W56HZV-22-R-0003 Questions and Answers 15 August 2022.pdf

W56HZV-22-R-0003 Post-RFP Release Questions and Answers

As of 19 July 2022

FORMATTING

REFERENCE: RFP p. 115, L.2.2.1.1.1 Each volume shall include a (i) title page, (ii) table of contents, and

(iii) list of tables and figures. Each page of the proposal shall be numbered, and it is recommended that each paragraph of the proposal shall have a reference number. A list of all attachments and substantiating data shall be provided in the table of contents. The table of contents shall be organized as set forth below. The table of contents shall include the following information for each Factor, attachment, and for all substantiating data listed:

- Cross-reference to related Section L paragraph number

- Page number

- CD-ROM or DVD Volume and number

- File name

QUESTION: Is there a preferred format for the cross-referencing in the TOC (e.g., notations in line with section headings, table-style matrix, other)?

ANSWER: There is not a preferred format.

QUESTION: To what level is cross-referencing to the Section L required. Is this at the Factor level, Subfactor level, or a lower section level? Please clarify.

ANSWER: The offeror should apply the most appropriate Section L reference, which may or may not require lower level references.

QUESTION: Reference Item (c) – Since each CD-ROM or DVD will include one Volume with corresponding attachments and each set of Volume CD-ROM or DVD is to be identical (with one labeled as primary copy per L.2.2.1.1), please clarify what the Government means by “number.”

ANSWER: The number refers to CD “# of X” to indicate how many CDs are included for that volume.

Reference L.2.2.1.1.1. (example: Volume 3, Cost/Price Factor, Set 1 of 2, CD 1 of X)

QUESTION: Reference Item (b) – please confirm that “page number” refers to the page in the proposal volume where the corresponding section begins?

ANSWER: Confirmed.

QUESTION: The instructions ask for identification of CD-ROM or DVD. As instructed, each volume (therefore each TOC) will only appear within an electronic volume contained on a CD-ROM or DVD.

Please confirm that each volume TOC is required only within each volume on its corresponding CD-ROM or DVD and that no separate, consolidated or printed TOC is required.

ANSWER: No combined TOC is required in the RFP. The TOC requirement only applies to each volume as stated in the RFP.

QUESTION: Please confirm that (i) title page, (ii) table of contents, and (iii) list of tables and figures are excluded from any corresponding volume page count limitations.

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 will amend paragraph L.2.2.1.1.1. to clarify that the title page, table of contents, and list of tables and figures are excluded from the page count for each volume.

QUESTION: Is there any specific information required to be contained on the title page?

ANSWER: At a minimum, the title of the volume is required to be contained on the title page.

QUESTION: May offerors include a proposal cover in each volume in addition to the title page? If so, please confirm that the cover would be excluded from the corresponding volume page count.

ANSWER: The offeror may not include a proposal cover letter for each volume. See L.2.1.2 for guidance on an executive summary.

QUESTION: Each volume shall include a (i) title page, (ii) table of contents, and (iii) list of tables and figures. Will the Government please confirm the title page, table of contents, and list of tables and figures excluded from the page count for each volume?

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 will amend paragraph L.2.2.1.1.1. to clarify that the title page, table of contents, and list of tables and figures is excluded from the page count for each volume.

QUESTION: Attachment 0005 instructions indicate that for each sample task “The technical solution approach narrative is limited to 20 pages, not including the title page and index/table of contents ….

Offerors are cautioned that the Government will not review any pages beyond the 20 pages.” Please confirm that the page limit applies to the entire Technical Narrative section including all narrative discussing project management planning, risk identification and management, and a potential technical solution approach and integration approach, and teaming approach with suppliers and stakeholders to satisfy the tasks identified in section 3.

ANSWER: Yes, each Sample Task’s technical narrative is limited to 20 pages not including the title page and index/table of contents. With three Sample Tasks, that is a combined total of 60 pages.

QUESTION: RFP p. 115, L.2.2.2.4 “Unless otherwise specified, it is recommended that the proposal be formatted for 8.5 inch x 11 inch paper with a minimum font size of 10 pt. and with a minimum of 0.5 inch margins. Schedules, drawings and other documents more appropriate to larger size should be formatted for no larger than 8.5 inch x 14 inch dimensions.” Given the wording, are these formatting requirements or formatting recommendations?

ANSWER: The language at L.2.2.2.4 are recommendations to ensure that the offeror’s proposal is readable.

QUESTION: RFP p. 115, L.2.2.2.4 “Unless otherwise specified, it is recommended that the proposal be formatted for 8.5 inch x 11 inch paper with a minimum font size of 10 pt. and with a minimum of 0.5 inch margins. Schedules, drawings and other documents more appropriate to larger size should be formatted for no larger than 8.5 inch x 14 inch dimensions.” Providing complete and effective solutions to meet sample task requirements will require the illustration complex technical concepts. If the above are requirements and not recommendations, we respectfully request that the graphics, charts and table font size be changed to ‘readability’ vs. the minimum 10pt font issued for proposal text.

ANSWER: The language at L.2.2.2.4 are recommendations to ensure that the offeror’s proposal is readable.

SECTION B

QUESTION: How should the non-labor costs (Material, Travel, ODCs) be included in Section B? There are no CLINs for these non-labor costs in Section B.

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 will add language to Section L.4.3.3.1 to indicate that prices should not be input into Section B. Prices should only be included in the GFPM Attachment 0007.

QUESTION: Section B.2 – Are the sample Tasks anticipated to be awarded during the first ordering period?

ANSWER: The Sample Tasks are for evaluation purposes only and are not actual requirements that will be awarded.

QUESTION: Section B.10.1, if a given ordering period does not use the full 1,888,346 hours, will the unused hours roll over to the following ordering period?

ANSWER: The hours listed in Section B.6.1 are estimates. In accordance with FAR 52.216-22, the contract maximum if all options are exercised is listed in B.5.4. Section B.10.1 is intended to provide a running total of hours used across the life of the contract.

SECTION C

QUESTION: Section C.3.2.1 – What is the list of GVSC design tools?

ANSWER: GVSC uses a wide variety of design tools and which ones are required will be Task Order Project dependent. Some examples of design tools that GVSC utilizes are Atlassian Tools, MagicDraw, and Microsoft Office.

QUESTION: Section C.4.6.6.2 – What software metrics are already identified? Will this be defined at the Task Order level?

ANSWER: GVSC uses a wide variety of software metrics and which ones will be assessed will be Task Order Project dependent. Some examples of software metrics that GVSC intends to capture are scope volatility, customer survey results, defect dashboard, tickets needing analysis, test execution status, key milestone tracker, defects found, ticket verification status, tests planned, logical SLOC, and manpower staffing volatility.

QUESTION: Section C.4.6.6.3, Section H.15.9 - CMMI – What is the GVSC current CMMI level? Is there a minimum CMMI level requirement? Is there a stated goal for the “higher levels of CMMI”?

ANSWER: GVSC is not currently assessed on its CMMI level. There is no minimum CMMI level requirement. There is no stated goal for the “higher levels of CMMI.”

QUESTION: Section C.4.6.7.1 (e) – Will the configuration management be held on Government Systems or at Contractor Site Systems?

ANSWER: Configuration management will be held on both Government Systems and Contractor Site Systems.

QUESTION: Section C.4.18.1 lists (a)-(g) as responsible activities for the FSR’s CONUS and OCONUS. All responsibilities are electrical, or electronics based. Will there be a combustion engine or mechanical component to the responsibilities?

ANSWER: C.4.18.1 is not all inclusive of the duties that will be performed by the FSRs and FSEs. C.4.18.1 will be revised in Amendment 0001 for clarification.

QUESTION: Section C.11 The provided iWatch training link is not valid. What is the current link?

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 to the RFP will provide an updated link.

QUESTION: Section C.20.3 The link provided is from Mr. DiRoma’s computer. The prior draft had www.lms.army.mil Please confirm that this should be www.lms.army.mil for the TARP online training class?

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 to the RFP will provide an updated link.

SECTION F

QUESTION: Section F(c)(1)(i) UID list has “-1-“ and “-2”. The prior draft had “N/A”. What is the significance of “-1-” and “-2-“?

ANSWER: The fill-ins were deleted by the system. The correct fill-ins are “N/A.” Amendment 0001 will update the RFP accordingly.

QUESTION: Section F(c)(1)(ii) list has “-3-“ and “-4-“. The prior draft had “N/A”. What is the significance of “-3-“ and “-4-“?

ANSWER: The fill-ins were deleted by the system. The correct fill-ins are “N/A.” Amendment 0001 will

QUESTION: Section F(c)(1)(iii) references Attachment -5-. However, Attachment 0005 is the Technical Experience Matrix. What is the correct Attachment reference or is it N/A?

ANSWER: The fill-ins were deleted by the system. The correct fill-in is “Attachment 0011.” Amendment 0001 will update the RFP accordingly.

QUESTION: Section F(c)(1)(iv) references Attachment -6-. However, Attachment 0006 is the Sample Tasks. What is the correct Attachment reference or is it N/A?

ANSWER: The fill-ins were deleted by the system. The correct fill-in is “N/A.” Amendment 0001 will

SECTION H

QUESTION: Section H.11.1.3 – The “DODM 5220.22-M (NISPOM)” needs to be replaced with “32 CFR Part 117 (NISPOM)”.

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 will replace “DODM 5220.22-M (NISPOM)” with “32 CFR Part 117

(NISPOM).”

QUESTION: Section H.11.1.3 – Does the government expect the contractor to establish and maintain a classified Information System (IS) IAW 52.204-21 or will all classified computing be done on an IS at a government facility?

ANSWER: Please refer to the DD 254, Attachment 0004.

QUESTION: Section H.3.1.2 – This section and the following recognize that a portion of the contract effort shall be performed via remote work and also via telework. Will Task Orders identify which work can be performed remotely or by telework or will percentages of each category for each TO be established? To the contrary, will TOs provide explicit direction, as in “place of performance”, for when activities must be performed on-site in Warren or another government facility?

ANSWER: Task Orders and Task Order Projects will provide explicit direction for when activities must be performed on-site in Warren or at another Government facility.

QUESTION: Section H.8 – Are contractor employees that are remote or telework employees as defined in section H.3.1.2 are considered “Contractor Site Labor” and not “Government Site Labor”?

ANSWER: Contractor employees performing remotely, as defined in Section H.3.1.2, would be considered “Contractor Site Labor.” Contractor employees performing via telework, as defined in Section H.3.1.2.1, would be designated based on the employee’s official duty station (i.e., if the employee’s duty station is at a Government Owned facility or the Operational Facility required by H.10, the employee would be considered “Government Site Labor”).

SECTION I

QUESTION: RFP p. 112, L-21 DFARs 252.237-7024 Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services. Subparagraph (b) indicates that ‘The offeror shall provide with its offer a written plan describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services WILL BE PROVIDED AS ATTACHMENTS TO TASK ORDERS, Mission-Essential Contractor Services, REVISED QUARTERLY, during periods of crisis.’ Please confirm that this plan is not required to be submitted with offerors’ proposals at this time, and will only be required on an as needed basis at the individual task order level.

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 will remove both DFARS 252.237-7023 and 252.237-7024.

QUESTION: Section I-174 FAR 52.223-3 Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data (FEB 2021) – Currently the fill in listed as “NONE”. As it is unknown what future years work may require Material Safety Data requirements, would USG consider replacing the fill in with “To be defined at the Task Order Level”?

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 will revise the fill-in to “TO BE DEFINED AT THE TASK ORDER OR TASK

ORDER PROJECT LEVEL.”

QUESTION: The Section after Section I-181. There is Minor typo after Section I-181. The “52.227-3 ALT I”, needs to be labeled I-182.

ANSWER: This is not a typo. The other clauses are system generated and clause 52.227-3 ALT I is manually entered.

SECTION K

QUESTION: Section K-5 FAR 52.204-8 (a)(1) is missing it’s NAICS. If it is 541330 as per the draft 4/29/22 version, would you please re-instate?

ANSWER: The fill-ins were deleted by the system. The correct fill-in is “541330.” Amendment 0001 will

QUESTION: Section K-5 FAR 52.204-8 (a)(2) is missing its small business size standard. If it is $16,500,000.00 as per the draft 4/29/22 version, would you please re-instate?

ANSWER: The fill-ins were deleted by the system. The correct fill-in is “$22,500,000.00” in accordance with the SBA Size Standards effective 2 May 2022. Amendment 0001 will update the RFP accordingly.

SECTION L

QUESTION: RFP p. 124, L.5.6 Property Management System. “The offeror must submit a Property Management Plan (PMP) with their proposal that is consistent with the requirements of the solicitation.” Is the PMP to be provided as an Attachment to the proposal? Please provide instructions for including the PMP with the proposal (volume, format, etc.).

ANSWER: It must be submitted in the Administrative Volume as a stand-alone document and it must conform to the electronic format instructions contained in L.2.2. Amendment 0001 will revise the language in L.5.6 for clarification.

QUESTION: L.2.2.1.1 The proposal shall be submitted in electronic format on submitted CD-ROMs or DVDs, as outlined in these instructions. Each volume listed above shall be submitted on a separate set of CD-ROMs or DVDs. The offeror shall submit two identical sets of CD-ROMs or DVDs for each volume.

One set of media shall be labeled as the primary copy. In the case of defective file(s) on the primary disc, the second copy will be utilized only to retrieve and review the defective file(s) in question. If the primary disc is entirely defective, the second copy will be used entirely. All other data on the primary disc will take precedence. If each Offeror and each subcontractor are submitting proposals via CD (two copies of each) that is a massive amount of CDs to deal with. Would the Govt. consider allowing submission of proposal via DoD SAFE?

ANSWER: The Government has determined that DoD SAFE will not be used in this effort. Submissions shall be made in accordance with the language in L.2.

QUESTION: Page 1, Box 9 has a blank fill in value for number of copies, while Section L.2.2.1.1 states one original and one copy. Does Page 1, Box 9’s copies fill in value need to be updated with 1?

ANSWER: Due to system constraints, please follow the Section L.2.2.1 submission instructions.

QUESTION: Page 1, Box 9 has a blank fill in value for the depository location, while Section L.2.2.1.3 states the hand delivery depository location. Does Page 1, Box 9 depository location need to be updated to reference Section L.2.2.1.3 or to restate the location?

ANSWER: Due to system constraints, please follow the Section L.2.2.1 submission instructions.

QUESTION: Section A.5(d) allows electronic submission, while Section L.2.2.1 Method of Submission has physical CD/DVD sets. Earlier Q&A stated that DOD SAFE site submission would be allowed. This option was not included in the formal RFP. May it be re-instated?

ANSWER: The Government has determined that DoD SAFE will not be used in this effort. Submissions shall be made in accordance with the language in L.2. Amendment 0001 will revise Section A.5(d) to remove the reference to electronic submissions.

QUESTION: Are Subcontractors constrained to be CPFF? There is no specific language in RFP Section L.

Section L.4.3.3.8 implies any contract type. However, the GFPM Attachment 0007 “Option Period” tabs and “Subcontractor Ceiling Rates” tab implies that Subcontractors are constrained to be CPFF. May Primes use other contract mechanisms with their Subcontractors?

ANSWER: The Government is not binding offerors to any specific contract types for use with subcontractors as long as the contract between the prime and subcontractor adheres to the subcontractor ceiling rates in accordance with Section H.8.9.

QUESTION: Section L.2.2.1 Method of Submission requires CDs or DVDs submission. Please confirm that the Subcontractors are to submit their build up cost and pricing information under separate cover from the Prime Contractor?

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 will revise the language in Section L.2.2.1 to include the following language:

"If a subcontractor declines to provide complete cost/price proposals to the Prime Offeror, then those subcontract proposals may be submitted by the subcontractor directly to the PCO using the same submission instructions noted above. Such submissions shall arrive at or prior to the Due Date and Time for proposals as specified in the solicitation."

QUESTION: Section L-23(b)(1) – the link to https://assist.dla.mil/wizard/index.cfm results in a 404 Server Error. What is the current link?

ANSWER: This is a system generated clause and will require a revision in the system. Until the system is revised, please use this link: https://assistca.dla.mil/online/start/index.cfm

QUESTION: Section L.4.1.4.1.4.3. Is a signed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) considered a bilateral signed contract?

ANSWER: The Government will not analyze any agreement to determine whether it meets the definition of a contract as defined by law or statute. Please see response to item below.

QUESTION: Section L.4.1.4.1.4.3. Is a bilateral signed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) considered as one which serves the same purpose and intent as a signed Teaming Agreement?

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 will revise Section L.4.1.4.1.4.3 to replace “Teaming Agreement” with “written agreement.”

TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE FACTOR

QUESTION: RFP p.119, L.4.1.4.2.3 “… the written narrative shall address each submission separately, and shall specifically detail the work performed on the (up to three) proposed submission(s) and the submission(s) comparability to the Subfactor SOW activity. ….Note 1: Do not provide a breakdown of comparability of the entire Section C SOW of the current RFP to the proposed submission(s)...” Does “Subfactor SOW activity” refer only to the words in L.4.1.3.1, L.4.1.3.2, and L.4.1.3.3 and not any sections of the Section C SOW? Stated differently, is Note 1 meant to indicate that the offerors should not reference sections of the Section C SOW, or that offerors should only reference applicable Section C SOW sections?

ANSWER: The RFP's Sec C SOW is a broad list of possible tasks to be performed in performance of the contract. The Government does not expect every potential task listed in RFP Sec C SOW that could apply to the Subfactor SOW Activities in L.4.1.3.1, L.4.1.3.2, and L.4.1.3.3 to be addressed. The Offeror should identify what it believes to be the most relevant sections of the RFP Sec C SOW to its proposed experience to demonstrate comparability to the technical work described in the Subfactor SOW Activities in L.4.1.3.1, L.4.1.3.2, and L.4.1.3.3.

QUESTION: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed recent experience for each Subfactor is comparable in scope and complexity to the following respective Subfactor Statement of Work (SOW) activities. The list of "respective Subfactor Statement of Work (SOW) activities" (i.e., L.4.1.3.1, L.4.1.3.2, and L.4.1.3.3) does not include SOW (Section C) tasks. This makes it impossible to correlate Technical Experience write-ups with the SOW. Will the Government please provide a list of SOW paragraphs that offerors should address for each Technical Experience Subfactor?

ANSWER: The RFP's Sec C SOW is a broad list of possible tasks to be performed in performance of the contract. The Government does not expect every potential task listed in RFP Sec C SOW that could apply to the Subfactor SOW Activities in L.4.1.3.1, L.4.1.3.2, and L.4.1.3.3 to be addressed. The Offeror should identify what it believes to be the most relevant sections of the RFP Sec C SOW to its proposed experience to demonstrate comparability to the technical work described in the Subfactor SOW Activities in L.4.1.3.1, L.4.1.3.2, and L.4.1.3.3.

QUESTION: The written narrative shall address each submission separately, and shall specifically detail the work performed on the (up to three) proposed submission(s) and the submission(s) comparability to the Subfactor SOW activity. To what "Subfactor SOW activity" does this refer? Will the Government please provide a list of Subfactor SOW activities by SOW paragraph?

ANSWER: “Subfactor SOW activity" references the Subfactor SOW activities defined in L.4.1.3.1, L.4.1.3.2, and L.4.1.3.3. The offeror should identify what it believes to be the most relevant sections of the RFP Sec C SOW to its proposed experience to demonstrate comparability to the technical work described in the Subfactor SOW Activities in L.4.1.3.1, L.4.1.3.2, and L.4.1.3.3.

QUESTION: “… [f]or integrated unmanned military ground vehicle systems of comparable complexity to that of a Robotics Combat vehicle (RCV) and Expedited Leader Follower efforts.” Can the Government please clarify how complexity will be evaluated?

ANSWER: When assessing comparable complexity to the Subfactor SOW in L.4.1.3.1, the Government may consider, but is not limited to, the vehicle platform's physical characteristics, architecture, and subsystems. The offeror may provide any additional information it feels demonstrates comparable complexity. For more information on RCV and Leader Follower, please reference the "TES Industry Day Slides_OPSEC_APPROVED_FINAL" file on SAM.gov.

QUESTION: “… [f]or a military vehicle of a comparable complexity to that of a Stryker or Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV).” Is it the Government's intent that offerors should show comparable complexity to only one of the two vehicles and that offerors may select which vehicle to use for comparison?

ANSWER: Yes, the offeror may show comparable complexity to that of a Stryker or JLTV, as stated in L.4.1.3.2.

QUESTION: The evaluation of Technical Experience does not provide any measure for evaluation. We recommend the Government provide a scale for evaluation (e.g., Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, and Neutral Confidence) with a definition of criteria to achieve each level.

ANSWER: The Technical Experience Factor and Subfactors will utilize the combined Technical/Risk Assessment scale for evaluation as defined by the DoD Source Selection Guide.

QUESTION: Will the Government please confirm the evaluation of the up to three submissions in each Subfactor will be evaluated in totality rather than individually?

ANSWER: As stated in Section M.4.1.1.1, the Government will only consider up to three recent Contracts for each Subfactor (See L.4.1.3.1, L.4.1.3.2, and L.4.1.3.3), and will assess each of the up to three submission(s). The Government will base its evaluation on the summary of the assessments of the up to three submissions(s). The Government will not apply a separate adjectival rating to each submission.

SAMPLE TASK FACTOR

QUESTION: M.4.2.1 Evaluation of Sample Tasks. For the Sample Task Factor and each Sample Task Subfactor, the Government will assess the risk that the offeror will meet Sample Task requirements, based on a test of the Offerors understanding demonstrated by the responses to each Subfactor Sample Task. Can the government please clarify what is meant by "test"? Is there a specific test the Government will apply? If so, what is it?

ANSWER: The Government's evaluation of the offeror's approach for the Sample Task constitutes the Government's test of the offeror's understanding of the Sample Task requirements.

QUESTION: To ensure alignment with the Government's Systems Engineering Plan, will the government please share any applicable Systems Engineering Plans?

ANSWER: The Government will not release SEPs.

GFPM

QUESTION: RFP Attachment 007 Government Furnished Pricing Model. Per paragraph L.4.3.3.3, the Government stated “[n]ote that offerors may insert OFPM Spreadsheets into the GFPM Excel Workbook, but they shall not be linked to the GFPM.” Would the Government please provide an unlocked copy of the Attachment 0007 GFPM to allow offerors to insert their OFPM spreadsheets?

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 will lock the GFPM in such a way as to allow offerors to add worksheets.

QUESTION: L.4.3.3.3.1 The GFPM is locked in certain areas where cells cannot be modified. L.4.3.3.2 “[n]ote that offerors may insert OFPM Spreadsheets into the GFPM Excel Workbook, but they shall not be linked to the GFPM. Can the Government unlock the GFPM so we can correctly calculate the amounts based on our Cost Estimating System? In addition, the RFP states that OFPM spreadsheets may be inserted into the GFPM Excel Workbook but that is not possible with the GFPM locked.

ANSWER: No, the GFPM will not be unlocked. Currently the Labor Overhead cells are unlocked and numbers/formulas can be directly input into those cells as needed. Please notify the Government if any other indirect columns need to be unlocked outside of rows 2 and 3. Amendment 0001 will lock the GFPM in such a way as to allow offerors to add worksheets for the OFPM.

QUESTION: "A blank copy of the GFPM can be provided to each subcontractor and this tab can be utilized for each subcontractor to show its compliance with the floor rates and compliance with providing a full labor buildup, per labor category that is being proposed by the individual subcontractor."

The labor hours and non-labor data needs to be deleted in order to create a blank copy of the GFPM.

Can the Government please unlock the GFPM so we can send a blank copy to the subs to meet this requirement?

ANSWER: The Prime offeror is to send Attachment 0007 - GFPM to its subcontractors. Amendment 0001 will update the instructions to note that the subcontractor shall only complete the "Subcontractor Labor Build" tab to be in compliance with the RFP.

QUESTION: Are Subcontractors expected to include their Phase In CLIN 0001AA on their GFPM direct submission to the USG?

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 will update the instructions to note that the subcontractor shall only complete the "Subcontractor Labor Build" tab to be in compliance with the RFP.

QUESTION: Note: A blank copy of the GFPM can be provided to each subcontractor and the "Subcontractor Labor Build" tab can be utilized for each subcontractor to fulfill or accompany its OFPM submittal requirement to show its compliance with the floor rates and compliance with providing a full labor buildup, per labor category. For the subcontractor sealed packages, can the Govt. confirm that they are only required to complete the "Subcontractor Labor Build" tab of the GFPM, and no other tabs, to fulfill their submittal requirement to show compliance with the floor rates and compliance with providing a full labor buildup, per labor category?

ANSWER: This assumption is correct and Amendment 0001 will update the Instructions tab to reflect that.

QUESTION: RFP p. 57, H.8.8 Ceiling Rates and RFP Attachment 007 Government Furnished Pricing Model Prime Ceiling Rates and Subcontractor Ceiling Rates tabs. The GFPM and RFP both list 9 labor categories that are exempt from the ceiling rates. However, they only agree on 8 of those labor categories (System Architect, Software Architect, Senior Software Engineer, Software Engineer, Senior Engineer, Vehicle Electronics System Engineer, High Voltage Power Electronics Engineer, and SME). The GFPM shows the Network Integration/C5ISR Engineer as the 9th exempt category but Section H.8.8 of the main RFP file shows the Electrical Engineer as the last exempt category. Would the Government please confirm that the intended category that is exempt from the ceiling rates is the Network Integration/C5ISR Engineer and update the RFP documents to match?

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 will update paragraph H.8.8 of the RFP and the GFPM to reflect that both the Electrical Engineer and the Network Integration/C5ISR Engineer have been exempted from the ceiling.

QUESTION: H.8.8 Ceiling Rates. The Contractor's proposed Cost Per Hour less Fee plus 10% shall be Ceiling Rates for each designated Ordering Period. The Contractor may not invoice rates for a particular labor category that are higher than these ceiling rates without prior authorization from the Contracting Officer. The list of Labor categories that are exempt from the 10% ceiling in the GFPM is different from the list that is in Paragraph H.8.8 of RFP. Can the government clarify which list is correct?

H.8.8. The following labor categories are exempt from the Ceiling Rate:

- Electrical Engineer

- High Voltage Power Electronics Engineer

- Senior Engineer

- Senior Software Engineer

- Software Architect

- Software Engineer

- Subject Matter Expert

- System Architect

- Vehicle Electronics System Engineer

Attachment 0007 - GFPM, Exempt from Ceiling Rate:

- System Engineer

- High Voltage Power Electronics Engineer

- Senior Engineer

- Senior Software Engineer

- Software Architect

- Network Integration/ C5ISR Engineer

- Subject Matter Expert

- System Architect

- Vehicle Electronics System Engineer

ANSWER: There was a discrepancy between the Prime Ceiling Rates tab and the Subcontractor Ceiling Rates tab that resulted in System Engineer being exempted on the Subcontractor tab instead of Software Engineer. Amendment 0001 will resolve the discrepancy between the Prime and Subcontractor Ceiling Rates tabs. Amendment 0001 will update paragraph H.8.8 of the RFP and the GFPM to reflect that both the Electrical Engineer and the Network Integration/C5ISR Engineer have been exempted from the ceiling.

QUESTION: Fringe Calculation. The Fringe calculation formula is applying cell M3 to both the Government Site rates and the Contractor Site rates. Can the Government unlock the GFPM so we can correctly calculate the amounts based on our Cost Estimating System?

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 will update the GFPM to reflect the correct formula for USG Site fringe in the Ordering Period 3 tab.

QUESTION: The Offeror shall provide all costs and prices in U.S. dollars only, including costs and prices for the Offeror and any potential subcontractors. Subcontractors shall submit their own completed GFPM and a Time-Phased OFPM showing the development of the FBLRs including all separate elements of cost. Prime Offerors and subcontractors shall provide a cost narrative explaining their Basis of Estimate. Is it the Government's expectation that all subcontractors are to submit a proposal to the Government? For example:

- If a subcontractor is not expected to deliver labor in support of the effort (e.g., a product vendor), will that subcontractor be required to submit a proposal?

- If the Prime elects not to include a labor subcontractor in its GFPM to establish a blended rate, will these 'non-priced" subcontractors be required to submit a proposal?

ANSWER: The Government's material and ODC plug figures cover subcontractors that would be expected to deliver non-labor support, so no proposal for those subcontractors is required. All subcontractors that the Prime is proposing to use for the labor categories specified in the GFPM should be included and accounted for in the GFPM. The subcontractor ceiling rates are not associated with a specific subcontractor, but are applicable to any subcontractor that the Prime uses for that specific labor category.

QUESTION: The Offeror shall provide all costs and prices in U.S. dollars only, including costs and prices for the Offeror and any potential subcontractors. Will the Government please confirm that not all subcontractors need to be reflected in the Prime's GFPM?

ANSWER: All subcontractors that the Prime is proposing to use for the labor categories specified in the GFPM should be included and accounted for in the GFPM.

QUESTION: L.4.3.3.5.2 Subcontractor proposed Fully Burdened Labor Rates (FBLRs) Less Fee plus 10% shall be Ceiling Rates for each designated Period of Performance (PoP) and the successful contractor may not invoice rates that are higher than these ceiling rates in each PoP. The GFPM will auto-calculate a 10% ceiling using the subcontractor proposed fully burdened labor rate (less fee) and adding 10%.

Offerors should ensure that the Ceiling Rates can absorb any changes in subcontractor rates over the entire PoP. Are the subcontractor ceiling rates that are applicable for the life of the contract based on the individual subcontractor's submitted proposal rates, or on the rates (possibly blended) that are in the prime offeror's GFPM, tab "Subcontractor Ceiling Rates"?

ANSWER: The subcontractor ceiling rates are identified in the Prime offeror's GFPM tab "Subcontractor Ceiling Rates". The subcontractor ceiling rates are not associated with a specific subcontractor, but are applicable to any subcontractor that the Prime uses for that specific labor category.

QUESTION: Minimum Qualifications tab, Cell B14 Labor Category. There is a minor typo. “Software Security Engineer” should be updated to “Software Safety Engineer”.

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 will correct the typo.

PRICING

QUESTION: For pricing purposes, when is the assumed start date for GVSC TES?

ANSWER: For the purposes of pricing, the estimated start date for the resultant contract would be the end of Q2/beginning of Q3 of FY23.

QUESTION: Is the USG expecting the ODC and Travel management to be handled by Task Order labor categories as direct labor charge?

ANSWER: For the management of ODCs and Travel, the offeror shall submit the charges as indirect charges in accordance with its cost accounting system.

QUESTION: Are the USG plug in ODC values indicative of one or more than one Task Order per Period?

ANSWER: The plug figures provided for Material, ODCs, and Travel are indicative of usage of more than one Task Order per Ordering Period.

QUESTION: What is the anticipated average order of ODC values within a Period?

ANSWER: There is no anticipated average order of ODC values within an Ordering Period. ODC values are Task Order and Task Order Project dependent.

MISCELLANEOUS

QUESTION: The Offeror shall provide all costs and prices in U.S. dollars only, including costs and prices for the Offeror and any potential subcontractors. Can subcontractors be added during performance?

ANSWER: The Government is not binding offerors to specific subcontractors. From a pricing perspective, the offeror is bound to the subcontractor ceiling rates that it proposes, regardless of what subcontractors it uses post-award.

QUESTION: The RFP currently does not define any standard Product Support CDRLs, will these be left to the individual TOs to specify?

ANSWER: Product Support CDRLs are not typically utilized for this effort, but if one or more Product Support CDRLs becomes necessary, they will be Task Order and Task Order Project dependent.

QUESTION: Exhibit A, CDRL A007, Deliverable Software and Documentation, Section 16 Remarks appears to be missing content, as there is an opening sentence and then items C. and D. Is there an A.

and B. to be added, or for items C. and D. to be re-labeled as A. and B.?

ANSWER: CDRL A007 A and B will be added to the RFP via Amendment 0001.

QUESTION: There is a reference to the CMMC in Attachment 004 – DD254, but it only states “All electronic transmission of CUI will be done over authorized/approved systems only and Contractor Company will be required to abide by the CMMC implementation if selected or the NIST SP 800-171 Interim Rule until such time that company is phased into CMMC requirements.” What CMMC level (1, 2 or 3) would be required that the contractor would have to comply with? There is also no reference to CMMC in the solicitation.

ANSWER: The CMMC level will be Task Order or Task Order Project dependent.

As of 26 July 2022

QUESTION: L.4.3.3.3.1 The GFPM is locked in certain areas where cells cannot be modified. Question and answers (p. 16-17) confirm that subcontractors should use the “Subcontractor Labor Build” tab of the GFPM, and no other tabs, to fulfill their submittal requirement. However, the Subcontractor Labor Build tab only allows for each sub to build a single set of rates for each contract year. It does not allow for both contractor-site and Government-site rates. Can the Government include both contractor-site and Government-site rates in this tab? Alternatively, should subcontractors submit two versions of the GFPM to demonstrate the build-up of two sets of rates (contractor-site and Government-site)?

ANSWER: In order to capture the build-up of two sets of “Subcontractor Labor Build” rates and minimize any potential formula errors, Prime offerors should have their subcontractors submit two versions of the GFPM. Each file shall indicate in the file name whether it is the build-up for the USG Site or Contractor Site.

QUESTION: Given that subcontractors only need to fill in the "Subcontractor Labor Build" tab, will the Government please duplicate this tab in the revised GFPM and provide 2 copies - a "Subcontractor Labor Build_Govt Site tab" and a "Subcontractor Labor Build_Ktr Site tab"? We are not sure how subcontractors would fill in this tab as is if they are assigned hours at both sites.

ANSWER: In order to capture the build-up of two sets of “Subcontractor Labor Build” rates and minimize any potential formula errors, Prime offerors should have their subcontractors submit two versions of the GFPM. Each file shall indicate in the file name whether it is the build-up for the USG Site or Contractor Site.

QUESTION: L.4.3.3.3.1 The GFPM is locked in certain areas where cells cannot be modified. Question and answer (p. 16) states to "Please notify the Government if any other indirect columns need to be unlocked outside of rows 2 and 3…" Can the Govt. unlock the Prime G&A columns in the contract year tabs, Ordering Period 1 column AD, and then the rest of the contract year tabs column AB? This will allow proper calculations of the subcontractor G&A.

ANSWER: Amendment 0001 of the RFP has unlocked the Prime G&A columns in the contract year tabs.

QUESTION: I-39 52.222-41 SERVICE CONTRACT LABOR STANDARDS, I-40 52.222-43 FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND SERVICE CONTRACT LABOR STANDARDS--PRICE ADJUSTMENT (MULTIPLE YEAR AND OPTION CONTRACTS), I-41 52.222-44 FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND SERVICE CONTRACT LABOR STANDARDS—PRICE – The RFP includes the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) clauses but does not include any Wage Determination schedules. Will the Govt. confirm that the SCLS does not apply to this solicitation? Can these clauses be removed from the solicitation?

ANSWER: The services being procured meet the definitions of bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity pursuant to 29 CFR 541, therefore the clauses have been removed in Amendment 0001 of the RFP.

QUESTION: Will the Government provide an extension of 2 weeks to the due date of the proposal to allow Offerors to review the implications of the answers to questions and to allow for review of Amendment 01 which is still forthcoming?

ANSWER: The Government will extend the RFP closing date to 1300 on 19 August 2022.

As of 15 August 2022

QUESTION: Would it be possible to provide a conformed version of the RFP? For instance, some sections in Amendment 1 only contain items that have changed, but others, such as Section L contain items that have changed and items that haven't. In order to make sure all the requirements of Section L are met without confusion, a conformed version would provide much clarity.

ANSWER: A conformed copy of RFP W56HZV-22-R-0003 has been posted to SAM.gov.

QUESTION: In paragraph 1.3 of the Sample Task Requirements the Government directs that Offerors provide their project work schedule in MS Project 2010 and limit the project work schedule to 6 pages.

Is the Government's intention that Offerors provide a PDF extract of their MS Project Schedule, and that this extract is limited to 6 pages?

ANSWER: The Government’s intention is for the offeror to provide a PDF extract of their MS Project Schedule and limit that extract to 6 pages.

QUESTION: Would the Government please unlock the cells that contain formulas to burden the DL rates (Column L -Fringe, Column N -G&A, Column O -FCCOM, Column P -Cost, and Column Q -Fee) on the GFPM's Subcontractor Labor Build tab? Several subcontractors cannot fill in the GFPM, as the formulas as currently set will not allow them to comply with their Disclosure Statements/Estimating Systems. If the Government will not unlock the GFPM, what is the preferred method for subcontractors to transmit their pricing for their sealed bid? Are subcontractors permitted to replicate the Subcontractor Labor Build tab and fill in an unlocked version in the GFPM? Or are subcontractors permitted to fill in Column J (Direct Labor) of the Subcontractor Labor Build tab with their FBLRs and then provide the full buildup in their OFPM?

ANSWER: Amendment 0003 of the RFP has unlocked the columns for Fringe, G&A, and FCCOM on the Subcontractor Labor Build tab. Offerors can either input one rate into the cells for rows 4, 40, 76, 112, 148, 184, and 220 of the Subcontractor Labor Build tab or input individual rates for each labor category.

QUESTION: The Escalation tab within AMD 0001 Attachment 0007 Government Furnished Pricing Model applies escalation only to the Floor rates of each ordering period for the Subcontractor Labor Build tab.

The escalation is not auto-applied to the Direct Labor rate column of the tabs. Does this mean that Subs are allowed to have variable escalation per labor category in each period?

ANSWER: Yes, the subcontractors are allowed to have variable escalation per labor category in each period as long as the proposed labor rates are equal to or greater than the floor rate.

QUESTION: The Subcontractor Labor Build Tab within AMD 0001 Attachment 0007 Government Furnished Pricing Model has "Warren, MI" in the location column for all periods. There are no sets of ordering periods that allow subcontractor to enter their location and Contractor site rates. Will there be an amendment to address this? Otherwise, how does the Government wish to see the Subcontractor's Contractor site rates?

ANSWER: Amendment 0003 has unlocked the cells in column D of the Subcontractor Labor Build tab to allow offerors to input the contractor site location. In order to capture the build-up of two sets of “Subcontractor Labor Build” rates and minimize any potential formula errors, Prime offerors should have their subcontractors submit two versions of the GFPM. Each file shall indicate in the file name whether it is the build-up for the USG Site or Contractor Site.

QUESTION: In a situation where there are more than one Subcontractor, the rate calculation on the Prime's GFPM submission for the Subcontractor Ceiling tab will be based off a blended rate. If during execution a task order is requiring the services of the subcontractor with the higher bill rate and not the lower bill rate Subcontractor, imposing the ceiling rate on the higher subcontractor can force the subcontractor to be non-compliant with the floor rate. How would this issue be addressed?

ANSWER: The floor rates are for evaluation purposes only and will not be incorporated into the resulting contract. In regards to the ceiling rate, as stated, it will be based upon a weighted average. All offerors must present their best estimate to ensure their proposal reflects the most accurate representation of the costs that will be incurred during contract execution, and that the blended ceiling rate proposed takes into account higher priced subcontractors.

REFERENCE: L.4.3.3.8 Subcontractors. If subcontractor labor is proposed, the Prime Offeror shall provide an explanation in its Cost/Price Narrative how each proposed FBLR was determined to be reasonable and realistic. If more than one subcontractor is proposed for a labor category, the Prime Offeror shall explain in its Cost/Price Narrative how the rate was blended together; the identity of the subcontractors; the number of hours allocated to each subcontractor and the impact on the blended rate; and the type of subcontract agreement with the Prime Offeror.

The Prime is responsible for ensuring that the subcontractor provide a full and complete labor rate build that provides complete transparency for the direct labor rate component and each indirect rate applied to it along with profit or fee regardless of contract type. The labor rate build shall be provided in Microsoft Excel to include all formulas that demonstrate how the burdened rate is computed. Direct Labor rates proposed below the floor of each respective LCAT will be deemed unrealistic. Proposals that contain Prime or Subcontractor Direct Labor Rates that are below the USG provided floor rates will be deemed unrealistic, will be ineligible for award, and subject to being rejected IAW M.2

QUESTION: Subcontractors submit sealed bids directly to the government; thus, the Prime offeror will not be able to ensure the Subcontractor is compliant with floor rates, which is being used as a measure of reasonableness. The Prime offeror will only be able to provide the Subcontractor's statement that they have submitted their sealed bid. How would this requirement be enforced?

ANSWER: In accordance with the RFP, the Prime offeror and all subcontractors must meet the minimum direct labor requirements. The Prime is responsible for ensuring the subcontractor meets this minimum requirement and provides a full and complete labor rate build that provides complete transparency for the direct labor rate component and each indirect rate applied to it along with profit or fee regardless of contract type. The subcontractor is required to provide a detailed cost buildup of its fully burdened labor rate to the Government. The Government will then review the cost buildup and ensure that the proposed direct labor rates are in accordance with the floor rate requirement. If the subcontractor's proposed direct labor rate falls below the floor rate, an offeror’s proposal may be rejected in accordance with M.2.

QUESTION: Will the Government allow Offerors to revise the Government Furnished Pricing Model to add additional rows for multiple fringe packages applicable to Government and Contractor site performance in order to remain in compliance with the offeror’s Cost Accounting Disclosure Statement?

Recommend that the Government unlock the fringe package column O in Ordering Period 1 and column M in Ordering Period 2-5 and Option Years 1 and 2. Also recommend that the Government add two rows at the top of each contract year to allow for the use of a second Fringe package for bidding purposes for each site (USG and Contractor Site) between rows 2 and 3 and 3 and 4.

ANSWER: Amendment 0003 of the RFP has unlocked the Prime Fringe columns in the contract year tabs.

The Government does not intend to allow offerors the ability to revise the GFPM to add additional rows.