.10 it sates "The Contractor shall develop and maintain the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and CWBS dictionary in accordance with Military Standard-881C (MIL-STD-881C). In PPON Attachment 11 - CTSO INC 1 CDSR Memo it shows on page 4 "Cost and Software Data Reporting Plan" a WBS structure per MIL-STD-881E. Should the SOW Section 4.1.16.10 be updated to the latest standard (MIL-STD-881E)? | The SOW has been revised to reflect the correct reference: MIL-STD-881E. | ||||
| 38 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 53 | Section 4.4.3 | |||
| Paragraph 1/ Line 1 | SOW paragraph 4.4.3 addressing arming options reference paragraph 3.2.1-13 in the SRD. This paragraph is not present in the SRD. Could the GOVT identify the proper reference? | Section 4.4.3, Arming Options, of the SOW has been updated to include the correct SRD reference: 3.4.2 | ||||
| 39 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 53 | Section 4.4.1 | |||
| Paragraph 1 / Line 1 | The government states in Section 4.4.1 Receiving Location "The Contractor shall design the CAVM TA launch module so that it is capable of retrieving location information from military GPS receivers." | |||||
| Is the intent for the contractor to imbed a military GPS in the CAVM TA Launch module or receive GPS position information from an external source? | The requirement under Section 4.4.1 of the SOW is to receive GPS locations from an external source. The requirement under Section 4.4.2 is for a built-in GPS receiver in the design. Section 4.4.1 of the SOW has been revised to add the word "external". | |||||
| 40 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 53 and 54 | Sections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 | Task 4 details additional Inc 1 attributes with a Year 1-3 milestone schedule with Task 5 C-SVT and Task 6 G-SVT beginning in the 4th and 5th years respectively shown in Attachment 6 Price Matrix. Deliveries of Task 1 prototypes begin delivery by end of Year 2. Does the government assume Task 4 development will occur in parallel with Task 1, and attributes will be delivered with HW prototypes as they are completed or are these two distinct development efforts with separate hardware deliveries? | The Government anticipates that Task 4 will occur in parallel with Task 1 and attributes will be delivered with hardware prototypes as they are completed. |
See Item #29 for additional information about task / milestone initiation.
| 41 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 55-58 | Section 5.1 Hardware Deliverables Table | Does the government anticipate stipulating values for "TBDs" in table 5.1, or should the contractor recommend quantities as part of their response? | Section 5.1, Hardware Deliverables, of the SOW has been revised to indicate that these quantities are "To Be Proposed" by the offeror based their solution. The proposed quantity will represent the offerors best estimate of the quantity required for proving out and qualifying the solution in testing. |
| 42 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 57 | Section 5.1 Hardware Deliverables Table | The PPON and SOW attachment does not specify the period of performance for G-SVT, based on Attachment 6 we infer that C-SVT is in year 2 and that G-SVT is conducted in years 3-5 is this correct? And if so can you please provide additional guidance on the breakdown of the G-SVT deliverable hardware in Table 5.1 by year for years 3-5? | C-SVT will take place between 18-24 months after agreement award. G-SVT will take place between 24-56 months after agreement award. Prototypes are to be delivered in Years 3 through Year 5 of the Period of Performance. A specific rate of prototype delivery has not been established under this PPON. Proposals must describe the rate at which the offeror is capable of delivering prototypes. |
| 43 | Attachment 1 - CTSO Inc 1 SOW - 6JAN22.docx | 68 | Section 10.4 Classification | |||
| Paragraph 1/Line 2 | In Section 10.4 it states " All contractor personnel shall require a final Secret or higher clearance." Is the government’s intent that all contractor personnel working on the program be required to have a SECRET clearance, regardless if their position requires it. (i.e. Finance personnel, program support personnel, etc.) or only those that will have a need work on classified material? | Section 10.4, Classification, of the SOW has been revised and now reflects the requirements in Attachment 4, DD 254: Only U.S. Citizens are authorized to work with U.S. Government classified information and/or material. | ||||
| 44 | Attachment 6 - CTSO INC1 Price Matrix - 15DEC21.xlsx | N/A | N/A | In section 4.5 it states "The Contractor shall extend Task 2 INC1 Contractor System Verification Tests to include Task 4 Additional INC1 Attributes where applicable." and in Section 4.6 "The Contractor shall include Task SV4 Additional INC1 Attributes as part of Task 3 INC1 Government System Verification Tests." If Task 4 Attributes are to be added as part of Task 2 C-SVT and Task 3 G-SVT why does attachment 6 have tasks 5 and 6 (C-SVT and G-SVT) in years 4 and 5 and not in years 2 and 3, which would align with Tasks 2 and 3 Period of Performance? | Attachment 6 - Price Matrix has been revised to better align with the SOW and address this question. | |
| 45 | Attachment 6 - CTSO INC1 Price Matrix - 15DEC21.xlsx | N/A | N/A | If Tasks 5 and 6 are to be included with tasks 2 and 3 that take place in years 2 and 3 per Attachment 6 (I.e. row 6.43 in Attachment 6 suggest that all task 3 Government testing "CTSO Increment 1 - Test & Evaluation - Year 3" takes place in year 3), what tasks does the Government expect there to be in Years 4 and 5 for the Offerors to price? | Attachment 6 - Price Matrix has been revised to better align with the SOW and address this question. |
| 46 | Attachment 7 - CTSO INC1 OTA Terms and Conditions - 2DEC21.docx | 8 | Article 4, Section D. Payable Milestones and SOW | Section 1.2 of the PPON (Acquisition Approach) states that "The prototype will be awarded on an expenditure based (cost plus fixed fee) basis"; however, there are several instances throughout the OTA and SOW that suggest a FFP type OTA: (1) The definition of "Payable Milestone" indicates that payment will be made once a milestone has been met and the Milestone Payment Schedule in the SOW has Due Dates as "End of Year 1", "End of Year 2" etc. which indicates payments will only be made at end of each year; (2) Article 4, Section D states that "The Company shall submit invoices for processing according to the milestone payment schedule in SOW"; (2) Article 4, Section D further states that "all payment requests shall state the milestone payment number and shall align with the funding amount per CLIN and that partial milestones shall not be submitted"; and (3) Section 4.1.9.5 of the SOW states that "Contractor shall comply with FAR clauses 52.246-2 (Inspection of Supplies - Fixed Price) and 52.246-4 (Inspection of Services - Fixed Price) instead of the FAR clauses for Cost Reimbursement (52.246-3 and 52.246-5) since this is expenditure based. | ||
| Can the Government please clarify the disconnects in the PPON documentation, and that per a typical CPFF contract that monthly invoices for accumulated actuals can be submitted for payment? | IAW the PPON, this prototype OTA will be awarded on an expenditure based (cost plus fixed fee) basis. Prior to award, the Government anticipates establishing an OTA Milestone Payment Schedule that reflects the successful offeror's proposed solution, periodic disbursements of accumulated actual costs, and project progression through meaningful milestone events. | |||||
| 47 | Attachment 7 - CTSO INC1 OTA Terms and Conditions - 2DEC21.docx | 12 | Article VIII, Patent Rights | FAR 52.227-1 Authorization and Consent is missing from this OTA (it is part of our DOTC OTA) which allows for the Govt. to assume liability for all patent infringement, we recommend that this FAR Clause be added to this contract? | The offeror may propose the inclusion of this language in its proposal submission. | |
| 48 | Attachment 7 - CTSO INC1 OTA Terms and Conditions - 2DEC21.docx | 17 | Article XI, OPSEC, Section C iWATCH Training | It states that "All contractor employees, including subcontractor employees, shall receive training and participate in the local iWATCH program (training standards provided by the requiring activity ATO). We assume that this requirement only applies to those contractor employees needing access to a DoD Facility, is that correct? | This requirement is for contractor employees with an area of performance within an Army controlled installation, facility or area. |
| 49 | Attachment 7 - CTSO INC1 OTA Terms and Conditions - 2DEC21.docx | 17 | Article XI, OPSEC, Section G. OPSEC Training | It states that "In accordance with AR 530-1 (or DoDM 5205.02-M), new COMPANY employees, including subcontractor employees, shall complete initial OPSEC training within 30 calendar days of award and must also complete annual OPSEC awareness as provided by the appropriately designated OPSEC level II trained OPSEC Officer/Coordinator. We assume that this requirement only applies to those contractor employees needing access to a DoD Facility, is that correct? | In accordance with Section 10.3, OPSEC Training, of the SOW, and ARTICLE XI: OPSEC, of the Agreement, all company employees, including subcontractor employees must complete OPSEC training. |
| 50 | Attachment 7 - CTSO INC1 OTA Terms and Conditions - 2DEC21.docx | Misc. - Payments | There is no Net Payment term, will the government add a Net 30 Payment Term? | Payment terms will be finalized prior to award. The Government anticipates standard Net 30 Days Payment terms in the awarded OTA. | |
| UNCLASSIFIED |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .