BTSS DRFP Follow Up_Government Responses_posted 02Mar2026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W51EW726RA004
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army
About this file
This file contains government responses to industry questions and follow-up comments regarding the Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) for the U.S. Army Operational Evaluation Command Base Test Support Services (BTSS) Follow-on acquisition (Solicitation W51EW726RA004). The responses address four substantive issues raised by industry regarding past performance evaluation requirements, indirect rate treatment, and compliance with small business regulations. Key responses clarify that: (1) Joint Venture managing partners must submit a minimum of two past performance references from the SDVOSB managing partner specifically, evaluated in aggregate with other JV partners' qualifications per 13 CFR 128.402(f); (2) Government Points of Contact only—not prime contractors—may complete Past Performance Questionnaires for subcontractor references, though the government acknowledges this may limit available performance data; (3) the government will not implement annual reconciliation or adjustment mechanisms for indirect rate caps if task order values fall below evaluated assumptions; and (4) proposed indirect rates determined to be lower than incurred costs will be capped at the proposed level for contract execution, without application of lower rates to the evaluated cost to establish a firm fixed-price protection. The government noted that final RFP requirements are subject to change and that the Final RFP was anticipated for issuance on or before March 6, 2026, incorporating eCRAFT compliance requirements for cost-type CLINs.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| DRFP W51EW726RA004_RFI Responses_Posted 13Feb2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| TE H- Government Furnished Facilites_27Jan2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 5_Historical Data_Apr 2021-Mar 2025.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFI Template_DRFP W51EW726RA004.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| DRAFT_RFP W51EW726RA004_posted 02Feb2026.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4_Pricing Matrix_29Jan2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| TE E _BTSS_DD254.pdf | ||
| TE C DD1423 A001 Block 16 Continuation Sheet.pdf | ||
| TE F-IML Listing.XLSX | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| TE D GFP_as of 27Jan2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 2_Sample Test_SOW-M10_BCV_IOT.pdf | ||
| Attachment 6_WGDs_as of 03Dec2025.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3_PPQ_13Jan2026.docx | DOCX document | |
| TE H- Government Furnished Facilites_27Jan2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 1_BTSS PWS_30Jan2026.pdf | ||
| TE G OTC BTSS Military Test Locations List.pdf | ||
| Attachment 5_Historical Data_Apr 2021-Mar 2025.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| TE C DD1423_BTSS_27Jan2026.pdf |
Show all 18
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
Sheet1
| No. | Source Document | Attachment or # DRFP/PWS Section | Document Page / Paragraph No. | Industry Question / Comment | Government Response | Follow Up Question | Final Government Response |
| N/A | Draft RFP | L.3.2.2 | 76 of 108 | N/A | N/A | This section requires the managing partner of a JV to submit at least two past performance references. Per 13 CFR 128.402(f), "...A procuring activity may not require the certified VOSB or SDVOSB to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications necessary to perform the contract." Can the government revise the instructions to be consistent with 13 CFR 128.402(f) by allowing a JV to satisfy the past performance requirement with any combination of references from the members in the aggregate? | 13 CFR 128.402(f) speaks to "Capabilities, past performance, and experience" stating, "a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. A procuring activity may not require the certified VOSB or SDVOSB to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications necessary to perform the contract. |
The Past Performance instructions and evaluation are not in conflict with the regulation. The Government is not requiring, in the case of a JV prime Offeror, the SDVOSB managing partner to individually meet the same criteria as other Offerors. Other, non-JV SDVOSB prime Offerors shall submit up to 4 Government contracts. Any JV proposal that includes a SDVOSB managing partner, in compliance with FAR 52.219-27 (specifically (d) and (e)), is required to submit a minimum of 2 past performance contracts from said SDVOSB managing JV partner for evaluation. Individual contracts from the SDVOSB managing partner, or any cited past performance proposal will be evaluated IAW M.5.3.2.1 to determine an overall relevancy rating, followed by a quality assessment (M.5.3.3) and Confidence Assessment (M.5.3.4).
The "aggregate" demonstration of past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract extend beyond the Past Performance evaluation factor and include the Contracting Officer's Responsibility Determination.
| 59 | Draft RFP | L.3.2.3(2) | 76 of 108 | The instructions require POC information for the government customer. For past performance references performed as a subcontractor, where the offeror or major subcontractor does not have privity of contract with the government, can the government confirm that this POC information should instead be for the prime contractor (customer) on the referenced effort? | No, the Offeror shall coordinate with the prime to provide the Government POC. The Government will not accept past performance information provided from another Contractor entity. It is understood the resulting Government POC may have limited past performance information to provide based on privity of contract and Offerors shall consider this in providing past performance data/contracts. | This evaluation scheme is unreasonable, inconsistent with statute, unduly limiting of competition, and difficult to understand in the context of an SDVOSB set-aside procurement. This PPQ mechanism is unreasonable because it excludes the most knowledgeable source of performance evaluation (the prime contractor) and thereby fails to meaningfully consider subcontractor past performance as required by statute and FAR 15.305(a)(2). The PPQ influences the quality assessment (M.5.3.3) which in turn influences the confidence assessment (M.5.3.4). Absent a completed PPQ the risk of receiving a Neutral confidence assessment is greater. This is prejudicial to small business offerors with recent and relevant subcontract performance. Small businesses grow through subcontracts, and subcontract references may provide the most relevant past performance references for this acquisition. Taken together these answers create a de facto prohibition on citing work performed as a subcontractor. | The Government evaluation criteria cited is not limiting competition in any way, nor is it unreasonable or inconsistent with statute. The BTSS Follow-on requirement is for a Government prime contract in performance of the Government requirements specified in the final RFP, FAR and DFARS clauses, and associated PWS. Accordingly, while subcontractor past performance will be considered as consistent with FAR 15.305(a)(2), it is naturally potentially less relevant performance to the prime Government contract in its entirety. However, the Government is not eliminating the citing (proposing of) subcontractor performance as potentially relevant, but will not consider PPQ data from a non-Government source. That said and generally speaking, positive prime performance indicates positive subcontractor performance, and a Government POC completing a PPQ is able to address accordingly. Moreover, the Government POC should be clear on the level of work being performed by the prime and subcontractor entities. Finally, it is noted the PPQ is not the sole source of information to be collected in conducting the Quality Assessment. There is no real or de facto prohibition on citing work performed as a subcontractor. |
| 62 | Draft RFP | L.3.2.7 | 78 of 108 | The instructions state "…PPQs submitted from non-Government personnel will not be considered". Can the government clarify how this applies to past performance references performed as a subcontractor, where any PPQ would be completed and submitted by the prime contractor (customer) and not government personnel? | PPQs shall be completed by Government personnel only. See response to RFI #59. It is acknowledged the Government POC may have limited past performance information to provide for a subcontractor. | ||
| 64 | Draft RFP | L.3.3.4.4 | 82 of 108 | Historical task order issuance under this requirement has demonstrated year-to-year variability, which can materially affect indirect rate absorption for a small business contractor. Can the Government clarify whether it would consider an annual reconciliation or adjustment mechanism for indirect rate caps in instances where the actual task order value issued by the Government is materially less than the annual value assumed in the evaluated proposal, such that the originally proposed rates no longer reflect the cost structure required for successful performance? | No. The Government does not anticipate an annual reconciliation or the ability to adjust capped rates based on noted circumstances. This is risk in either direction, each year. | This is not risk in either direction. This is only risk in one direction to one party: the contractor. If rates are capped with no available adjustment mechanism then the government benefits from the lower of the actual or capped rates. In contrast, the contractor suffers if actual rates exceed rate caps, but receives no benefit if actual rates are below rate caps. This is firm fixed price in disguise, with no associated profit incentive for the contractor. The government already has the ability to adjust any element of proposed cost to determine the most probably cost (MPC) for evaluation purposes. If the explanation and accompanying detail an offeror provides to substantiate a proposed indirect rate (or any other element of cost) is insufficient, the government can adjust. This allows an accurate cost realism analysis without resorting to rate caps. | The Government is not requiring rates be capped. If the Offeror ELECTS to propose rates lower than incurred cost rates or historical rates, the rates that can be supported as realistic during a realism assessment (based on the DCAA final incurred cost data provided or other rate supporting data provided in the Offeror's proposal narrative), the Offeror's rates will be capped. |
The Government will not accept the risk of applying a lower rate(s) to the TEPC/P (MPC), with the Offeror receiving that "advantaged" cost evaluation, without that firm cap applying in contract execution.
L.3.3.4.4 and M.5.4.2 will be updated to reflect the above. If a proposed lower rate(s) is unsupported, adjustments will not be made when an Offeror has acknowledged and confirmed a lower rate than supported as proposed will be capped for the duration of the contract.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .