W51EW725RA001_QandA_28Mar2025_Posted.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 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 addresses 22 distinct questions from potential offerors, with key modifications including an increase of the Volume I page limit from 50 to 60 pages, clarification on past performance documentation requirements, and amendments to scenario-based proposal instructions. Significant changes involve defining "level of support" as designated workshare, providing an unlocked Past Performance Questionnaire in Word format, and correcting some technical details in attachments such as historical hours data and government-furnished property inventory.
The solicitation involves two scenarios with different performance periods: Scenario 1 covers 23 December 2025 to 22 December 2026 for embedded contractor personnel, and Scenario 2 will be amended to 01 April 2026 to 30 April 2026 for a specific test event. The government will evaluate proposals based on scenario-specific instructions, with an emphasis on contractors' approach to potential Call Work Order (CWO) requirements. Notable amendments are pending for several sections, including clarification of critical services, correction of pricing calculation factors, and updates to various attachments to provide more precise information for potential bidders.
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 | Placeholder | Placeholder | Placeholder - input pending subsequent Q&A posting | Placeholder - input pending subsequent Q&A posting | Placeholder | |
| 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. | Yes |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .