W56HZV-22-R-0003 Questions and Answers.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.