W51EW725RA001_QandA_07Apr2025_Posted_FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W51EW725RA001
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) file for the West Desert Test Center (WDTC) Mission Support Services (MSS) Follow On Solicitation W51EW725RA001, issued by the Department of the Army. The Q&A document contains 65 questions and answers addressing various aspects of the solicitation, including technical proposal requirements, page limitations, past performance documentation, pricing matrix details, and contract-specific clarifications.
Key changes and clarifications include increasing the technical proposal page limit from 50 to 60 pages, defining critical services as those in PWS sections 5.3, 5.4, and 5.7, providing guidance on scenario-based responses, clarifying subcontractor past performance submission requirements, and addressing rate caps for indirect costs. The solicitation covers mission support services for the West Desert Test Center, with a base period from 10/23/2025 to 10/22/2030 and an option period from 10/23/30 to 10/22/32. The contract includes specific scenarios for task order support, with detailed requirements for technical and cost proposals.
View the file
Other files
Show all 34
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
RFP Q&A
| # | Source Document | Section and Paragraph(s) Numbers | Issue / Question | Government Response | Pending Amendment Action? |
| 1 | Solicitation | L.3.1.2.1.1 | We have been working a proposal response based on the Draft RFP and feel that 50 pages for Volume 1 Technical was tight, but workable; however, the new requirements to address two Scenarios, will make meeting the 50-page limit much more difficult. Would the Government please consider adding more page count to address the new scenarios? | The Government concurs to increase the page limitations for Volume I from 50 pages to 60 page. Amendment to L.2.3 pending. | Yes |
| 2 | Solicitation | L.3.1.2.1.1, Attachments 7 and 8 | The Section L requirements for the two scenarios are very similar to the Section L language that addresses the overall contract performance, including topics such as oversight & control, alignment, communication, improvements, and innovation. Many of these management practices that apply across the entire contract are still very relevant to how you would manage each scenario – resulting in redundant narrative in the proposal. It appears that Attachments 7 and 8 do not add any additional instructions to be addressed but serve more as reference documents for each scenario. Would the Government please confirm the areas of Attachments 7 and 8 that should be covered within L or that the L requirements are sufficient? If the L requirements are the elements offerors should focus on for each scenario, we assume it is acceptable for offerors to address both scenarios in a combined fashion? | The two scenarios were incorporated in response to feedback gathered from Site Visit and Pre-Proposal Conference questions from industry. The purpose is to give offerors an opportunity to outline their approach (as specified at L.3.1.2.1.1) to potential CWO requirements under the pending contract, more specific to the broad support described under the IDIQ requirement. While a response may include elements that are redundant to the overarching MSS contract support, instructions at L.3.1.2.1.1 are for specific address of the CWO requirements identified within Attachments 7 and 8. The Government will not instruct Offerors as to their individual approach to meeting requirements (at L.3.1.2.1.1). RFP remains unchanged. | No |
| 3 | Solicitation | L.3.1.2.1.1, Attachments 7 and 8 | Based on Answers to Questions during the draft RFP phase, the scenario-based approach was to assist in leveling the playing field with staffing and pricing the work. Since Section L and M requirements for Technical do not require information outside of what was already being required, we assume these scenarios are more of a staffing and pricing exercise to assist the Government in evaluating offeror’s staffing and pricing approaches. Is that a correct assumption? | See response to #2 above. |
| The Government will evaluate the proposals applicable to Attachment 7 & 8 in accordance with the associated Section L instructions and Section M evaluation criteria. | No | |||||
| 4 | Solicitation | L.3.2.1 | L.3.2.1 states “The summary shall also include a reference to the past performance contracts and their respective PWS cited for each team member and the associated tasks from the WDTC MSS PWS represented by each cited contract and its PWS.” Can the Government provide more specifics on what offerors must include in the Summary? Are we to include the entire PWS for each cited contract or a summary of the cited PWS’ paragraphs that are associated with WDTC MSS? | Offerors shall provide summary data, in whatever form they choose, that identifies the cited contracts' PWS scope/tasks/elements and the associated relevancy to the tasks as specified in the WDTC MSS PWS. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 5 | Solicitation | L.3.2.2.1 | L.3.2.2.1 states “In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all JV partners, major subcontractors, 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.” Can the Government please define “level of support” in this context? Is it the designated workshare included in our executed Teaming Agreements? | Yes. "Level of support" is defined as designated workshare or the estimated portion of contract cost the team member (e.g., prime, JV entity, and/or subcontractor) is proposed to support. Amendment to L.3.2.2.1 pending to include this definition/clarity. | Yes | |
| 6 | Solicitation, |
CDRLs, and PWS L.4.3
CDRL A012
| PWS 3.1.1 | L.4.3 instructs bidders to submit a Property Management Plan with the proposal, however, PWS 3.1.1 and CDRL A012 states that the PMP shall be submitted 30 days after contract award. Please clarify when the PMP is due. | The Property Management Plan (PMP) is required at proposal submission per L.4.3. As specified at L.4.3, submission of the PMP in accordance with FAR 52.245-1 (specifically, FAR 52.245-1(f)), is part of the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination for the apparent contract awardee. PWS 3.1.1 (and CDRL A012) require the PMP submission within 30 days of contract award for subsequent sufficiency review by both the Government Property Administrator and the Contracting Officer. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||
| 7 | Solicitation | L.2.3 | Will the Government please consider increasing the overall Volume I page limit to 60 pages to accommodate additional requirements in the Final RFP that were not previously in the Draft RFP? | See response to Question #1 above. | Yes | |
| 8 | Attachment 2 | PPQs | The security settings for Attachment 2 included with the Solicitation do not allow changes to the PDF document, so Offerors and their Government customers cannot complete the form. | |||
| Will the Government please send an unlocked PPQ PDF? | The Government will provide Attachment 2, Past Performance Questionnaire, in Word Document format to enable PPQ respondent input. Amendment pending. | Yes | ||||
| 9 | Attachment 7 | Scenario 1 | The Government has a requirement for surge support, with the CWO process of four days and without a schedule provided within the scenario. |
Is it the Government’s intent to require a simulated plan for CWO response and Technical Integration Points (TIP) at the scenario level, even without a predefined schedule?
Should contractors align their CWO response plan with EVMS principles, including defining measurable milestones for the four-day CWO process and establishing performance measurement baselines? The Period of Performance (PoP) is provided for each Scenario. Scenario 1 (Attachment 7) is 23 Dec 2025 to 22 Dec 2026 as this scenario is for contractor personnel embedded with Chem Test personnel to support whatever needs are required in that year (i.e., every day operations). The PoP for Scenario 2 (Attachment 8) will be amended to 01 Apr 2026 to 30 Apr 2026 as Scenario 2 is an example of an actual test event (which could be a reoccurring event) with varying timeframes based on customer needs. This test typically varies between two weeks to one month. For purposes of proposal action/response, the PoP is 30 days. Amendment pending.
| See L.3.1.2.1.1, L.3.3.3.1, L.3.3.3.2.1, L.3.3.4.1.5, and L.3.3.4.5.1. The Government will not specify a potential Offeror's solution in meeting the requirements. | Yes | |||
| 10 | Solicitation | EVMS | Is it the Government’s intent to utilize EVMS-like reporting for CWO and financial management, despite the absence of the EVMS clause in the solicitation? | |
| How will the Government ensure compliance with EVMS principles and reporting requirements if the EVMS clause is not included in the contract? | Contractor reporting requirements are identified at RFP Attachment 6, the CDRLs. CWO Tracking/Cost Management System requirements are identified at PWS Section 1.3.5. |
EVMS clauses are N/A to the MSS Follow-on acquisition. Personnel having experience with (or implementing) earned value management methods and practices is however, specified for certain labor categories per PWS Section 1.6.
| RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||
| 11 | L.3.3.3.1 Cost Section | Scenario Estimation | Is it the Government’s intent to require a full Basis of Estimate (BOE) for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 to substantiate all labor costs, even when scheduled events are not provided within the scenario? | |
| Should contractors assume a steady state of labor is required throughout the Performance of Work (POP) period, given the scenario’s lack of specific scheduling? | Yes. Scenario 1 is an annual PoP/Scenario 2 is 30 days (as amended). Offerors are able to provide a full BOE with this schedule information and the tasks identified within the scenarios. |
| The Government will not specify a potential Offeror's solution in meeting the requirements. Any assumptions of schedule/hours in alignment with the shall be detailed in the Offeror's proposal and in line with the proposed approach. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||||
| 12 | Solicitation | EVMS | Should contractors use earned value metrics (CPI/SPI) to identify risks and flag deviations in performance, consistent with EVMS practices? | The Government will not specify a potential Offeror's solution in meeting the requirements at 1.3.5. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 13 | Solicitation | M.5.4.4.4.1 | The MPC for CLINs 6001 and 6002 as calculated by the Government will be CLINs 1001 or 1002 divided by 2 and multiplied by fifty percent (50%); the NTE amount provided by the Government for CLIN 6003 plus any indirect costs (Material Handling and/or G&A as proposed by the offeror in A4, Tab "Total Proposed Price" cell J4 will be divided by 2 and multiplied by fifty percent (50%); and the proposed price for CLIN 6005 will be multiplied by 50%. The sum of the calculated products shall be the evaluated price for the "6-Month Extension of Services." |
| Given that the Option Period covers 2 years, should the factor used to calculate the cost/price of the potential 6-Month Extension of Services be 25% rather than 50%? | Concur. M.5.4.4.4.1 will be updated to correct the factor to 25%. Amendment pending. | Yes | ||||
| 14 | Attachment 5 | Attachment 5 | The file RFP_Attachment_5_Historical_Hours_21Feb2025 appears to be identical to the file DRFP_Attachment_5_Historical_Hours_14Jan2025 and contains a note at the bottom stating, “Excludes hours from 14-31 December 2024. Final RFP shall include complete calendar year 2024 data.” Will the government please provide guidance on if Attachment 5 will be updated to include the complete calendar year 2024 data? | Concur the prior data was posted in error. Amendment 0001 will include an updated Attachment 5 to incorporate the remaining CY2024 data AND to correct/shift the "Project Manager - OT" data from Regular Hours to OT Hours columns. Amendment pending. | Yes | |
| 15 | Attachment 8 | Attachment 8 | The first paragraph of this file states, “The contractor will perform the following protocol services in coordination with the WD-CR office, and the Technical POC.” Please expand the acronym used for the WD-CR office. | Typographical error. "WD-CR" is the "West Desert Contracting Officer's Representative" office. Amendment to correct pending. | Yes | |
| 16 | Solicitation | L.3.1.2.1.1 | Are the two Scenarios part of the Volume I 50 page limitations? | See response to Question #1 above. | Yes | |
| 17 | Attachment 1 | Multiple PWS references | Repeated requests for access to the Dugway website and reference documents has not received any response. |
| PWS Ref | Document | |
| 3.1.14.1 | TB 43-180 | |
| 3.1.14.1 | TB 750-25 | |
| 5.2.3 | ATEC Regulation 385-1 | |
| 5.3.4.1 | CTD-SOP-015 | |
| 5.3.3.4.2 | CTD-SOP-031 | |
| 5.3.3.4.2 | CTD-SOP-032 | |
| 5.3.3.4.2 | CTD-SOP-034 | |
| 5.3.4.1 | CTD-SOP-14 | |
| 5.2.3 | DPG Regulation 350-19 | |
| 5.3.4.1 | SOP: CTD-MAN-010 | Part 6 will be amended as follows: |
6.1 The Contractor (to include subcontractors) must abide by all applicable regulations, publications, manuals, local policies and procedures in the performance of this contract and as outlined within this PWS.
6.2 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) referenced in Part 5 are controlled documents, only accessible through the DPG WDTC Power Apps Share Point site. Access to the site is restricted to DPG-WDTC Government and Contractor personnel assigned to and supporting the WDTC Mission Support Contract. Accordingly, access to the site will be granted at contract award, after security protocols are complete. Titles and a summary of the referenced SOP contents is provided as follows: Amendment will include applicable SOPs via a table with the contents at the "Q17 Additional Information" tab.
| Separately, applicable PWS paragraphs will be updated with the correct SOP numbers or reference documents otherwise (see "Q17 Additional Information" tab). | Yes | |||
| 18 | Solicitation | L.3.2.1 | “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 entry, 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? | Yes, correct. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||||
| 19 | Attachment 1 | Section 1.6 | Should Laboratory Analyst III be added to PWS Section 1.6? | The Government will not add this labor category to Attachment 4, however, per L.3.3.4.1.3, an Offeror may add labor categories as deemed appropriate, per the Offeror's proposed technical approach. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 20 | Solicitation, Q&A | L.3.1.2, L.3.2.5 and Q&A #32 | Critical Services: Q&A #32 stated critical services are: “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.” |
RFP states: critical services (i.e., services required at PWS 5.2, 5.4 and 5.7, and applicable subparts)
| Please verify which PWS areas are critical services. | The Q&A response is correct. L.3.1.2 and L.3.2.5 will be amended to align with the Q&A response and change the RFP parentheses statements tied to critical services, "(i.e., services required at PWS 5.3, 5.4 and 5.7, and applicable subparts)…". Amendment pending. | Yes | ||
| 21 | TE A GFP | TE A GFP | Do the items on TECHNICAL EXHIBIT TE_A_GFP constitute the entire government property list for which a joint inventory must be completed within 14 days after the contract award, CDRL A013? |
TE_A_GFP, Tab: Non-Serially Managed Items, line item 2 shows a quantity of 8 RADIO, MOBILE PORTABLE ROMOTE, however there are nine (9) serial numbers in the Notes, please clarify?
TE_A_GFP, Tab: Non-Serially Managed Items, line item 3 shows a quantity of 13 RADIO, MOBILE PROTABLE REMOTE, however there are fifteen (15) serial numbers in the Notes, please clarify?
TE_A_GFP, Tab: Non-Serially Managed Items, line item 9 shows a quantity of 18 COMPUTER, PERSONAL WORKSTATION, however there are fifteen (15) serial numbers in the Notes, please clarify? Yes, this is the entire list. Confirmed the GFP quantities of 8, 13, and 18, respectively.
| TE A GFP is pending amendment to remove/add the applicable S/Ns and to make clear the applicable NSN is also listed within the "Notes" column. Amendment pending. | Yes | |||||
| 22 | Attachment 2 | Attachment 2 | Would the Government consider issuing a Fillable PDF version of Attachment 2? | See response to Question #8 above. Amendment pending. | Yes | |
| 23 | Solicitation | L.3.2.1 | Can the Government confirm that major subcontractor individual past performance references can exceed the (5) page limitation as long as the total page count of (15) pages for major subcontractor(s) references is maintained? | Offerors are permitted up to 5 pages for each major subcontractor, with a maximum of three subcontractors. While individual past performance references may exceed the 5-page limit, the total page count for references shall not exceed the 15-page limitation for (subcontractor) references, nor should the overall page count exceed the maximum limit of 40 pages for this Volume. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 24 | Solicitation | L.3.3.4.2 | "Base rates are the hourly rates that the employees will actually be paid for performance under the contract." There are a number of employees with the same LCAT but are not paid the same base rate. If there are 3 people under the same LCAT a blended rate is what is used, is this acceptable? | Yes. Blended rates for the same LCAT are acceptable. L.3.3.4.1.2 will be amended to remove "or rates" (as LCATs cannot be blended but rates within a single LCAT may be, provided data is included to support the blended rate). Amendment pending. | Yes | |
| 25 | Solicitation | L.3.3.4.4 | "If the Offerors' budgetary indirect rates are lower than the DCMA FPRA or FPRR or the Offeror's historical rates….No upward adjustments will be allowed based on the actual rate incurred." Based on FAR 52.216-7 final approved rates are allowable for billing, please clarify what is not allowable. | If an Offeror elects to propose budgetary indirect rates that are lower than the DCMA FPRA/FPRR/historical rates, the Offeror is required to provide confirmation of understanding their rates will be capped at this lower rate for the duration of the contract. An Offeror who elects to propose in this manner is acknowledging final approved rates as defined at FAR 52.216-7 are superseded by the terms of the contract, the lower rate capped at award. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 26 | PWS | 1.3.7.1 | The Solicitation states that indirect rates will be capped at a lower rate and rate adjustments will not be accepted but the PWS states that there are allowable indirect rate changes for FPRA and billing rates. Please clarify. | PWS 1.3.7.1 states "Contractors proposing at current FPRA rates and invoicing at current Provisions rates"... this is separate/distinct from the scenario addressed at L.3.3.4.4 where Offeror's may elect to propose rates LOWER than DCMA FPRA/FPRR/historical rates. |
Additionally, PWS 1.3.7.5 confirms the L.3.3.4.4 instructions for capped rates being invoiced.
| RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||||
| 27 | Solicitation | L.3.2.3 and L.3.2.7 | Will the Government allow for Controlled Unclassified Information submissions for highly relevant past performance references (where correlating the client with the scope of work makes the information CUI)? The PPQ would also need to be marked as CUI. | Yes, Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) is allowable and may be marked accordingly (via the pending Attachment 2 Word document). RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 28 | PWS | 5.3.1 | Government references the addition of a second project manager under CTD, but does not reflect this labor category description in the PWS or under pricing templates. Please update to reflect the additional labor category requirement. | The "Project Manager (CTD Only)" category can be found under the PMO Rate tab. The FTE quantity may be updated accordingly. The category description for both Project Manager (CTD) are the same, PWS 1.6.19. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 29 | Solicitation | L.2.5.1 | With the submittal of an anonymous Technical proposal where the Government prohibits “any information that indicates the Offeror's (to include all team members) identification”, we highly recommend that the Government allows offerors to reference specific sites/locations they are currently supporting to establish both relevance and context for proposed solutions. For example, if we are performing work at WDTC today, can we cite our presence at WDTC? Will the Government please provide additional guidance on what is acceptable to include in the volume without creating a compliance issue with the referenced Section L language? | Requiring and subsequently evaluating sanitized proposals is appropriate to ensure the integrity of the source selection process and evaluator objectivity strictly to the contents of each proposal. Proposal information shall stand on its own, and an Offeror should be able to substantiate claims without identifying their entity or making any reference to a prior contract/prior program, to include work being conducted at WDTC today. That said, Offerors are not restricted from addressing their knowledge of the WDTC (operations, activities, location, etc.) in detailing their solution. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 30 | Solicitation | L.2.2.3 | Section L.2.2.3 states “Additionally, be advised when using the PIEE Solicitation Module, the User's email address in PIEE must match the email address on file in SAM.gov”. If subcontractors will be submitting an unsanitized proposal as a subcontractor via PIEE directly, is the email address referenced in this section referring to the domain for the company submitting (e.g., <name>@companyname.com) vs. the exact email address for the company in SAM.gov? | The email addressed reference refers to the "User's email" and thus, it applies to both a Prime or Subcontractor Offeror, i.e., when submitting your prime or subcontractor proposal, ensure the address used is the SAME address utilized within SAM.gov. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 31 | Solicitation | L.3.1.2.1.1 | Given that the RFP requires the Offeror to submit one comprehensive Total Compensation Plan, including details about both the prime contractor and subcontractors’ direct labor rates and indirect rates (fringe). Would it be acceptable for subcontractors to submit their proprietary compensation information separately, directly to the Government? | Yes. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 32 | Solicitation | L.3.2.1 | Section L.3.2.1 of the RFP states the following: |
“This volume shall include a summary, excluded from the page limitations herein, describing the role of the offeror (to include JV partner roles) and each subcontractor and / or teaming partner. The summary shall also include a reference to the past performance contracts and their respective PWS cited for each team member and the associated tasks from the WDTC MSS PWS represented by each cited contract and its PWS.”
| Does this statement mean the offeror shall cite specific PWS paragraphs from each of their Past Performance examples, and map them to the appropriate PWS paragraphs from the MSS PWS? Can the Government clarify this statement? | See response to #4 above. Yes, PWS mapping, as questioned, is an acceptable approach. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||||
| 33 | Solicitation | Section K | Would the government consider adding 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services to the clauses by reference, so that in the event of something unexpected during the contract such as at the end of the contract option years and a delay of a newly awarded contract, they would have the ability to extend up to 6 months. | FAR 52.217-8 is incorporated in full text at pg. 19 (Section I). There is no need to incorporate the clause by reference as well. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 34 | Solicitation | L.4.4 | Letters of Commitment, including proposed salary, for Key Personnel as identified at PWS paragraph 2.10 shall be included. Are the Letters of Commitment addressed to the Government or the Prime Bidder? | Letters of Commitment required at L.4.4 shall be addressed to the Prime Offeror. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 35 | Solicitation | L.1.3 and L.2.3 | The Volume numbering in section L.1.3 is different than the Volume numbering in section L.2.3. Please confirm numbering for each Volume required for proposal submission. | The table at L.1.3 is incorrect and will be amended to align with the Volume numbering as specified at L.2.3 and throughout the RFP. Amendment pending. | Yes | |
| 36 | Solicitation, PWS and Attachment 4 | Section B and Section F | The Section B and Section F has the Period of Performance from 10/23/2025 - 10/22/2030 for the Base Period (dates inclusive of Phase In with Option period from 10/23/30 - 10/22/32.) The PWS Section 1.4 Ordering Period has different Projected Dates. Please confirm the Dates in Section B and F are correct. Also noted the dates on the tabs in Attachment 4 do not align. (Phase in is only 2 months) | Section B and F are correct. PWS 1.4 will be amended to align with the solicitation. Attachment 4 will be amended to correct cell A2 on the SubK Costs - T&M or LH tab, from "Phase In" to "Base." | Yes | |
| 37 | PWS | 1.3.6.6 | PWS 1.3.6.6 Notwithstanding any conflict with the Contractor’s cost accounting system and practices, the Contractor shall not directly bill training, licensing, or certification costs (neither training labor hours nor fees) to the Government. These costs are anticipated to be covered under the Contractor’s indirect charge rate. |
| Question: If the contractor's cost accounting system and practices allow for direct bill of training, licensing and certification costs specific to a contract, is the contractor allowed to bill such cost directly under this contract? | While a Contractor's accounting system may allow for direct billing of training, licensing and certification costs, the only time these may be direct billed is if the CWO and COR specifies training (or licensing, certification) requirements to be billed to a specific test event or customer. Any exceptions to 1.3.6.6 require pre-approval by the COR. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||
| 38 | Solicitation | L.3.3.4 | PWS 1.3.7.5 Any Not to Exceed (NTE) Material Handling, G&A rate, to include Indirect Rates that may be lower than DCMA FPRA/FPRR/historical rates, and Subcontractor fully burdened labor rates (FBLRs) capped at contract award shall be invoiced. No upward adjustments are allowable based on the actual rate(s) incurred. |
Section L.3.3.4 … The proposed material handling and/or G&A Rate will then become/be calculated as part of the Total Evaluated Probable Cost/Price. This rate will be capped for the life of the Task Order/Contract and no upward adjustments will be allowed based on the actual
The government has required DCMA/DCAA approved Cost accounting systems for the Offeror and the subcontractors to received CPFF. DCMA/DCAA only provides their approval if the offeror and subcontractor is compliant with FAR 31 CAS and cost control measures in place.
| Question: Is the Government’s intention to cap FPRR indirect rates on a CPFF contract? | See response to Question #25 and #26 above. Yes. If an Offeror elects to propose a rate lower (than FPRA/FPRR/historical), the lower rate will be incorporated and capped for the duration of the contract. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||
| 39 | Solicitation | PWS 1.5.14 | Contractor personnel accepted into the CPRP and the BPRP will be selected randomly for Random Drug Testing IAW Chapter 5 of AR 600-85 “The Army Substance Abuse Program” (see paragraph 6.3). DPG will coordinate and perform the random drug testing and will bear the cost of the testing. |
| Is DPG Medical Clinic staffed and set up to perform drug testing? | DPG will coordinate the testing, as applicable. Contractor testing is completed by a private testing facility that historically, has either comes on post to conduct testing or requires the individual(s) being tested to complete at the private testing facility (off post). RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||
| 40 | Solicitation | PWS 1.5.15.7.1 | The Dugway Clinic will provide Alcohol/Drug Screening. |
| Is DPG Medical Clinic staffed and set up to perform drug testing? | Dugway will provide/facilitate screening as addressed at the response to Question #29 above. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||||
| 41 | PWS | PWS 1.6.7 | Can the Government please clarify experience/requirements for the Property Manager? The listed requirements (job description) for the Property Manager are not typical for this type of position. | Property Manager was the most appropriate/applicable LCAT available for the requirement. As detailed within the position description at 1.6.7, this role is for specialized property management, supporting Government engineers (within CTD, Life Sciences, SPD) management of applicable facilities (testing facilities, chambers, fixtures, etc.) - will generate work orders, evaluate facility issues/problems. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 42 | PWS | PWS 1.6.49 | Will government consider increasing the "years of experience" to five (5) for the Master Mechanical Technician to ensure proper pricing of support, and reduce potential cost gaming of the labor categories? The requirements of the Master Mechanical Technician are the same as the Senior Mechanical Technician in Section 1.6.50. | Concur. PWS 1.6.49 will be amended to reflect "at least five (5) years experience" for the Master Mechanical Technician. Amendment pending. | Yes | |
| 43 | RFP Attachment 4 Pricing Matrix |
PWS "TEPCP" tab/ worksheet, Row 21/22. AND "Total Proposed Price" tab/worksheet, Row 16
PWS 1.3.7.5 The Government provided Not to Exceed (NTE) Other Direct Cost amounts for CLINs 0003 and 1003, which Offerors are not to adjust. If a Material Handling or G&A rate will be applied to the CR CLINs, then include the percentage rate in Cell(s) E4 & H4. Include 0% if no indirect rate will be applied. The rate will become part of the contract and will not be adjusted during the life of the Task Order.
| Will government consider removing the fixed nature of the G&A rate for the duration of the contract to ensure "best value" under CPFF nature of this contract? | No. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||
| 44 | RFP Attachment 4 Pricing Matrix | "TEPCP" tab/ worksheet, Row 21/22. AND "Total Proposed Price" tab/worksheet, Row 16 | The Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts have been provided for CLINs 0003 and 1003; do not adjust these amounts. If a Material Handling or G&A rate will be applied to the CR CLINs, then include the percentage rate in Cell(s) E4 & H4. Include 0% if no indirect rate will be applied. The rate will become part of the contract and will not be adjusted during the life of the Task Order. |
| Are offerors to assume the NTE ODC costs are inclusive of the indirect rate Offerors add in row 16? Or, should Offerors apply their applicable indirect rate to the NTE amount? | Yes, the Offeror should apply their applicable MH or G&A rate to the NTE amount provided in Attachment 4. Any proposed MH and/or G&A rate will become/be calculated as part of the TEPC/P. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||
| 45 | Solicitation | Section L, L3.3.4.2 Base Labor Rates | The cost breakdown shall provide the base labor rates associated with each labor category. Base rates are the hourly rates that the employees will actually be paid for performance under the contract. In the narrative, explain the basis for the proposed labor rates and rates that the employees will actually be paid for performance under the contract. In the narrative, explain the basis for the proposed labor rates and provide support documentation (Only for Exempt labor categories). Some common basis for proposed rates is the actual rate the employee is currently being paid, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Payscale, etc. In addition, the method used to escalate rates for additional periods requires explanation and the inclusion of the basis for the escalation factors used, along with the date that pay increases are effective. Note, this only applies to the Exempt labor categories. Escalation shall not be applied to Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) labor rates. The SCLS labor rates for the Option Years shall be IAW with the applicable Wage Determination at the time of Option Year exercise. All Non-Exempt base labor rates shall be proposed IAW the applicable Wage Determination and/or applicable Executive Order. If Executive Order (EO)14026 forces an update to the applicable Wage Determination after contract award, then the contractor may be entitled to an adjustment to their contract price post-award. Only the labor categories affected by the minimum wage increase established by EO 14026 will be adjusted. |
| Will the government consider modifying the Attachment 4 spreadsheet to include escalation by contract year to ensure cost transparency? | No, the Government will not amend the spreadsheet, however, Offerors are able to modify the spreadsheet to include allowable escalation by contract year. Additionally, Offerors shall include the basis for any escalation factors utilized, when appropriate. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||||
| 46 | Solicitation | Section L.1.3 | The table indicates Volume IV is Cost/Price and Volume V is Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations, however, the table in section L.2.3 Volume numbering is different. Can you please confirm proper volume numbering? | See response to Question #35 above. Amendment pending. | Yes | |
| 47 | Solicitation | Section L.3.2.7. Section 5 | Will the Government consider allowing the use of CPARS in lieu of PPQs? | No. Per M.5.3.3, the Government will review both. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 48 | RFP Attachment 4 Pricing Matrix | RFP Attachment 4 Pricing Matrix | To what level may an Offeror revise the Attachment 4 spreadsheet? For example - Are Offerors permitted to add columns to worksheets such as "Prime", "Option", etc. in our Attachment 4 response? | Any changes an Offeror elects to make to the Attachment 4 spreadsheet shall be CLEARLY labeled for Government evaluation, and comply with L.3.3.3. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 49 | Solicitation | Section L.3.3.4.7 Subcontract(s) | For Time and Materials (T&M) or labor hour (LH) subcontracts, the Offeror shall follow the example provided in the Pricing Matrix, Tab "e.g. Subk Costs - T&M or LH". |
| Are subcontractors who are proposing T&M or LH required to submit a proprietary VOL III Cost/Price Narrative document, along with a completed Attached 4 Pricing Matrix spreadsheet? | Yes, if the proposed subcontract cost exceeds $5M, per L.3.3.4.7. RFP remains unchanged. | No |
| 50 | Solicitation |
and RFP Attachment 4 Pricing Matrix Section M.5.4.4.4.2 and TEPCP worksheet Offerors are required only to price the base and option periods. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services at the end of any performance period (base or option periods), utilizing the rates of that performance period.
| In the Attachment 4 spreadsheet, TEPCP worksheet, are offerors required to enter costs into row 11 for the "FAR 52.217.8 Option to Extend Services", or will the Government fill that in? | No. Offerors are not required to complete or enter costs for FAR 52.217-8. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||
| 51 | PWS | 5.7 | In the sentence under PWS paragraph 5.7 "While requirements at 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 are not anticipated for immediate task order support upon contract award, it is anticipated that changes to the division and its personnel during the life of the contract may require contractor support for tasks 5.7.1 through 5.7.2" is 5.7.2 meant to be 5.7.20? | No, however, 5.7 will be amended as follows: |
"BioTesting Dugway (BTD) CBC DEVCOM AFC. The objectives of the BTD are to provide scientific and professional expertise and technical support in the area of biological warfare research, development, testing and evaluation (RDTE) program acquisition phases of Chemical Biological Defense Programs (CBDP) and other government agencies. Areas of programs that require this support encompass biological select agent and toxins (BSAT), infectious agents and toxins, (IATs) and simulated biological weapons and their interactions with collection, detection, identification systems, protective equipment and decontamination survivability of equipment. While requirements at 5.7.1 through 5.7.11 are not anticipated for immediate task order support upon contract award, it is anticipated that changes to the division and its personnel during the life of the contract may require contractor support for tasks 5.7.1 through 5.7.11. If future support is required, a supplement to the BTD CWO will be submitted. Requirements at 5.7.12 through 5.7.20 apply at contract award."
| Amendment pending. | Yes | |||||
| 52 | Solicitation | Attachment 5 | The historical hours provided precede any DOGE related funding or staffing reductions that may impact WDTC. Would the Govt provide a current manpower estimate that would allow bidders to make informed staffing assumptions? Rationale - in the current budget environment, without a consistent level of manpower specified, bidders will offer widely disparate staffing assumptions making comparable technical and pricing evaluations difficult. | The Government has no knowledge, guidance or direction tied to any funding or associated staffing impacts tied to DOGE actions. The historical data provided at Attachment 5 is the most accurate and current historical information, as associated with the current technical approach to support WDTC MSS requirements. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 53 | Solicitation | L.3.3.4 | L.3.3.4 states, “If a material handling rate and/or if G&A will be applied to the NTE CLINs, the Offeror shall provide the rate with its proposal A4 ‘Pricing Matrix’ in the material handling and/or G&A Rate section, which can be located in Tab ‘Total Proposed Price.’ The proposed material handling and/or G&A Rate will then become/be calculated as part of the Total Evaluated Probable Cost/Price. This rate will be capped for the life of the Task Order/Contract and no upward adjustments will be allowed based on the actual rate incurred.” |
We respectfully request that the Government remove the rate cap on the material/ODC burdens.
(1) Factors outside the control of the small business prime contractor may result in a negative financial impact. Because the contract is a small business set-aside, the impact of the direct materials could have a significant impact on the applicable indirect rates for a small business prime, particularly if the anticipated level of direct materials/ODCs is not realized in performance of the contract through no fault of the contractor. While the contractor can manage their costs to their projections (i.e., the numerator or pool costs), the contractor cannot manage the actual level of materials or labor ordered by the Government (i.e., the denominator or the base costs). If the Government does not order the quantity of materials projected in the solicitation, the actual material handling rate or G&A rate will unfairly increase due to a lower base, which is outside the control of the small business prime contractor.
| (2) CPFF or Cost Reimbursable CLINs reimburse contractors for actual costs incurred inclusive of all burdens in accordance with their standard estimating practices subject to applicable funding limitations. Placing a cap on the indirect rates at the proposed amounts unfairly protects the Government from indirect rate increases while allowing them to receive the benefits of any indirect rate reductions. Cost reimbursable CLINs are designed to ensure that both parties are protected from financial harm outside their control, as payment is limited to actual costs (both direct and indirect) through the payment of actual costs that are subject to review and audit by DCAA, ensuring compliance with all applicable regulations. | The cap on Material Handling and/or G&A rates proposed for CLIN X003 will not be removed. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||
| 54 | Solicitation and Attachment 4 | L.3.3.4.5 | L.3.3.4.5 Program Management Office (PMO): The Pricing Matrix, A4 provides a worksheet to estimate the PMO rate per hour based on the proposed costs divided by the proposed hours. However, it is not clear how PMO costs will be handled during execution. |
| Given the CPFF nature of the effort, if the actual PMO costs vary from the proposed amounts, how will differences be calculated/invoiced? | Invoicing shall be done on a monthly basis for all actuals incurred during that month. The PMO cost for that month will be split amongst all customers (for that month) and Dugway Overhead Charges, in alignment with DPG's 80/20 goal. Accordingly, no reconciliation is anticipated. RFP remains unchanged. | No. | ||
| 55 | Solicitation | L.3.3.4.5.1 | L.3.3.4.5.1 states, “While PMO personnel and hours supporting the Scenario 1 and 2 cost proposal shall be identified in the Pricing Matrix, for purposes of clarity, the proposed PMO rate is excluded from the PMO rate calculation.” |
This language is somewhat confusing. Should this read, “the proposed PMO rate is excluded from the Scenario 1 and 2 total cost calculation”?
| If not, please clarify the Section L.3.3.4.5.1 language. | Confirmed and will clarify via pending amendment to L.3.3.4.5.1, "While PMO personnel and hours supporting the Scenario 1 and 2 cost proposal shall be identified in the Pricing Matrix, the proposed PMO rate is excluded from the Scenario 1 and 2 total cost calculation." Amendment pending. | Yes | ||
| 56 | Attachment 4 | Attachment 4 | The A4 Scenario 1 and 2 worksheets include the following instruction: “PMO Personnel and hours supporting the Scenario shall be proposed/identified, as applicable, however, the PMO rates are excluded from the Scenario 1/Scenario 2 TEPC/P calculation.” |
In the example provided, the $35.35/hour FBLR including fee includes the calculated PMO rate shown in cell J6 of the linked worksheet “e.g. Subk Costs – T&M or LH.”
| Please clarify whether the PMO rate should be included in the costs for Scenarios 1 and 2. | The PMO rate should be excluded from the costs for Scenarios 1 and 2. Offeror's may $0.00-out PMO costs within the EXAMPLE sheet. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||
| 57 | Solicitation | L.3.3.4.4 | L.3.3.4.4 states, “If the Offerors’ budgetary indirect rates are lower than the DCMA FPRA or FPRR or the Offeror’s historical rates (due to recent awards, recent business decisions, etc.), these rates may be proposed, but the Offeror must state that the rates will be capped at the lower rate for the duration of the contract. In this case, no upward adjustments will be allowed based on the actual rate incurred.” |
We respectfully request that the Government remove the rate caps.
| CPFF or Cost Reimbursable CLINs reimburse contractors for actual costs incurred inclusive of all burdens in accordance with their standard estimating practices subject to applicable funding limitations. Placing a cap on the indirect rates at the proposed amounts unfairly protects the Government from indirect rate increases while allowing them to receive the benefits of any indirect rate reductions. Cost reimbursable CLINs are designed to ensure that both parties are protected from financial harm outside their control, as payment is limited to actual costs (both direct and indirect) through the payment of actual costs that are subject to review and audit by DCAA, ensuring compliance with all applicable regulations. | See response to Question #25 and #26 above. Yes. If an Offeror elects to propose a rate lower (than FPRA/FPRR/historical), the lower rate will be incorporated and capped for the duration of the contract. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||
| 58 | Solicitation | Section B, CLIN 0005 | Please consider changing CLIN X005 CDRL to not separately priced. The lack of specificity in the number and scope of some of the CDRLs makes it difficult for Offerors to accurately propose on a firm fixed price basis. |
For example, Offerors can estimate the cost per test report, but without understanding the number of tests that will occur, they cannot reasonably or realistically provide a fixed price for test reports.
| Additionally, it is our understanding that the effort associated with preparing and delivering the CDRLs is covered under CLINs X001 and X002. | CLIN X005 is FFP. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||||
| 59 | Solicitation | Section B | Please confirm that Section B CLINs X001 and X002 should refer to PWS Part 5: Organization Specific Tasks. | Confirmed. Section B CLINs X001 will be amended to reflect "The Contractor shall provide labor IAW PWS Part 5." CLINs X002 will be amended to reflect "The Contractor shall provide Overtime labor IAW PWS 1.5.7 and PWS Part 5." Amendment pending. | Yes | |
| 60 | Attachment 8 | Attachment 8 | The Q&A published 28 March states that Scenario 2 is a single month performance. However, Attachment 8 does not include discrete tasks for a single month related to a test event. |
Please update the Scenario to align with a one-month test event with test parameters. Discrete tasks are identified in the CWO Attachment 8. For purposes of schedule within the 30-day PoP, Offerors shall assume the following, to be amended within Attachment 8:
One-week set-up tasks Two-week execution/testing tasks One-week retrograde tasks
| Amendment pending. | Yes | |||
| 61 | Solicitation | Q&A #29 | In accordance with the Q&As released on April 2, the Govt is limiting Offerors from substantiating their claims related to DPG. |
| a. | Will the Government provide clarification for the extent to which Offerors can provide detailed knowledge on WDTC operations, activities, locations, etc.? | |
| b. | What level of detail is permissible? | |
| c. | Can the Offeror Substantiate our approach by providing references to current operations and activities at DPG? | The Government is not limiting Offerors from substantiating their claims related to DPG. Offerors must comply with the requirements at L.2.5.1 for Volume I and ensure no contract numbers, program titles, or specific personnel are referenced. |
a. An Offeror is able to demonstrate knowledge of WDTC operations, activities, locations, mission requirements, etc. without stating specific contracts the Offeror may have performed or participated in. The Government will not detail how an Offeror can demonstrate such.
b. See the statement above, "Offerors must comply with the requirements at L.2.5.1 for Volume I and ensure no contract numbers, program titles, or specific personnel are referenced."
c. Yes.
| RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||||
| 62 | Solicitation | Q&A #23 | The response to questions states that citations from major subcontractors are limited to five pages but then also states that citations can exceed five pages as long as they do not exceed 15 pages for subcontractors. To clarify, if an offeror only has ONE major subcontractor, can that subcontractor use the entire 15 pages to cite up to three contract(s)? If not, please clarify what the Government intended in their answer that suggests one subcontractor citation is both limited to five pages and can also exceed five pages. | Yes. One major subcontractor may utilize the 15 pages, citing up the three contract references. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 63 | Solicitation | Q&A #29 | The response makes adding “proofs” to our claims difficult to provide proper and relevant context. If we are supporting a program that is similar, how do we describe it without giving away what it is? (e.g., if we are at another ATEC site such as Yuma, EPG, or WSMR – all having similar technical range components, similar remote/desert environment, and similar management challenges, including recruiting issues. It is hard to draw that direct correlation between programs without providing a location or mission overview that clearly demonstrates an offeror’s approaches are applicable to WDTC. | There's no restriction to an Offeror addressing support of other ATEC requirements, without specifically identifying X location, and still demonstrating how that experience and approach may be leveraged to perform/meet PWS requirements of the Dugway MSS. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 64 | Solicitation | Q&A #2 | The answer to Q&A#2 relative to the scenario requirements still allows for a broad interpretation by offerors and likely to result in the Government receiving very different approaches in the scenario response. L.3.1.2.1.1 does not provide very detailed instructions for offerors and instead a more general requirement to discuss mostly management areas already addressed in the IDIQ portion. We highly recommend the Government provide more detailed instructions for Section L requirement relative to the scenarios to ensure that the Government can more easily evaluate responses across bidders. In addition, the Government only increased page count by 10 pages – with the major change from the draft – being the addition of these two scenarios suggesting the Government is not looking for a detailed but high-level response. The Attachment 7 and 8 documents are more than 30 pages of requirements alone, and it would be very difficult for offerors to respond to all the attachment requirements and deliverables within the limiting parameters set forth in Section L. | The CWOs provided at Attachment 7 and 8 are examples of CWOs the Government may provide during execution of the MSS follow-on contract. There is no more detail to provide. L.3.1.2.1.1 speaks to both the management and execution elements of Attachments 7 and 8. Offerors should be able to apply details of their overall technical approach specific to managing and executing the CWOs. RFP will remain unchanged. |
| The pending amendment to the Volume I page count (to increase by 10 pages) remains unchanged from the Question #1 response. The page count of the Attachments is irrelevant for purposes of the Offerors providing a responsive proposal to the Government's requirements. | No | ||||
| 65 | Solicitation | Q&A # 25, 26, 57 | The RFP mentions rates possibly capped if lower than what is found in DCMA FPRA/FPRR; would this also include DCMA FPRP or does it only apply for those who have DCMA FPRA/FPRR? | There is no Government requirement for an Offeror to propose a rate lower than the DCMA FPRA/FPRR/historical rates. IF AN OFFEROR SO ELECTS to do so, they shall acknowledge and confirm this lower rate will be capped for the duration of the contract. RFP remains unchanged. |
An FPRP would fall under the "historical rates" as noted, as the FPRP hasn't been negotiated or accepted by the Government. RFP remains unchanged.
No
Q17 Additional Information
| PWS Reference | Document | Title | Summary / Notes | Pending Amendment Action? |
| 5.3.4.1 | CTD-SOP-014 | Chamber Facility Operations for the BMTF and Building 3445 | Provides general startup, operations and emergency procedures for building 3445. Also provide building layout and Building Management System startup/shutdown. |
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 .