DRFP W51EW725RA0001 QandA_Posting_19Feb2025_complete_viewable.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) West Desert Test Center (WDTC) Mission Support Services (MSS)
- Solicitation number
- W51EW725RA001
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army
About this file
This file contains questions and answers related to the Draft RFP for the Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) West Desert Test Center (WDTC) Mission Support Services (MSS) contract. The Q&A clarifies that this will be a 100% small business set-aside acquisition, with a NAICS code of 541715. The contract will be Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) with some Fixed Price CLINs for CDRLs. ODC plug numbers will be provided in the final RFP pricing matrix.
Key clarifications include: letters of commitment will be required for key personnel in Volume IV; minimum labor category quantities are being removed from Table 4; PMO staffing categories will be identified in the final RFP pricing matrix; interim security clearances are acceptable at contract start; and the Performance Requirements Summary will be added as Technical Exhibit J. The Q&A confirms that DPG health clinic access will be limited to emergency and occupational health services, and that approximately 51 non-specialized support vehicles are currently being utilized. The file includes numerous other technical clarifications about proposal preparation, evaluation criteria, and contract requirements that will be incorporated into the final RFP.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
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
WDTC MSS DRFP
| No. | Source Document | Attachment or # RFP/PWS Section | Document Page / Paragraph No. | Industry Question / Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | During the previous draft Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) West Desert Test Center (WDTC) Mission Support Services (MSS) RFP release indicated that this opportunity is Small Business Set-aside. Then, a week later, a corrected the pre-solicitation to state that it is no longer SBSA. Last week, another pre-solicitation was released again stating that the opportunity is SBSA. Can you please clarify if this is truly a SBSA or if it is open? | When the Sources Sought was issued in May 2024 it was indeed incorrectly posted as an 8(a) small business set-aside and subsequently updated in another posting to correct that notice indicating there was NO set-aside established at that time (of the Sources Sought notice). During that early stage of the follow-on acquisition, the Government was performing appropriate/required market research to determine many aspects of the requirement/acquisition, to include the unrestricted/set-aside basis of the effort. Over the last several months and based on the market research conducted, a small business set-aside determination was made IAW FAR 19.502-2(b)(1) and (2), and thus, the DRFP issuance of 08 Jan 2025 indicating such. Accordingly, the WDTC MSS requirement will be solicited as a 100% small business set-aside. |
| 2 | Attachment 1, PWS | General | N/A | Will this contract involve the processing of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) on a Covered Contractor Information System (CCIS)? If yes, please provide specific CUI Categories from DoD CUI Registry. If no, is it correct to assume that all data/deliverables would be Federal Contract Information (FCI) only? | No, and it is correct to assume all data/deliverables will be FCI only. |
| 3 | Attachment 1, PWS | General | N/A | If a Covered Contractor Information System (CCIS) is required or proposed by the Contractor, what CMMC Assessment or Certification level is required for the CCIS in support of this contract? Level 1: Annual self-assessment, Level 2: Tri-annual self-assessment, Level 2: C3PAO certification, Level 3: DIBCAC certification. | DPG Security confirmed this is N/A to the pending MSS follow-on contract. |
| 4 | Attachment 1, PWS | 1.6.1.2 Table 2 | 27 | The paragraph requires nine Key Personnel with highly specific qualifications and security clearance requirements. We highly recommend you lower the number of required Key Personnel to the Program Manager and possibly the Project Managers. Requiring an excessive number of Key Personnel positions lower in the organization is incumbent friendly, especially in the case of WDTC with its recruiting and retention challenges (as evidenced in the RFP). It also reduces the ability for non-incumbents to retain those critical managers performing the work today, who you have invested in, and who likely want to stay in the area. | The identified positions are critical to the mission support and have always been identified as Key Positions in prior acquisition efforts. Project Managers should be hired based on the PWS requirements and qualifications for each of these labor categories. Program Manger, Security Mangers/Custodians and certain Project Managers will always require TS clearance and again, will always be identified as key position. The only change to Table 2 is deletion of the BTD only Project Manager, due to a change in mission requirements. All other Key Positions will remain. |
| 5 | Attachment 1, PWS | 1.6.1.2 Table 2 | 27 | Table 2 lists "Project Manager (BTD only)" as a Key Position, however there is no job description as provided for all the other Key Positions. Please provide a job description for Project Manager (BTD only). | PWS updated to delete Program Manger BTD from Table 2, as noted in response to RFI 4. |
| 6 | Attachment 1, PWS | 1.6.72 Table 3 | 44-45 | The paragraph states that Table 3 identifies positions that require WDTC certification. However, it does not describe what these certifications are or who issues them. Please provide details on the certifications and certifying authority. | 1.6.72 updated to add: "Certification training will be provided by WDTC government personnel when individuals are assigned or hired into these specialized positions. Some of these positions may require licensing which will be the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contract will ensure that those position that require special license have the required license for the position they are applying for." |
| 7 | Attachment 1, PWS | 3.7.3 | 57 | PWS 3.7.3 states "The contractor shall include the cost for vehicles (Lease or purchase) with this historical use as a guideline for estimating purposes." Please clarify exactly what "historical use as a guideline for estimating" is. | 3.7.3 updated as follows: "The Government will not provide non-specialized support vehicles in support of this contract. If the Contractor leases general support vehicles for the contract, the Contractor shall submit a list detailing the quantity of vehicles being leased to the KO for approval prior to charging the contract. Currently, 51 non-specialized support vehicles are being utilized to support requirements. This includes pick-up trucks, one and five-ton trucks, and transport vans. The contractor shall include the cost for vehicles (Lease or purchase) to the COR/KO. Specialized vehicle such as cranes, fuel trucks, forklifts etc.) in support of the contract are government provided. Once the contract is awarded, the final list of vehicles (purchased or leased) shall be provided to KO for approval." |
| 8 | Attachment 1, PWS | 3.7.3 | 57 | PWS 3.7.3 states "The contractor shall include the cost for vehicles (Lease or purchase) with this historical use as a guideline for estimating purposes." Please clarify where in Section B we are to include vehicle costs (CLIN 0003/1003 or CLIN 0007/1007). | Vehicle costs may be dependent on the Offeror's accounting system, and the CWO. May be priced as an ODC (CLIN X003) or as an indirect charge. |
| 9 | Attachment 1, PWS | 5.3 and Table 4 | 69 & 70 | Table 4 provides Labor Positions and Minimum Quantities for the Chemical Test Division only. Request the Government also provide similar tables for the other divisions. | Table 4 updated to REMOVE minimum quantities. Minimum quantities will NOT be provided for any Divisions. |
| 10 | Attachment 1, PWS and Attachment 5, Historical Hours | PWS Table 2 and 1.6.4, 1.6.7, 1.6.9 - 1.6.11, 1.6.17, 1.6.18, 1.6.23, 1.6.26, 1.6.37, 1.6.39, - 1.6.41, 1.6.45, 1.6.46, and 1.6.58 | 27 - 42, Attachment 5 | Table 2 and the PWS paragraphs listed reference labor categories that are not included in Attachment 5 Historical Hours. Please update Attachment 5 to show hours for Quality Control Manager, Property Manager, Contract Office Manager, Staff Account, Training Manager, Human Resources Manager, Contractor Purchasing Manager, Field Test Manager, Spectrum Manager, Senior Scientist, Maintenance Manager, Contract Support Specialist, Clerks, Welder, Electrician and Audio Visual Specialist. | There is no update to Attachment 5 pending based on the noted question. Hours directed toward managing the contract effort are tied to a contractor's overall management approach and thus, historical data, which would include how the prior contract is managed and may not be indicative of future support approaches. In addition, some of the non-PMO categories are not contained in historical data as they are newly identified. |
| 11 | DRFP | Section B CLINS 0003 and 1003 | 3 & 4 | Due to the unique nature of WDTC, pricing ODCs provides an advantage to the incumbent who has an in-depth understanding of the amount of ODCs needed annually. We highly recommend that the Government provide plug numbers for ODCs which will help level the playing field and make it easier for the Government to evaluate offerors' true discriminators. Would the Government provide a plug number for ODCs? | Plug numbers will be provided for ODCs (CLINs 0003 and 1003) via the Pricing Matrix attachment to the final RFP. |
| 12 | DRFP | L.2.4.2 | 38 | L.2.4.2 states “Tables and illustrations may use a font size no less than 12-point…” Given that the Government requires no less than 12-point font in tables and illustrations, that will greatly increase the size of our typical tables and illustrations and make it difficult to include details in flowcharts and organizational charts. Would the Government consider 10-point font for tables and illustrations? | The final RFP will update L.2.4.2 to allow for 10-pt font for tables and illustrations. |
| 13 | DRFP | L.3.2.2 | 41 | L.3.2.2 states, "Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort in scope, magnitude and complexity (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541715) required by the RFP." This seems to imply that only contracts with NAICS code 541715 are relevant. We recommend that the Government does not limit relevancy to just contracts under 541715. Many contracts that contain relevant aspects of WDTC MSS could have other assigned NAICS, such as 541330. Would the Government clarify that relevancy is not just defined as NAICS 541715 contracts? | The final RFP will delete the referenced statement at L.3.2.2, "(as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541715)." |
| 14 | DRFP | L.3.3.2 | 42 | L.3.3.2 states, "All Offerors shall provide evidence to support that it has an adequate accounting system for the purposes of administering a cost-type contract." Please confirm this applies to prime contractor ONLY. | L.3.3.2 #6 will be updated to "Whether it will be an Offeror (Prime), to include JV entities of the prime OR if it is a Major Subcontractor as defined at L.3.1.2 above AND entering into a cost-type contract with the prime. |
| 15 | DRFP | M.5.3.5 | 58 | There are four items under M.5.3.5 that are to be evaluated; one being "Business Relations." This is a very general term and with no additional information provided, it is unclear what is an acceptable response. Please define or clarify what the Government will accept under "Business Relations". | The final RFP will broaden the term subject to evaluation at M.5.3.5 to Management in lieu of Business Relations to align with CPARS guidance. |
| 16 | Attachment 3 WD 2015-5489 Rev #24 and Attachment 5, Historical Hours | Attachment 3 Notes page at the end of the listing | unnumbered | What labor categories qualify for Hazardous Pay and which level of differential 4% or 8%? | Hazardous Pay is N/A to labor categories subject to this requirement. |
| 17 | Attachment 5, Historical Hours | whole attachment | Attachment 5 | In Attachment 5, Line 37 has Project Manager - OT under Regular Hours. There is no mention of a Project Manager - OT in the PWS. Should this be part of the Overtime table in Attachment 5? If not, please provide a description of the Project Manager OT requirements. | No. PMs are typically 40 hours with NO projected OT. |
| 18 | Attachment 5, Historical Hours | whole attachment | Attachment 5 | Are the labor categories shown in Attachment 5 only direct labor categories or does it include PMO/overhead labor categories as well? If so, what are the PMO/OH labor categories? | See response to RFI 10. PMO categories will be reflected in the solicited Pricing Matrix, with the Offeror's ability to adjust and substantiate, accordingly. |
| 19 | Attachment 5, Historical Hours | Row 57 | Attachment 5 | Historical Hours for 2022 was 415,467 and 240,844 for 2023, a decrease of 174,623 or about 42%. Can the Government provide details about what led to such a dramatic cut in hours during that year? Also, does the Government anticipate future significant cuts? | The decrease is an isolated incident due to the fall-out of COVID and limited test programs. While firm projections cannot be provided, if anything, FY25-26 will result in an increase to DPG workload, provided political changes do not effect DOD programs and specific DPG efforts. |
| 20 | Attachment 5, Historical Hours | Row 57 | Attachment 5 | Historical Hours for 2024 slightly increased over 2023 by about 2,234. Does the Government project an increase, decrease or flat line in hours over the next 5-7 years? | The Government is unable to project requirements that far into the future due to multiple variables such as funding, testing requirements and changing technologies, etc. |
| 21 | Attachment 5, Historical Hours | Row 57 | Attachment 5 | Overtime hours in 2022 as function DL was about 7.2% but in 2023 and 2024 dropped just over 5%. Does the Government expect this will continue to drop or level off? | It is not expected to drop. OT hours are based on test programs and testing is projected to increase for both field and laboratory. |
| 22 | Attachment 5, Historical Hours | Rows: 14, 33, 46, 47, 48 and 56 | Attachment 5 | The labor categories listed in the referenced rows were generally less than 2 weeks work per year. Can the Government confirm these hours are correct, and if so, provide more information detailing why these positions require so few hours? | There are SMEs required for support on an as-needed basis, that may be the cause of this, however, most labor categories are determined based on the contractor's need to support mission requirements (i.e., whether that's full or part-time). |
| 23 | Attachment 5, Historical Hours | Attachment 5 Row: 14 regular hours and row 13 Overtime hours | Attachment 5 | Attachment 5 shows the Explosives Handler labor category as having more overtime hours than regular hours. Please confirm this is correct. | Similar to the response at Question 22 above, this may be the case where the Explosive Handler was an SME needed to support a specific test event over a condensed period, which required more OT than regular time. |
| 24 | PWS | PWS 2.10 | PWS 2.10 | PWS 2.10 Key Personnel states, “When key personnel are used as an evaluation factor in best value procurement, an offer can be rejected if it does not have a firm commitment from the persons that are listed in the proposal.” However, the Draft RFP instructions do not require commitment letters from key personnel. |
| Question: Will the Government require contingent offer letters (COLs) in the final RFP? | The final RFP will require Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel as identified at PWS 2.10 for inclusion at Volume IV, added at L.4.4. | ||||
| 25 | DRFP | DRFP L.2.5.1 | DRFP L.2.5.1 | L.2.5.1, which states, “Volume I and contents within proposal pages, including appendices, Table of Contents, Title Pages, Glossary, Dividers/Tabs, Blank pages and throughout the digital copies of the Technical / Mission Capability Volume of the proposal shall not contain company logos and/or names, pictures or any information that indicates the Offeror's (to include all team members) identification or personnel.” |
FAR 52.212-1(c)(2), which states, “The first page of the proposal must show- (i) The solicitation number; (ii) The name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the offeror…”
| Question: “Should Volume I contain a Cover Letter with the FAR 52.212-1(c)(2) requirements, or is company name/information now allowed, per L.2.5.1?” | The final RFP will require a stand-alone proposal cover letter, in compliance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2). Volume I shall NOT include offeror name/identifying information as instructed at L.2.5.1. | ||||
| 26 | PWS | PWS 1.6.1.1 | PWS 1.6.1.1 | PWS 1.6.1.1 lists key personnel, one of which is “Project Manager (BTD Only).” However, the PWS does not contain specific requirements for this position |
| Question: The Project Manager (BTD Only) does not appear to list specific position requirements in PWS 1.6 subsections. Are these missing, or is this position under a different position title? | See response to RFI 4. Project Manager (BTD Only) deleted from Table 2. | ||||
| 27 | DRFP | DRFP L.3.2.1 | DRFP L.3.2.1 | 4) L.3.2.1, which states, “This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts and shall be organized into sections as outlined below.” And also states, “This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts and shall be organized into sections as outlined below. This volume shall not exceed 25 pages of offeror / prime past performance information (including past performance of individual JV partners) plus five pages for each major subcontractor or, teaming partner, with a maximum of three (thus, a maximum allowable page limitation of 40 pages).” |
| Question: Do the page limits for Volume II apply to both Section 1 and Section 2 content? | Page limits for Volume II apply to all Sections, with exclusions noted, as appropriate. | ||||
| 28 | DRFP | DRFP L.2.5.1 | DRFP L.2.5.1 | 5) L.2.5.1 Volume I and contents within proposal pages, including appendices, Table of Contents, Title Pages, Glossary, Dividers/Tabs, Blank pages and throughout the digital copies of the Technical / Mission Capability Volume of the proposal shall not contain company logos and/or names, pictures or any information that indicates the Offeror's (to include all team members) identification or personnel. The Technical / Mission Capability Volume shall not contain any pictures that identify Offeror personnel or Government personnel. No quotes or statements made by Government personnel in prior acquisition efforts shall be contained within Volume I of the Offeror's proposal. |
| Question: Can offerors reference specific contracts and contract numbers in Volume I? Or would this constitute information that indicates the offeror’s identification? | The noted information shall be excluded as it could lead to Offeror-identifying information. Prior contract numbers shall be included in Volume II only, where the Offeror proposes a prior contract for stated past performance evaluations. | ||||
| 29 | DRFP | DRFP L.3.2.2 | DRFP L.3.2.2 | 6) L.3.2.2 Offerors shall submit up to five (5) Government contracts for the prime offeror (including past performance of individual JV partners) and up to three (3) from major subcontractors and / or teaming partners in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Accordingly, recent is defined as contract performance within 3 years of RFP issue date. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort in scope, magnitude and complexity (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541715) required by the RFP. Data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. |
| Question: If an offeror only has one major subcontractor, can they submit three Past Performance examples? Or is it limited to one Past Performance example per major subcontractor? | Up to 3 from major subcontractors and/or teaming partners, in whatever combination or single approach aligns with the Offeror's proposed approach/solution. See response to RFI 67 below for pending clarification to L.3.2.1. | |||||
| 30 | DRFP | L.2.4.3, 39 | ||||
| L3.3.3, 42 | Microsoft Excel Version | L.2.4.3 requires cost/price breakdown information to be viewable in Microsoft Excel 2013. L.3.3.3 requires the use of Microsoft Office Excel format (2016 or newer) only. Please clarify which version of Microsoft Excel is to be used. | The final RFP L.2.4.3 will be updated to align with L.3.3.3 MS Excel version requirements, 2016 or newer only. | |||
| 31 | DRFP | L.3.1.2.3, 40 | Key Personnel | Key personnel names are not to be included in resumes. The use of locations and position titles is acceptable, but not required. How will the government verify the resume submitted represents the experience and qualifications or represents an actual individual either employed by the offeror or with a commitment of employment to the offeror? Please consider the addition of Letters of Commitment for proposed Key Personnel, to include proposed salary, as an attachment to Volume III Cost/Price. | See response to RFI 24. Key Personnel Letters of Commitment shall be required as part of Volume IV. No redaction is required for Volume IV contents, nor do page limitations apply. | |
| 32 | DRFP | L.3.1.2, 40 | Critical Services | The subject paragraph defines Major Subcontractors as providing “critical services” or whose subcontract is valued at or more than 15% of the total proposed cost. There is no definition of which services are considered critical in the DRFP or PWS. Please provide PWS services considered “critical” for the purpose of Major Subcontractor identification. | For purposes of the proposal effort and definition of a "major subcontractor", critical services are those required at PWS 5.3, 5.4 and 5.7. L.3.1.2 updated accordingly. | |
| 33 | DRFP, Attachment 5 | L.3.3.4.1. 42 | Historical Staffing Data | Historical data for staffing, by labor category, for the prior three calendar years is being provided to offerors. The staffing used to deliver the services required by the current WDTC contract is based upon the incumbent contractors’ technical and management approaches, which are considered proprietary. Would the Government consider requiring all offerors bid to a set of “for evaluation only” staffing data, adjusted as appropriate based upon their unique approach to or understanding of the requirements? Program Management Office (PMO) staffing would remain a variable based upon individual offeror solutions with no historical or target staffing data provided for offerors. Please clarify how you intend offerors to use this historical staffing data in preparation of their proposals. | No "for evaluation only" action will be utilized. This is a Performance Based Contract and Offerors shall propose their best approach to fulfill the requirements of this contract. Offerors may utilize the provided historical data as well as their understanding of the requirements set forth in the PWS and experience otherwise to propose a solution for the WDTC MSS, to be evaluated as set forth in Section M. | |
| 34 | DRFP | L.3.2.1, 40-41 | Past Performance Summary | The DRFP indicates offerors are to provide a reference to the contracts cited for each team member and the associated tasks from the PWS represented by each cited contract. It does not appear offerors are required to submit PWS or other supporting documentation for validation of performance on the cited contracts. Please confirm no substantiating information is required from the cited contracts. | Confirmed. Information is substantiated by the Government through the POCs required at L.3.2.3. The Government POC completing the question will confirm/advise the PWS scope of the cited contract through PPQ question F. | |
| 35 | DRFP | L3.3.5, 44 | Professional Compensation Plan | The DRFP requires the Total Compensation Plan to include “details” regarding the prime contractor, subcontractors, and JV partners as applicable. Subcontractors and JV partners may view the buildup of their fringe rate as proprietary information. Are the details required limited to the base salaries and fringe benefits (medical, dental, vision, etc.) or are elements of cost which make up the fringe benefits to be provided as well? Please confirm the type and level of detail required. | Data and details shall be submitted in line/IAW FAR 52.222-46. Subcontractor and/or JV partner data may be submitted separately, directly to the Government. See response to RFI 60. | |
| 36 | DRFP | M.5.4.4.2, 59 | NTE CLINs | The X002 CLINs are indicated as NTE, however, the evaluated price for these CLINs includes the application of indirect rates. Was this CLIN reference intended to be X003 (ODCs)? Please confirm the CLIN number and that the evaluated price will be based upon the Government provided amount plus the offeror indirect rates driving the CLIN amount above the stated NTE. If that is the case, which of these amounts (burdened or unburdened) be treated as NTE during contract execution? | Correct. M.5.4.4.2 will be updated at the final RFP to identify the X003 CLINs. Confirmed. The evaluated price is the NTE + any proposed MH and/or G&A. In execution, the NTE would be the burdened value. | |
| 37 | DRFP | A.2.1, 2 | SBSA | The DRFP states WDTC MSS is a 100% small business set-aside. Due to the critical nature of DPG’s mission, it is unclear why this procurement is SBSA instead of Full and Open, which could also be awarded to a SB. DPG provides unparalleled testing, evaluation, training and technical support while maintaining a world-class workforce and facilities. Restricting this contract to SBs creates several risks, not limited to those below: |
1. SBs Typically Subcontract Large Portions of PWS
2. Business Systems and Approaches Not Optimized for Government Contracts
3. Lack of Access to the Right Skills
4. Inability to Recruit and Retain a Technically Capable Workforce
5. Ostensible Contracting Relationships and Financial Stability
6. Re-Compete Challenges when No Longer Qualified as a SB
7. Inability to Absorb Funding Delays and Budget Approvals
8. SBs Perform Minimal Servicing of Personnel with Security Clearances
9. Protests are Equally or More Likely from SBs (Make up 55-60% of GAO Protests)
Most large businesses possess experience and capabilities to prime and execute similar contracts, most SBs have limited experience, discipline, and cash flow resources to effectively identify, plan, procure, and/or execute projects to meet the demands of surge resources or endure lulls resulting in unintended outcomes. Additionally, the ability to provide the required labor skills and key personnel can be challenging for many small businesses. While no contractor plans for poor performance, this lack of understanding has resulted in many unintended outcomes, including delays in accessibility to key resources or subject matter experts (SME) necessary for quality assurance of project execution and excessively prolonged project delivery schedules. The SBSA is confirmed for this MSS acquisition. Based on the results of market research conducted and evaluated by DPG Requiring Activity personnel, the Contracting Officer finds there is a reasonable expectation offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns who can meet the demands of the acquisition offering the best mix of cost, performances and schedules.
It is acknowledged a SBSA is a deviation from the historical full & open competitive actions for MSS support. However and again, as the requirements at FAR 19.502-2 are met, a SBSA will be pursued. This does not preclude major subcontracting and/or partnering arrangements with large businesses, provided the small business prime meets the 51% performance requirement.
| 38 | DRFP | M.5.4.4.3, 59 | ||||
| B, 3-4 | FFP CLINs | Reference section indicates CLINs X003, X004, and X005 are FFP. X003 is identified in Section B as Cost No Fee. CLIN 006 is FFP and should be included. Recommend CLINs X004 and X005 be Cost Plus Fixed Fee because they are typically not separately priced and performed by the labor resources in CLIN X001. | CLINs 0004 and 0005 will remain FFP. | |||
| 39 | DRFP, PWS | L.3.1.3.1 (1), 40 | ||||
| PWS 1.8.1, 46 | Transition Plan | Section L requires submittal of a Transition Plan with proposals. PWS 1.8.1 indicates the Transition Plan is deliverable 7 days after contract award. Please clarify the content of the Transition Plan to be delivered with the proposal and how it may differ from CDRL A009 due 7 days after contract award. | The Transition Plan proposed at L.3.1.3.1 may not differ substantially from the Plan provided under CDRL A009, notwithstanding any changes as a result of Discussions, if conducted or communication with the Government as the awardee in a post-award environment. | |||
| 40 | DRFP | L.3.2.6, 41 | Letters of Commitment | The DRFP requires Letters of Commitment for employees of new corporate entities. These individuals, will in many cases, also be proposed as key personnel and not just corporate support or contract oversight. Given the Government’s requirement in Section L.3.1.2.3 that no names are to be submitted for Key Personnel resumes how should these letters be addressed and signed to avoid any actual or perceived compliance issues? | Letters of Commitment as required at L.3.2.6 do not require redaction as they are subject to Volume II (with separate Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel being added to Volume IV, also with no redaction requirements). | |
| 41 | DRFP | L.3.2.2.1, 41 | Letters of Commitment | Letters of commitment are required from JV partners, major subcontractors and/or teaming partners. Interpretations of this requirement and responses could vary significantly between offerors. For example, an offeror could simply say they are committed to the success of the WDTC mission or indicate they are committed to the delivery of proposed key personnel, innovations, systems and services at the price/cost proposed. Would the Government please define what specific commitment(s) are desired? | The final RFP will clarify L.3.2.2.1 to include, "... and / or teaming partners cited in order for past performance to be considered, with letters also identifying the specific work scope to be performed and level of support the entity is committing to offer for MSS and WDTC mission success. Consent and Letters of Commitment are ...." | |
| 42 | DRFP | K/52.204-8(a)(1), 32 | ||||
| L.3.2.2, 41 | NAICS Code | Please confirm the NAICS code for this solicitation, 541715 which is “Research and development in the physical, engineering, and life sciences”. Other NAICS code for similar work at other DoD Test Centers is 541330, Engineering Services. | NAICS is confirmed for use under this pending acquisition. | |||
| 43 | DRFP | FAR 52.219-28 (h)(1)(a), 22 |
FAR 52.204-8(a)(1)(a), 32
| L.3.2.2, 41 | NAICS Code | FAR 52.219-28 (h) (1) Post Award Small Business Program Representation, No NAICS code provided. FAR 52.204-8(a) (1) Annual Representations and Certifications, Listed NAICS code is 541715. The listed NAICs code is 541715. | |||
| Question – Will NAICS code 541715 be added to 52.219-28 (h) (1) Post Award Small Business Program Representation in the final RFP? | No. The representation at FAR 52.219-28 (h) (1) is a fill-in for an Offeror, to input NAICS 541715. | ||||
| 44 | DRFP | 2 | Section A | The Contractor shall provide…virtual reality methodology… |
Virtual Reality is mentioned in the DRFP and PWS in the introductory paragraphs but not mentioned in subsequent paragraphs. Does the government plan to define what is required/desired with regards to Virtual Reality and for which division(s) this work is being performed? PWS 1.3 updated to delete reference to virtual reality.
Section A, pg. 2 updated to remove reference as well.
45 DRFP 40 L.3.1.3.1 The Offeror's Transition Plan is to include the schedule, staffing and critical milestones.
| Is the Transitions Plan part of the 50 page count for the technical section of the proposal? | Yes. | ||||
| 46 | DRFP | 41 | L.3.2.2 | Recent is defined as contract performance within 3 years of RFP issue |
date.
| Will the Government consider extending the recency period to five (5) years for past performance citations? This will give offerors greater flexibility in showcasing relevant contract efforts. | Requirement will remain, unchanged. | ||||
| 47 | DRFP | 42 | L.3.2.7 | For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire, incorporated as Attachment 10 must be completed and submitted. |
| Will the Government allow the use of completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) in lieu of PPQs? Requiring PPQs over an already established and documented evaluation system places compliance with this requirement outside of a business' control. | The final RFP will update the Attachment number for the PPQ. Both CPARS and PPQs will be utilized. | ||||
| 48 | DRFP | 43 | L.3.3.4.5 | The PMO Rate Tab contains management and administrative labor categories the government anticipates will be needed to satisfy the requirements of the PWS. These labor categories correspond with those shown in A5. |
| The PMO positions are not identified in A5. Is the government going to provide which positions should be included in the PMO Rate Tab? | See response to RFI 18. The RFP Pricing Matrix attachment will identify PMO labor categories and the Offeror may adjust and substantiate accordingly. | ||||
| 49 | Technical Exhibit A PWSWDTC MSS Rev 4_ | 6 | 1.3.6 | The Contractor shall provide or procure the needed supplies, specialized training, engineering support, equipment, or equipment fabrication, and/or service(s) to support each CWO prior to the execution start date of the CWO. |
| Is the contractor responsible for these costs or is the government planning to reimburse these costs via CWO? | 1.3.6 updated to add, "Cost for the listed items will be included in the contractor response to the specific CWO and will be paid for by government direct or indirect funds." | ||||
| 50 | Technical Exhibit A PWSWDTC MSS Rev 4_ | 12 | 1.5.8 | Security Requirements. Contractor personnel (to include subcontractors) performing work under this contract must have the appropriate security clearance based on their duty position prior to performing work under this contract and must maintain the level of security required for the life of the contract. |
| Are interim clearances acceptable in order to begin performing work under this contract? | Yes, as long as applicant is eligible and follows contract guidance on interim clearance. | ||||
| 51 | Technical Exhibit A PWSWDTC MSS Rev 4_ | 26 | 1.5.33 | Bonuses, Relocation Cost, Van Pool Incentives, Night-Shift Differential Pay and other Incentives. |
| Are these costs captured in the OH CWO as mentioned in paragraph 1.3.6.5? | The incentives as identified at 1.5.33 would be subject to Offeror fringe or, for the Night-Shift Differential Pay, subject to an OH rate. | ||||
| 52 | Technical Exhibit A PWSWDTC MSS Rev 4_ | 26 | 1.5.33 | Bonuses, Relocation Cost, Van Pool Incentives, Night-Shift Differential Pay and other Incentives. |
| Do night differential pay rates need to be included in cost estimate? | If a specific CWO is generated that requires nigh differential hours, those cost will be included in the contractor CWO response and their estimate so those cost can be billed appropriately to either direct or indirect funds. | ||||
| 53 | Technical Exhibit A PWSWDTC MSS Rev 4_ | 27 | 1.6.2 | PM qualification |
| Will the government consider allowing additional years’ of experience to be substituted for master’s degree for the PM’s qualifications? So, instead of a Master’s degree and 10-years of management experience, could it be or Bachelor’s degree and 15-years of management experience? | No. Requirement remains unchanged. | ||||
| 54 | Technical Exhibit A PWSWDTC MSS Rev 4_ | 28 | 1.6.2 | PM qualification |
| Is an interim TS at time of award acceptable? | Yes an interim clearance is acceptable per Executive Order 12968, "Access to Classified Information," August 2, 1995, and Department of Defense (DoD) Regulation 5200.2- R, "Personnel Security Program," January 1987. | ||||
| 55 | Technical Exhibit A PWSWDTC MSS Rev 4_ | 70 | 5.3 | TABLE 4: CTD Labor Positions and Minimum Quantities. |
| The number of positions are identified for the CTD. Will the government provide the number of positions for the other divisions listed in the PWS? | See response to RFI 9. Table 4 has been updated to remove minimum quantities. | ||||
| 56 | Attachment 5 Historical Hours | 1 | Attachment 5 | Historical Hours |
| The attachment only reflects 27 hours for the Program Manager. Can the government confirm these hours are accurate or do these hours only reflect direct hours? | The PM could be Division-specific and utilized as an on-needed basis/depending on mission requirements. | |||||
| 57 | Small Business Set-Aside | RFP, page 2 | A.2.1 | Comment / Question: All ATEC Major Test Centers and Ranges are and always have been supported by Large Business, providing the required expertise, and depth in resources. SB's do not bring the depth in capabilities, experience in supporting large range and T&E Efforts like Aberdeen, Yuma, WSMR, etc., and limits the ability of the Gov to access the capabilities and experiences normally find in large vice small business. Also SB typically do not have the ability to reach and rapidly add new and niche capability companies to the team post award, jeopardizing the overall WDTC mission. Will the Government reconsider competition of this effort as a SB Set Aside, and move back to Large and Full and Open competition? | See response to RFI 1 and 37 above. | |
| 58 | Accounting System Submission | RFP, page 2 | A.2.4 | Comment: "Offerors shall ensure compliance with L.3.3.2, as applicable. Failure to provide the information within seven (7) calendar days of RFP issuance may result in the proposal being removed from award consideration." Recommend that the Gov consider submission of this requirement via PIEE suite. This ensures that each contractor has established and can use the system, and correct any issues prior to actual proposal submission. | Due to limitations within PIEE receipt of multiple submittals over a period of days (and prior data being re-written, the instructions at A.2.4/L.3.3.2 for submission to the Contract Specialist email shall remain as-is. | |
| 59 | HUBZone Small Business Preference | RFP, page 19 | Section I - Contract Clauses: FAR Clauses Incorporated by Full Text | Given that this solicitation is now 100% SB Set Aside, the assumption is that the following FAR clause is not applicable? "52.219-4 Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns." | Concur. The clause shall be deleted as N/A. | |
| 60 | Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE). | RFP Page 37-38 | Section L.2.2 | Per the requirement: "Offerors responding to a solicitation must either self-register for a PIEE account and add the appropriate roles, or, for existing PIEE users, access their account and add additional roles. Offerors must be registered in PIEE to access and submit responses to a solicitation in PIEE." Question: Are subcontractors, Major or others, required to register for PIEE access for submission? | Subcontractors are not required to have access to Proposal Manager within PIEE, but yes, if the subcontractor elects to submit proposal data direct to the Government due to proprietary data concerns or issues otherwise, the subcontractor is required to submit proposal packages via PIEE. It is anticipated L.2.2.1.1 will be added in the final RFP with the following/similar instruction for subcontractors: "L.2.2.1.1 Subcontractors, major or otherwise, who elect to submit cost proposal data direct to the Government shall follow the same Offeror instructions for PIEE account and submission above. In addition, the subcontractor proposal package shall include a one-page, Adobe PDF cover letter indicating the subcontractor proposal is a part of Prime Offeror Proposal INSERT PRIME OFFEROR NAME." | |
| 61 | Key Personnel Resumes | RFP Page 40 | Section/Para L.3.1.2.3 | Reference para L.3.1.2.3: "To ensure compliance with L.5.2.1, resumes shall not identify personnel by name or company affiliation /identification. Use of position titles and location is acceptable." Recommend that the Gov require the redaction of previous companies that the Key Person had worked at, and locations. This information enable actual identification of the Key Person through use of various social media tools, compromising the intent of the redaction required by the Gov. | Confirm that all company information, to include prior company employment is not allowable/shall be redacted. Title and location remain acceptable. |
Social media is not viewed, considered, or in any way, an aspect of the source selection process and evaluation.
| 62 | Redaction of Company and Key Personnel Names+B10 | RFP Page 40 | Section/Para L.3.1.2.3 and L.5.2.1 | Reference para L.3.1.2.3: "To ensure compliance with L.5.2.1…" No actual para L.5.2.1 can be located in the RFP. Will the Gov provide or renumber to provide a para L.5.2.1. | Concur. The final RFP will be corrected to reflect L.2.5.1. |
| 63 | Past Performance Questionnaires | RFP Page 41 | Section/Para L.3.2.7 | Recommend that the Government require non-page-counted submission of the latest CPARS (if available) along with the PP Questionnaire. This provides the Government a more complete evaluation of the Prime, JV and/or Subcontractor Performance on previous contracts. | There is no requirement for Offerors to provide CPARS data. Offerors are notified the Government will review this information at M.5.3.3 and M.5.3.5. |
| 64 | New Government Tracking Program | PWS Pages 4 | PWS 1.3.1 | Recommend the Government provide an update reference the timeline of the Gov implementation of the Gov Tracking System? Given that description and evaluation of the Contractor provided temporary system will have a significant impact on Proposal development and potentially pricing. 1. Can we assume that the Gov system will not be in place prior to contract submission and Award? and 2. If the Contractor implements the Contractor provided tracking system, what is the Contractors requirement reference replacing the Contractor System with the Gov system? | No timeline is available. |
1. Offerors can assume the Government tracking system will not be in place at the time of award of this contract.
2. The question is unclear, however, if the new tracking program is complete and implemented after award of the contract, the PWS and contract will be modified to reflect the new tracking system.
| 65 | CWO Tracking / Cost Management System | RFP Pages 40-41 | RFP L.3.1.2.4 & M.5.2.2.4 | Please provide clarification as to how exactly the Web Based CWO and Financial System will be evaluated. Section M clearly states what will be assessed, but does not provide how. Recommend that the Gov standardize the evaluation of the system, conducting a virtual review of the system of any offeror that is rated as acceptable or hire, or is deemed to be in the competitive zone. | See L.3.1.2.4. The Government will evaluate per Section M based on the how the Offeror proposes, as directed and allowed per L.3.1.2.4. |
| 66 | Performance Metrics and Evaluation Criteria | Throughout the RFP and PWS | RFP L.3.1.2 PWS 1.5 | Quality is essential on the WDTC Contract. Please provide the required Performance Metrics, Key Performance Indicators, measurement methodology, evaluation frequency, standards and other specific quality standards? This is key to support development of the required quality plan and sub factor 2 Management. | The Government does not direct the contractor how to draft or implement their Quality Control Plan. The Contractor QCP should outline these requirements and provide a copy to the government as a CDRL as outlined in PW 1.5.1.1. |
Separately, the Performance Requirements Summary will be incorporated as TE J to the final RFP.
67 DRFP 41 L.3.2.1./L.3.2.2. DRFP L.3.2.1 states Volume II, Subfactor 2 (Past Performance) shall not exceed 25 pages of prime past performance plus five pages for each major subcontractor with a maximum of three past performance.
L.3.2.2 states the prime offeror shall submit up to five (5) references and up to three (3) from major subcontractors and/or teaming partners.
| Would the Government consider revising the language to allow a single major sub partner to provide up to 3 past performances up to a total of 15 pages (removing the restriction on sub partner from providing 1 past performance and restriction of only 5 pages)? | It is anticipated the final RFP L.3.2.1 include a minor clarification: "...plus five pages for each major subcontractor or, teaming partner ENTRY, with a maximum of three…". There is not a restriction from a single subcontractor or sub partner citing 3 contracts for past performance. | |||||
| 68 | PWS 70 | Part 5.3, Table 4 | Attachment 1 (PWS), Attachment 5 (Historical Hours) | Section 5.3 of the PWS provides a list of Chemical Test Division (CTD) labor categories (LCAT)/positions which includes the minimum quantities for these positions. These position counts in the PWS are not in alignment with Attachment 5 - Historical Hours provided with the draft RFP package. Is it the government's expectation that the WDTC be staffed to meet the PWS, or is the scope of work at WDTC intended to remain at the levels currently being worked in accordance with Attachment 5, Historical Hours? | Historical Hours are provided as a reference point for Offerors based on the history of work and level at which is was performed. Offerors are to propose their solution based on requirements, information available and the strategy in which they determine is most beneficial to the Government. |
Any minimum quantities for specified labor categories or requirements otherwise identified in the PWS shall be included in an Offeror's proposal. If an exception to the required minimums is taken, the Offeror shall substantiate accordingly.
| 69 | PWS 70 | Part 5.0 | Attachment 1 (PWS), Attachment 5 (Historical Hours) | Pursuant to RFI number 68, would the Government consider providing the required LCATS and quantities for the other divisions in the PWS? | No. |
| 70 | General | General | DRFP/PWS | Given the chem/bio high hazards T&E environment, would the Government consider including provisions in the RFP to include Chemical Personnel Reliability Program (CPRP) for prime or their major subcontractor to ensure the safe execution of support requirements? | 5.3.1.1 has been updated to add, "Certain Contractor personnel assigned to certain labor categories within the Chemical Test Division are required to be on a Chemical Personnel Reliability Program (CPRP) and will follow the same process as government personnel within the CTD on the CPRP program. Those procedures will be outlined and implemented when personnel are assigned and in process to the CTD." |
| 71 | General | General | Attachment 2 PPQ | Will the Government accept past performances and questionnaires from organizations and their associated affiliated organizations? | Provided the question is understood as acceptance of PPQs from non-Government entities, the answer is no. Government only POC PPQ submission and return will be considered. |
| 72 | PWS 87 | Part 5.7 | Attachment 1 (PWS) Attachment 5 Historical Hours/PWS | The historical hours show "zero" hours for the BTD project manager in 2023 and 2024 hours with corresponding reductions in science based labor categories. Can the Government confirm that BTD support requirements will continue under the new contract and outline labor specific requirements for this support including any key personnel requirements in the PWS and RFP? | See response to RFI 4. Project Manager (BTD Only) deleted from Table 2. |
| 73 | PWS 27 | Part 1.6.1.2, Table 2 | Attachment 1 (PWS) | Given the significant challenges with identifying and recruiting and bringing talent to WDTC, would the Government consider reducing the number of key personnel required by the RFQ for intent of evaluation and allow potential offerors to demonstrate ability to recruit/retain equally qualified personnel (providing representative examples of qualified personnel) with an emphasis on incumbent capture to facilitate a smooth transition of program operations? The number of key personnel will be challenging for everyone but the incumbent and will limit competition to only a few (8 key personnel with 5 bidders is 40 independent resumes for high hazards CB T&E). | See response to RFI 4. Key Positions remain the same, with the exception of the Project Manager (BTD) deletion. |
| 74 | PWS 26 | Part 1.5.33 | Attachment 1 (PWS) | For this section, is it the Government's intent to provide these incentives on a case by case basis and that these costs should not be planned as part of pricing? | See response to RFI 51. |
| 75 | PWS 26 | Part 1.5.33 | Attachment 1 (PWS) | Could the government provide additional guidance or a benchmark for labor rates based on local cost-of-living data? This would help ensure that all offerors are aligning their proposals with realistic labor costs for the surrounding areas, avoiding the risk of inadequate rates to attract and retain talent? | The Government will not provide a benchmark for labor rates, as requested. Current information may be obtained from sources such as, but not limited to, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Salary.com, ERI, Department of Labor, Global Insights tool, DCAA, and DCMA, etc. in order to support a realistic proposal (cost). |
| 76 | DRFP 58 | M5.4 | DRFP | Is there any consideration for adjusting the price reasonableness evaluation to account for significant increases in labor costs due to local inflation or other cost-of-living factors in the surrounding area? Could the DoD provide a mechanism that takes these local economic conditions into account when assessing reasonableness such as the inclusion of FAR 52.216-4? | This is a CPFF contract, therefore the Government will pay actuals as long as they are allowable, allocable and reasonable. FAR 52.216-4 is applicable to FFP contracts and therefore does not apply to this contract. |
| 77 | DRFP 58 | M5.4 | DRFP | Would the Government consider including an evaluation factor that requires offerors to specifically address how they will meet the labor and operational requirements given the rising costs of living and wages in the WDTC area? This could be used as a further factor to assess the ability of offerors to deliver services successfully. | No adjustment to the Cost Factor evaluations will be made, however, L.3.1.1.2 #2 is changed as follows: "Contractor pay is based on Department of Labor, which is generally less than government pay and subsequent pay raises are rare, coupled with rising costs of living and wages in the WDTC area" |
| 78 | DRFP | Section B | Section B | The Section B states unit is Job |
| Is it the intent of the Government to have 1 JOB pricing of 4 years and 10 months? | The U/I will be changed to months (MO) in the final RFP. | |||||
| 79 | DRFP | Section B | CDRLS | Is the intent to have a monthly CDRL cost that is FFP? | Yes. CDRLs are more appropriately FFP as a clear requirement in lieu of cost-based. | |
| 80 | Attachment 1 (PWS) | Objectives | The SOW states: "The Contractor shall support and maintain the WDTC divisions, Michael Army Airfield (MAAF), and support the BioTesting Division (BTD), Chemical Biological Center (CBC), Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) Army Futures Command (AFC), and Rapid Integration and Acceptance Center (RIAC) test/training mission and Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Support." |
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 .