Attachment 0011 - WSMR MSS RFP QA - A0001.pdf

Q # RFP Reference PWS Reference Question/Comment Government Response

Q.1 L.5.1.1.1 and

M5.1.1.2

Can the USG confirm that a contract modification on an existing contract, in which an award of an option period within the past 5-years is made, would be compliant within the L.5.1.1.1 and M.5.1.1.2.

five (5) year requirement?

-FAR 2.101 a contract award is not explicitly defined to a period of performance, but a contract is defined as “a mutually binding legal relationship obligating the seller to furnish the supplies or services (including construction) and the buyer to pay for them” -The FAR definition for contract is consistent with what is posted on www.farsite.hill.af.mil -As worded, the solicitation generates some confusion regarding the recency of active contract modifications issued within the past five (5) years on contracts of extended duration (e.g. 15-year contract award with 10-year base with 5-one-year options) -If contracts awarded excludes contract modifications to an initial contract award, option years or such, the Government is inadvertently applying additional restrictive measures to the interpretation of FAR 2.101 definition that will generate a competitive disadvantage to select contractors.

-The contractor assumes that any contract modification, in which an award of an option period within the past 5-years is made, would be compliant within the L.5.1.1.1 and M.5.1.1.2. five (5) year requirement.

Section L.5.1.1.1 (first sentence) has been revised as follows: "Recent is defined as a Government contract with services being performed within the past five (5) years of issuance of this RFP."

Section M.5.1.1.2 has been revised as follows: "The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is defined as a Government contract with services being performed within the past five (5) years of issuance of this RFP and is at least 20% complete. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Q.2 L.5.1.1.1 and

M5.1.1.2

Would the Government agree to the adjusted language in the recency definition as outlined?

The definition of Recency in Section M.5.1.1.2 eliminates ongoing contracts awarded more than five years prior to the issuance of the WSMR MSS RFP on May 23,2025. Several relevant Amentum range contracts have periods of performance that are well beyond five years – with some exceeding 15 years in duration. These contracts are current and would provide the WSMR evaluation team with multiple years of CPARs allowing them to determine an offeror’s ability to sustain a high level of performance when faced with dynamic workload and funding challenges common at sites like WSMR and other DoD ranges. For example, the Joint Range Technical Services II (J-Tech II) contract awarded to JT4, LCC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Amentum) in 2018 with a potential 15-year period of performance would not be considered “recent” based on the current RFP language. The J-Tech II contract requires support services on multiple MRTFBs that are highly relevant to the WSMR acquisition requirements as presented in the MSS Performance Work Statement. DoD ranges supported by the J-Tech II contract include: Utah Test and Training Range, Nevada Test and Training Range, Air Force Test Center, National Space Test and Training Complex, China Lake Ranges and Point Mugu Sea Range – each of which is relevant to the WSMR MSS requirement.

The existing Section M.5.1.1.2 language will likely eliminate key competitors from bidding and may even lead to a Pre-award protest. More importantly the extremely restrictive language could prevent the Government from awarding the WSMR MSS contract to an otherwise “Best Value” selection. For these reasons we suggest the Government change the definition of Recency from “awarded within the last five years” to “performed within the last five years.” This would allow submission of current, ongoing contracts which are highly relevant and demonstrate an offerors’ record of performance over an extended period of time.

Section L.5.1.1.1 (first sentence) has been revised as follows: "Recent is defined as a Government contract with services being performed within the past five (5) years of issuance of this RFP."

Section M.5.1.1.2 has been revised as follows: "The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is defined as a Government contract with services being performed within the past five (5) years of issuance of this RFP and is at least 20% complete. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

ATTACHMENT 0011 - WSMR MSS RFP QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

KO: Danette Wilson (danette.d.wilson.civ@army.mil) CS: Amy Hahka (amy.k.hahka.civ@army.mil)

Q.3 Sections

L.5.1.1.1 and M.5.1.1.2

Sections L.5.1.1.1 and M.5.1.1.2 define recency as contracts awarded within the past five (5) years of the RFP issuance date (May 23, 2025). This definition is atypically narrow and potentially excludes highly relevant ongoing contracts—including the current WSMR MSS contract—which are, by any practical definition, both recent and critical to evaluating performance on this follow-on effort. We presume this is NOT the Government’s intent. Historically, “recency” in Army and ATEC solicitations, such as Yuma’s MTSS RFP, has been defined as contracts performed within the past five years or currently active, regardless of award date. Many Government contracts have longer base and option periods that extend well beyond five years, and may represent the most relevant experience, institutional knowledge, and mission-specific success. We request that the Government modify the language within L.5.1.1.1 to read “Recent is defined as a Government contract that has been awarded within the past five (5) years of issuance of this RFP, and is at least 20% complete, or a contract that has been performed within the last five (5) years as of issuance of this RFP.” We also request that the Government modify the language within M.5.1.1.2 to read “Recent is defined as a Government contract that has been awarded within the past five (5) years of issuance of this RFP, and is at least 20% complete, or a contract that has been performed within the last five (5) years as of issuance of this RFP.” Would the government consider the adjusted language to help clarify the definition as recency?

Section L.5.1.1.1 (first sentence) has been revised as follows: "Recent is defined as a Government contract with services being performed within the past five (5) years of issuance of this RFP."

Section M.5.1.1.2 has been revised as follows: "The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is defined as a Government contract with services being performed within the past five (5) years of issuance of this RFP and is at least 20% complete. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Q.4 L.5.1.1.1 Past Performance

Recency

Regarding the statement "Recent is defined as a Government contract that has been awarded within the past five (5) years of issuance of this RFP ":

1: The term "awarded" implies that some contracts currently in performance are not allowable.

2: Multiple ATEC and other DoD major range mission support contracts in place today were awarded more than 5 years ago. Opening up a recency period of 7 years would allow the use of these highly relevant past performance references, to include the current WSMR MSS incumbent, especially considering that past performances are only allowable by the prime.

To address these two concerns and allow for the maximum number of relevant contracts, recommend the statement be changed to "Recent is defined as a Government contract with performance within seven (7) years of issuance of this RFP "

Section L.5.1.1.1 (first sentence) has been revised as follows: "Recent is defined as a Government contract with services being performed within the past five (5) years of issuance of this RFP."

Q.5

L.7.1.1.12 and Attachment_0

002_-

_WSMR_MSS_

Price_Matrix_1 9MAR2025.xls x

To meet the subcontractor pricing requirement, will the Government provide an example and/or update the Price Matrix Excel file to show how offerors are to differentiate labor categories/hours/rates assigned to the prime contractor vs. subcontractors on the 'Detail buildup' and 'PMO' worksheets?

Attachment 0002 - Price Matrix has been revised as follows: A column has been inserted for the Offeror to identify the prime/subk proposing the labor category.

Q.6 M.1.1.1

Under Section M Evaluation Criteria, Relative Importance, "Past Performance is equal to Small Business Participation ". The WSMR MSS contract is in support of a major range, and proven contractor ability to support is significant. It is highly recommended that the Government consider increasing Past Performance importance above Small Business Participation.

The relative order of importance found at M.1.1.1 has been revised as follows:

"Mission Capability is significantly more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Small Business Participation….."

Q.7

Attachment 4 Contractor Furnished

Property and Attachment_0

002_-

_WSMR_MSS_

Price_Matrix_1 9MAR2025.xls x

4.5

Regarding contractor vehicles, as required per PWS 4.5, and the associated maintenance costs:

> Shall costs to acquire and maintain vehicles be included in the "indirect charge rate" referenced in Attachment 4 or shall these costs be priced and shown separately in the Price Matrix?

> The large number of Contractor-provided vehicles represent a significant cost factor in the overall evaluation. Will the Government consider adding a specific Tab for detailed vehicle cost/pricing to ensure total vehicle types, numbers, and pricing are fairly and realistically evaluated to accomplish the PWS, equally across all bidders?

> Maintenance for this volume of vehicles will require a significant amount of dedicated space and equipment. Will the Government please describe the on-site facilities, equipment, and tools available for maintenance of Contractor-provided vehicles? Will the Government provide warehouse space for storage of maintenance and repair parts?

> Will the Government provide dedicated motor pool space or secure parking facilities at major range locations, such as WSMR main post, Holloman Air Force space, and Stallion range center? Will the contractor have access to Government fuel stations at these three locations?

The Government will not be reimbursing Contractors for vehicles or vehicle maintance costs under this contract. Attachment 0002 - WSMR MSS Price Matrix shall remain unchanged. There will be adequate parking for Contractor provided vehicles at WSMR. There is a gas station on base but it does not provide diesel. Off-site gas stations are available in El Paso, Las Cruces, Alamogordo, Socorro, or in the Wingate area. Contractors will have available space in a building/facility at WSMR to provide vehicle maintenance, which will also allow for the storage of Contractor provided tools/equipment to complete needed vehicle maintenance.

Q.8 L.1.1.1.1 and Attachment 6

Section L states that the Past Performance Questionnaire is due to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date. Attachment 6 states that it is due no later than 15 days after receipt of request or no later than July 1, 2025. Please clarify when PPQs are due.

Attachment 0006 - Past Performance Questionnaire has been revised to align with the submission due date as provided in Section L.5.1.1.5, as follows: "Please complete the enclosure and return to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist identified here within, no later than the proposal due date of 16 July 2025 at 2:00 pm CT. It is your responsibility to ensure the completed questionnaire is submitted in its entirety by the suspense provided. Questionnaires submitted after the proposal due date and time will not be accepted or reviewed. "

Q.9 Attachment 6 The Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 6) contains a digital signature, not allowing for edits to the document. Please provide an editable version to allow completion of the fill-ins.

Attachment 0006 - Past Performance Questionnaire has been updated to allow for edits.

Q.10 Attachment

10, Section M, 15 May 2025

M.4.1.1.1 states that "The Government will the Offerors['] understanding of the requirements and the completeness/adequacy of the response under the three Sub-Factors: " Listing immediately thereafter are two subfactors, M.4.1.2 SUB-FACTOR 1A: MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING PLAN and M.4.1.3, SUB-FACTOR 1B: CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS. Please clarify the correct number of sub-factors and if three, what the third sub-factor is.

Section M.4.1.1.1 has been revised as follows: "The Government will evaluate the Offerors understanding of the requirements and the completeness/adequacy of the response under the two Sub-Factors:"

Q.11 L.4.1.2 1.20.1

Section L.4.1.2 asks bidders to "define and describe its transition plan " PWS 1.20.1 states for bidders to "submit a transition plan as part of its proposal " Are bidders to provide a separate stand-alone file containing a transition plan in addition to the requirements at section L.4.1.2? If so, please confirm that a transition plan per PWS 1.20.1 shall be a separate, non-page counted attachment to Volume I.

IAW L.4.1.2 and PWS 1.20.1, Offerors are to provide a transition plan within its Volume 1, Mission Capability proposal. The PWS does not call for a separate stand-alone file. The PWS states that as part of the Offerors proposal a transition plan shall be included. The transition plan shall be included in Volume I's total page count.

Q.12

Solicitation

_W51EW725R

A003, pages 18, 20, 22

The Period of Performance for CLINs 2002, ,3002, and 4002 end on 22 February of each should year.

Should this be 28 February?

The Period of Performance end dates have been revised to 28 February on solicitation document W51EW7-25-R-A003 for CLINs 2002, 3002, and 4002.

Q.13

Attachment

0009 WSMR

MSS Section L

13MAY2025,

page 5, Table 1

The last bullet item in the table, for Volume IV - Cost/Price, appears to be incomplete as it states " - Completion of " with no other instructions. Will the Government please correct this bullet?

Section L.3.8, Table 1, Volume IV, Cost/Price has been revised to remove "Completion of"

Q.14 1.10.a PWS 1.10.a. states that the Program Manager (PM) shall maintain "... a Top Secret level clearance IAW DOD regulations". Is the TS clearance a requirement prior to contract award or would the Government consider changing the language to state "Must be able to obtain a Top Secret upon contract award"?

IAW PWS 1.10, the Program Manager must possess a Top Secret Clearance.

Q.15 L.7.1.1.9 Please define the number of hours in the Government's definition for a Full Time Equivalent (FTE).

IAW L.7.1.1.5 the Government is providing a total number of hours estimated to perform the services of the PWS by labor category. Attachment 0002 - Price Matrix is basing a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) off of 2,080 hours per year (40 hours per week x 52 weeks). It is at the discretion of the Offeror to define its FTE base on total annual work hours available.

Q.16 Does the Government intend to publish answers to the questions asked during the Draft RFP?

Answers to Draft RFP questions submitted will not be formally posted on SAM.gov to ensure a clean efficient release going forward, as some of the Draft RFP questions submitted were either incorporated into the final RFP release, or revisions to the requirement nullified the relevancy of the initial submissions. If you have questions against the final RFP, please submit those per the solicitation instructions, as all answers will be posted to SAM.gov as an amendment to the RFP for all potential Offerors to review.

Q.17 L.7.1.1.5

Regarding the instructions under L.7.1.1.5 "Any adjustments to the labor hours shall be described in the pricing narrative as well as the technical volume and made obvious in Attachment 0002.. .", a detailed, in-depth, and credible description of significant adjustments will require a significant number of pages to accurately describe.

Would the Government consider allowing additional pages in Volume I to allow room for a detailed description and rationale for staffing adjustments?

Total Page count for Volume I shall remain unchanged at 75 pages.

Q.18 L.3.11 Will the Government permit submission of a List of Exhibits (essentially a TOC of Exhibits/Tables/Graphics) within our proposal that is exempt from page limitations?

IAW L.3.12 Tables, Charts, Graphs, and Figures. Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, and/or task layout, schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, the text shall be no smaller than Arial or Times New Roman 10-point font. Text lines in all tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall have single (1) line spacing. All tables, charts, graphs, and figures will be included in the page count, and each 11 x 17 inch page containing such tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be counted as one (1) page.

Any tables, charts, graphs and/or figures containing smaller than Arial or Times New Roman 10-point font will be disregarded.

Q.19 5.3

PWS 5.3 states, "WSMR maintains over 60 unique test capabilities, some of which are facility centric.

The Contractor shall perform maintenance (Preventative and Corrective) of laboratory equipment IAW section..." The sentence is incomplete - please provide the missing information.

Attachment 0001 - WSMR MSS Performance Work Statement dated 09JUN2025 has been revised at 5.3 as follows: SUPPORT BY TEST FACILITY. WSMR maintains over 60 unique test capabilities, some of which are facility centric. The Contractor shall perform maintenance (Preventative and Corrective) of laboratory equipment.

Q.20 L.7.1.1.12

Section L.7.1.1.12 states that the fully burdened labor rate (FBLR) "will become part of the contract and will not be adjusted throughout the life of the contract. No upward adjustments will be allowed based on the actual rates incurred by the Contractor. Note, Wage Determination and any other applicable adjustment shall be executed IAW FAR 52.222-43." We suggest that for greater clarity the language be modified to read as follows: "The FBLR will become part of the contract and, except as provided for in FAR clause 52.222-43, will not be adjusted throughout the life of the contract. With the exception of adjustments IAW FAR 52.222-43, no upward adjustments will be allowed based on the actual rates incurred by the Contractor. Note, Wage Determination and any other applicable adjustment shall be executed IAW FAR 52.222-43."

Section L.7.1.1.12 fully burdened fabor rate language shall remain unchanged.

Q.21 L.4.1.2 1.20.1

Section L.4.1.2 - Continuity of Operations instructs Offerors to “define and describe" our transition plan in the proposal, aligning with standard industry practice to provide a narrative description of the plan’s structure, approach, milestones, and risk mitigations. However, PWS 1.20.1 states: “The Contractor shall submit a transition plan as part of its proposal…,” which may be interpreted as a requirement to include a fully developed Transition Plan deliverable within the proposal submission.

Can the Government please clarify:

1. Is the Government requiring submission of a formal, full Transition Plan deliverable as part of the proposal submission, or;

2. Is the Government expecting a narrative description of the Transition Plan and its major elements, with the formal plan to be submitted after award per the prior contract model?

Clarification would help ensure Offerors submit the appropriate level of detail in our proposals with consideration to the required page limits.

IAW L.4.1.2 Offerors shall define and describe its transition plan meeting the requirements of PWS 1.20. This shall be a fully developed transition plan as it is part of the criteria being used to evaluate Offerors' proposal submissions in response to the WSMR MSS solicitation.

Q.22

Attachment

0002 - WSMR

MSS Price Matrix

19MAR2025

"Summary

Cost Element" tab

Direct Labor PMO (row 10) references the total of Direct Labor and Fringe from the PMO tab, however, the Fringe PMO is also considered in row 15, effectively double counting it. Would the government update the Price Matrix to remove PMO fringe from row 10, or allow contractors to make that adjustment in their submissions?

Attachment 0002 - WSMR MSS Price Matrix dated 09JUN2025 has been revised as follows: PMO fringe has been removed from row 10.

Q.23

Attachment

0009 - WSMR

MSS Section L

13MAY2025,

Page 15, L.7.1.1.12

The second paragraph under L.7.1.1.12 Subcontract(s) states "The prime Offeror is to include the fully burdened labor rate (FBLR) for each labor category as proposed by the subcontractor in Column G."

Currently, Column G in the Price Matrix is the Base OT hours. Did the government intend to reference column J? May offerors alter the customer template columns/formulas to suit their disclosure statements?

Section L.7.1.1.12 has been revised as follows: Reference to specific columns within the price matrix have been removed from this section.

Q.24

Attachment

0009 - WSMR

MSS Section L

13MAY2025,

Page 15, L.7.1.1.12

The second paragraph under L.7.1.1.12 Subcontract(s) also states "If applicable, and IAW with the prime’s accounting system, the prime will then apply their indirect rate (G&A, subcontractor handling rate, etc.) in Column H and their fee in Column L." Currently, Column H in the Price Matrix references Annual OY1-4 Direct Hours and Column L references the PMO Rate. Which columns should the offeror's Subcontract Handling and G&A go in? May offerors alter the customer template columns/formulas to suit their disclosure statements?

Section L.7.1.1.12 has been revised as follows: Reference to specific columns within the price matrix have been removed from this section.

Q.25

Our understanding based on the RFP language is that T&M and non-major subcontractors (less than 20%) will not be required to submit separate proposals. Will subcontractors with T&M contract types with the prime be exempt from submitting a sealed bid with proprietary disclosures per typical FAR rules?

Please follow the detailed instructions as provided in the solicitation and Sections L and M on what shall be included in your proposal submission.

Q.26

Attachment

0009 - WSMR

MSS Section L

13MAY2025,

Page 13, L.7.1.1.7

"L.7.1.1.7 The Government requires substantiation for all labor rates, whether the proposed rates are greater than or equal to the floor rates." Did the government intend to provide floor rates in the RFP for both Exempt and CBA?

Section L.7.1.1.7 has been revised as follows: The Government requires substantiation for all labor rates.

Q.27 L.7.1.1.5 and

L.7.1.1.11

RFP Section L.7.1.1.5 specifies that "Any adjustments to labor hours shall be described in the pricing narrative as well as the tech volume". Direction per L.7.1.1.11 (PMO) does not specify a requirement to "describe adjustments". Are descriptions of adjustments made to the PMO required in both the pricing narrative and tech volume?

The instructions provided in L.7.1.1.5 are overarching to the entire Pricing Volume and therefore apply to the entire Volume within.

Q.28

1.27.6 and

1.27.2

1.27.6 states "The Government enters PSCs into the Contractor’s automated tracking system (reference1.27)." 1.27 and 1.27.2 states that the automated tracking system (PCMS) is Government provided. Please clarify.

PWS 1.27.6, 3rd sentence, revised as follows: The Government enters PSCs into PCMS (reference 1.27).

Q.29 Attachment 7 Do contractors have to provide the entire list of vehicles on day 1 of the contract or would the Government consider a phased approach to replace GSA vehicles as each lease expires? This approach could possibly save costs to the Government and to the contractor.

The Contractor will have a 90-day phase-in period in which to become fully operational. It is expected by day 91 the Contractor will possess the vehicle fleet necessary to successfully perform the services required by the PWS.

Q.30 Attachment 7

Will the Gov allow the contractor to use GSA as a leasing Agent for vehicles or assume existing WSMR GSA leases?

Would the Contracting Officer consider issuing a letter of authorization for the use of the GSA schedule for obtaining prices for GSA leased vehicles? This could represent a considerable savings to the Government.

The Contractor is responsible for obtaining and maintaining the fleet of vehicles required to successfully perform the requirements of the WSMR MSS PWS. How the Contractor obtains the vehicles is up to Contractor discretion.