TES QAs Revised 19MAY2022.pdf

Technical and Engineering Services (TES)

Question & Answers

As of 2/24/2022

General Questions

1. What are the major risk areas and/or execution challenges that the Government sees for this effort?

RESPONSE: The greatest risk area and execution challenge that the Government sees for this effort is talent acquisition. Obtaining and retaining qualified individuals with the necessary skills and experience will be critical to executing the work covered by the scope.

2. Is the Government considering a multiple award contract?

RESPONSE: As briefed during the Industry Day presentation, this will be a single award task order contract.

3. What is the projected allocation of support and hours needed for each of the three directorates that participated in the presentations for Industry Day?

RESPONSE: The Government anticipates that the allocation of support will be roughly 40% GVR, 25% SEC, and 25% VEA, with the remaining 10% for other. However, this is just a projection.

4. Will there be an opportunity for, or has the Government considered the possibility for, a distributed workforce going forward?

RESPONSE: It will depend on the Task Orders and projects, but a distributed workforce may be considered where the Task Orders or projects can accommodate such an arrangement.

5. What is driving the growth of this requirement and the exponential increase in hours relative to the existing contract?

RESPONSE: The exponential growth of this contract is due to an increase in work being directed to GVSC following the current realignment under Army Futures Command (AFC). There has been an increase in the number of Ground Combat and Tactical vehicle platforms sustained by GVSC. The Army has prioritized electrification and robotics modernization research.

6. What kind of remote work will be allowed by the contract?

RESPONSE: It will depend on the Task Orders and projects, but remote work may be considered where the Task Orders or projects can accommodate such an arrangement.

7. When will the Government provide the dates and nature of other industry engagements, to include the release of the draft RFP and associated comment period?

RESPONSE: The Government will continue to provide opportunities for industry engagement throughout the RFP development phase. Please monitor SAM.gov for any opportunities as they arise.

Industry is invited to send feedback to the TES mailbox at any time (usarmy.detroit.acc.mbx.technical-engineering-services-correspond@army.mil).

Requirements/Scope Questions

8. Will the three directorates that included presentation material as part of Industry Day be the exclusive focus of this effort, or will this effort include work from the other directorates and PEO/PM offices?

RESPONSE: The three directorates and their stakeholders will be the primary users. However, there may be a small amount of work from other directorates and PEO/PM offices.

9. Will the support required by the contract be more focused on on-site direct support or focused on workforce depth and reach-back capability?

RESPONSE: It will depend on the Task Orders and projects, but off-site support (workforce depth, reach-back, etc.) may be considered where the Task Orders or projects can accommodate such an arrangement.

10. Per the virtual tour link provided, will the PIF be used for prototype integration?

RESPONSE: It will depend on the Task Orders and projects. If the scope of the Task Order or project allows for its use, the Government may elect to utilize the PIF.

11. In relation to the requirement’s transition, will there be a gradual ramp up or will there be an expectation of full capacity for the entire requirement at the end of the transition phase? If there is a gradual ramp up, what kind of ramp up will be required and/or can be expected?

mailto:usarmy.detroit.acc.mbx.technical-engineering-services-correspond@army.mil mailto:usarmy.detroit.acc.mbx.technical-engineering-services-correspond@army.mil

RESPONSE: There will be a gradual ramp up of the requirement. There is no expectation to transition all of the work at once. A time phased chart demonstrating the anticipated number of FTEs that will be required during the first FY of the contract is being prepared and will be provided at a later time.

12. A previous RFI noted a transition plan, which was not briefed in the Industry Day charts. Has the requirement changed? If yes, how?

RESPONSE: The transition plan requirements are still in draft and may change in the final RFP. The Government will take all feedback regarding the transition of workforce into consideration.

13. Would the government consider a phased and coordinated transition proposal that ensures successful transition of the workforce in 90 days instead?

RESPONSE: The Government will take all feedback regarding the transition of workforce into consideration.

14. Will the scope require a contractor to perform pre-production design and maturation?

RESPONSE: It will depend on the Task Orders and projects.

15. For testing as described by the scope, will the test facilities be determined by the Government, by the contractor, or in partnership between the two?

16. Within the Software DevSecOps, are there training requirements? Will that be part of the contract as a whole or will it be brought on as part of a Task Order?

RESPONSE: Task Orders and projects will be focused on the work, which may include training(s).

17. In regards to Software Testing, will all projects be incorporated into DevSecOps or will there be projects that are not DevSecOps?

RESPONSE: It will depend on the Task Orders and projects. Not all projects automatically go to DevSecOps. New starts are encouraged to go that route, but existing projects might not.

Specific Section C Clarifications

Paragraph Relevant PWS Language Request C.3.8 The contractor shall perform the work under this contract at Detroit Arsenal, Warren, MI;

Selfridge Air National Guard Base (SANG), Harrison Twp., MI; Contractor Location; and other CONUS and OCONUS location as defined by the individual TIs.

Clarify: which OCONUS locations are likely?

RESPONSE: The OCONUS locations may include areas of operation or contingency environments, and will be determined by individual task orders/task order projects.

C.4.2.1 The contractor shall perform … cost modeling.

Clarify: cost modeling requirement Assumption: total cost to develop, produce, integrate, test, release, and train, maintain, operate, and support.

RESPONSE: The Government will provide a response at a later date.

C.4.2.3 The contractor shall develop models, simulations, operational vignettes, and use cases to analyze systems

Clarify: models Assumption: of the type and detail represented in standard DoDAF documents (e.g., CV, OV, SV), and not a mathematical model or simulation.

RESPONSE: The Government may need the DoDAF documents and mathematical models or simulations, as determined by individual task orders/task order projects.

C.4.8.1 The contractor shall develop test plans, test descriptions, software test code, and test reports for testing of manned and unmanned military ground vehicles and dismounted soldier systems. (CDRL A002)

Clarify: Which dismounted soldier systems are anticipated?

RESPONSE: This could include any dismounted soldier system utilized by the Army, and will be determined by individual task orders/task order projects.

C.4.9.2 The contractor shall perform technology upgrades into existing systems including modifying and debugging hardware and software required to maintain operation of manned or unmanned military ground vehicles and dismounted soldier systems.

Clarify: “existing systems”, and “maintain operation” Assumption: “Systems” includes development and test hardware and software, but not the vehicles and dismounted soldier systems themselves.

RESPONSE: It could mean either development and test hardware and software, or vehicles and dismounted soldier systems, depending on the task order/task order project.

C.4.10.1 The contractor shall … perform logistical activities; perform shipment and movement of vehicles; perform system operation

Clarify: perform Assumption: coordinate with other entities to accomplish

RESPONSE: The contractor will perform required duties as defined in the task order/task order project, which may require coordination with other entities and GVSC.

C.4.13.1 The contractor shall design, develop, integrate, test, and sustain Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) capabilities on ground combat systems.

Assumption: These activities are related to prototype and developmental C5ISR capabilities, and not tactical capabilities.

RESPONSE: The C5ISR may be related to prototype, developmental, and/or tactical capabilities. The contractor will perform required duties as defined in the task order/task order project, which may require coordination with other centers.

Contractor-Owned Facility Questions

18. What is the intent behind the contractor-owned, contractor-operated facility?

RESPONSE: The intent behind the contractor-owned facility is to accommodate anticipated mission requirements over the next several years. Space is at a premium at GVSC and GVSC anticipates the need for additional space to perform integration, fabrication, etc. The contractor-owned facility will provide the Government the opportunity to surge if necessary.

19. Will the Government be willing to sponsor the Facilities Clearance License for the facility?

RESPONSE: The Government will sponsor the FCL post award.

20. For the facility requirements (i.e. power requirements/exhaust requirements) will offerors be allowed some time to outfit the facility to these requirements after award?

RESPONSE: The Government will consider the requirements and make a determination of whether time can be permitted to outfit the facility properly after award.

UPDATE 4/29/2022: Reference Section H.10 for revised facility requirements in the draft RFP. The Government no longer intends to require the H.10 Facility Requirements at the time of award.

21. For the contractor-owned facility requirement, if the Government is going to allow a prime to subcontract the facility rather than require them to own the facility, will there be some sort of minimum threshold hours that primes will be allowed to charge?

RESPONSE: The Government is currently researching this matter. A response will be forthcoming.

UPDATE 4/29/2022: Reference Section L.4.3.3.3.2 Accounting for Facilities Cost in the forthcoming draft RFP.

22. Regarding the facility and the three primary directorates, what will be the distribution of projects between Government facilities and the contractor-owned facility?

23. Will the contractor-owned facility be directly reimbursable to the Government, i.e. will offerors be able to charge the government for the facility?

RESPONSE: The Government Furnished Pricing Model (GFPM) used to craft the proposal will incorporate the use of the facility as a component of the Indirect Rates.

24. Will a site visit of the contractor-owned facility be part of the evaluation criteria or performed as part of the proposal evaluation?

RESPONSE: No, the Government will not perform site visits. Offerors will be required to provide evidence of their ability to provide and/or obtain the facility at the time of proposal. Failure to provide this evidence may result in the Government not evaluating the offeror’s proposal.

UPDATE 4/29/2022: Section M.3.6 allows the Government, if necessary, to arrange a visit to your facility as part of the responsibility determination.

25. In reference to the facility requirement in section H.10, how does the government anticipate industry recouping cost for facilities carried by industry through the bid and evaluation phase, and to include a potential protest period?

RESPONSE: It is the responsibility of the contractor to determine how it will recoup facility costs.

26. In reference to requirement H.10, would the government consider stating the requirement in functional terms allowing industry the opportunity to provide innovative solutions to fulfilling the requirement?

RESPONSE: The Government has an enduring need for specific space requirements to facilitate the Ground Vehicle Systems Center mission. Similar facility space requirements have been included as part of the TES requirement throughout its procurement history. The Government anticipates this requirement will continue throughout the PoP of this anticipated contract.

Contract Structure

27. Considering the Cost plus Fixed Fee model of the contract, will it be a pool of hours with a fee-per-hour basis or will it be an overall fixed fee for the contract? Will the Task Orders be Term (Level-of- Effort), Completion, or a combination of the two?

RESPONSE: It is anticipated that the overall contract will consist of a pool of hours, with the fixed fee provided on a per-hour basis. Individual Task Orders and projects will be a mix of term and completion efforts. Completion efforts will be used in cases where the Task Order or project envisions a completed product.

28. Would the awardee be prohibited from any follow-on production efforts?

RESPONSE: Offerors should familiarize themselves with FAR 9.505 (Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest), DFARS 252.209.5 (Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest), and DFARS 252.209.571 (Organizational conflicts of interest in major defense acquisition programs) in order to understand what might prohibit them from participating in follow-on production efforts.

As of 4/29/2022

Sections L&M Facility Requirements

Section L.5.9 does not allow prime offerors to reference the use of a subcontractor’s facility to demonstrate they can meet or exceed the stated facility requirements.

RESPONSE: Reference Section H.10 for revised facility requirements in the draft RFP. The Government no longer intends to require the H.10 Facility Requirements at the time of award.

The term “contingent lease agreement” is open to interpretation. Can the Government confirm whether a “contingent lease agreement” must be a fully negotiated and definitive lease agreement, a letter of intent, or an agreement in principle, and meet all lease requirements defined in Section L.5.9.1(2)?

RESPONSE: Reference Section H.10 for revised facility requirements in the draft RFP. The Government no longer intends to require the H.10 Facility Requirements at the time of award.

The RFP states that the lease agreement provides the prime offeror the “right of first use of the facilities for performance of the contract resulting from this RFP W56HZV-22-R-0003 at any time necessary to perform in accordance with the individual task order(s).” Can the Government confirm that the contractor facility must be operationally ready to support the performance of individual task order(s) at time of award?

RESPONSE: Reference Section H.10 for revised facility requirements in the draft RFP. The Government no longer intends to require the H.10 Facility Requirements at the time of award.

Is the requested certification one to be obtained by the offeror from a third party such as the owner of the property?

RESPONSE: Reference Section H.10 for revised facility requirements in the draft RFP. The Government no longer intends to require the H.10 Facility Requirements at the time of award.

The response to Q&A Question 24 states that the Government will not visit the offeror facility. Section M.3.6.a indicates that the Government may “[a]rrange a visit to your facility and/or proposed operational facility (Ref Sec L.5.10) and perform a necessary Pre-Award Survey. The offeror's refusal to authorize the Government to visit the offerors facility may result in a determination that the offeror is not responsible and/or ineligible for award.” Does the Government intend to revise or delete Section M.3.6.a in the final RFP to remove any ambiguity? Absent a pre-award facility inspection, can the Government clarify how offeror facility certifications will be verified prior to award to ensure stated requirements needs are fully addressed?

RESPONSE: Reference Section H.10 for revised facility requirements in the draft RFP. The Government no longer intends to require the H.10 Facility Requirements at the time of award, and intends to modify M.3.6(a).

Technical Experience Factor

Section L.4.1.4 does not allow the prime offeror to reference subcontractor Technical Experience. L.4.1 and the associated Technical Experience subfactors significantly favors the incumbent as the incumbent contractor’s experience will be the most recent and comparable to the subfactor SOW activities.

RESPONSE: Reference Section L.4.1.4.1.4 Proposed Key Subcontractor in the draft RFP.

Sections L & M for the Technical Experience Factor and Sample Task Factor are restrictive, as only the incumbent would be able to document the Technical Experience Factor due to all of the recent and relevant experience being awarded to the incumbent.

RESPONSE: The Government has revised the Technical Experience Factor to include subcontractor experience per Section L.4.1.4.1.4 Proposed Key Subcontractor. This revision will be included in the release of the draft RFP.

The Technical Experience Factor volume reads as a re-skinned Past Performance Factor. Past Performance Factor volumes consider “recent” and “relevant” experience, limiting competition by enabling only a small number of companies currently performing similar work to compete. In order to increase the ability for more companies to compete, it is recommended that “recency” be used as an evaluation risk assessment factor rather than the current requirement of less than 3 years.

RESPONSE: The updated draft RFP revises the definition of recent experience from 3 years to 5 years, but the Government does not intend to revise the language in Section M.4.1.1.1 that says the Government will only consider recent experience in the evaluation.

Limiting technical experience to the Army Ground Domain unduly restricts the opportunity for other offerors to showcase technical innovation. There are no organizations doing Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 4-6 work other than GVSC in the experience areas called for in the Draft RFP. Moreover, GVSC has held exclusive contracts with the current incumbent in the section L and M experience areas, effectively eliminating competition.

RESPONSE: The GVSC mission is to support the maturation of cutting-edge ground vehicle technologies in ground vehicle robotics, vehicle electronic & power architectures and embedded systems software as well as providing lifecycle engineering support to the PM managed systems. The ground systems domain technical evaluation factors and subfactors in the RFP are an accurate representation of the funded work that GVSC and its TES contractor will be required to deliver.

Corporate knowledge and experience of our support contractors in these technical areas are essential to the success of these programs. The Government welcomes all competitive offers that can help to achieve our mission goals. Section L.4.1.3.2 has been revised to “military vehicle” in the draft RFP.

Given the extensive scope of technical expertise needed to adequately perform tasks associated with each of the three subfactors, limiting the highest-scoring factor to only two submissions restricts an offeror’s ability to show depth and breadth of experience. Would the Government consider expanding this to allow for a third submission per subfactor?

RESPONSE: Section L.4.1.1 in the draft RFP has been revised to allow for three submissions per subfactor.

Sample Task Factor

Attachment 0005, Sample Task 2, Sections 1.1 and 2.4.1: the Technical Narrative identifies a 48-month task period of performance and Section 2.4.1 identifies 60-month task PoP. Please confirm the correct PoP for Sample Task 2.

RESPONSE: Attachment 0005, Section 2.4.1, of Sample Task 2 has been revised to match the Technical Narrative and now identifies a 48 month POP.

Section C

The Section C SOW does not display the technical interdependency of VEA, GVR, and SEC as described by government for their rationale as to why the body of work cannot be split up.

RESPONSE: Historically, the R&D efforts performed under this procurement have been inherently connected and require frequent collaboration across efforts. For example, one TO might provide support for the integration of silicon carbide power electronics into the Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA), while a separate TO provides support for the design, development, integration, and demonstration of vehicle electrical power architecture implementations for platform electrification and mobility. While the first TO looks exclusively at how the use of silicon carbide power electronics can benefit the ERCA, the second TO covers the integration of a broader range of electrical power components in the Army’s electrification efforts and includes tasks for silicon carbide component support. Advancements, redesigns, and test results related to silicon carbide components made by one of the TOs can then be shared with the other TO, reducing redundancies that would otherwise occur without collaboration between TOs. A Multiple Award IDIQ is not viable because managing various inter-connected efforts between different contractors and requiring contractors to collaborate with one another, while potentially duplicating efforts to protect their own proprietary information, would be inefficient and ineffective.

Sections C.4.16.1.2 and C4.16.3 contain identical text.

RESPONSE: Section C.4.16.3 has been removed.

The Section C SOW is very vague in terms of the work to be performed and with mild alterations could be substituted with any other Technical and Engineering Services requirement from any other command. If the TOs are going to be pre-dominantly functional, how can a prospective contractor reasonably put in a bid on this SOW without knowing more specifics about what will be required of them once they’re on the floor doing work?

RESPONSE: Each TO and TO Project will include a detailed SOW specifying what work and what elements of the core SOW are to be completed for that effort. TOs and TO Projects will be a combination of both Functional and Project-driven efforts, with a greater number of efforts being Project-driven over Functional. Without knowing which TOs and TO Projects will be Project-driven over the life of the contract, being more specific in the core SOW is not possible and that specificity needs to be reserved for the individual efforts’ SOWs.

Labor Categories (LCAT) Attachment 0001

Would the Government consider adding an “or equivalent” caveat alongside each LCAT requirement (certifications, education, years of experience, etc.) to allow the offeror to explain/justify how a potential offeror’s experience is equivalent to the stated LCAT descriptions, thereby broadening the potential candidate pool?

RESPONSE: The minimum qualifications established by the Government are a true reflection of the technical capabilities required under the anticipated effort which will focus on systems engineering and development support the Army's most complex Ground Vehicle and Robotic Vehicle systems. The

Government’s labor category descriptions closely mirror the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC). Adding "or equivalent" runs the risk of being too ambiguous without a clear description or boundaries.

Would the Government consider allowing for qualified professionals to be working toward certain certifications instead of requiring them at time of award?

RESPONSE: Specific certifications are only required for the Cyber Security Engineer, Information Systems Security Engineer, and the Master Scheduler. Those certifications are necessary to those labor categories and must be in place at time of award (see answer above). All other labor categories require specific education and years of experience.

Miscellaneous

Will the Government be issuing a conformed copy of the draft solicitation prior to final release? There appears to be several attachments that are missing or incomplete; in addition, a conformed copy will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the entire solicitation.

RESPONSE: A revised draft RFP has been released alongside the updated Q&As on 29 April 2022.

What is the anticipated minimum hours? What is the anticipated minimum 5-year hours quantity?

RESPONSE: The contractual minimum and maximum are stated in Sec. A.2 and B.5. There is no additional guaranteed minimum. All other hours included are estimated for planning purposes and are not guaranteed. Hours per year may vary from those indicated in Section B.6.

Given that the Government has specifically identified talent acquisition as the greatest risk to contract execution, would the Government consider adding a Management Approach or Staffing Plan evaluation factor to the requirement?

RESPONSE: The Government considered the use of a Management Approach or Staffing Plan evaluation factor but does not intend to include this in the final criteria.

Why is there no mention of International Automotive Task Force (IATF) or International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certification in the RFP?

RESPONSE: IATF and ISO certifications are not part of the requirement.

Section L.2.2.1 Proposal Format and Instructions, would the Government consider revising this to allow for electronic proposal submissions via email?

RESPONSE: Section L.2.2.1 has been revised to allow for electronic submissions via DoD SAFE.

Will the Government provide a contract specific company level Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) or may the Contractor use their own NDA? Will the Government provide a contract specific person level NDA or may the Contractor use their own NDA?

RESPONSE: Contractor may use their own company level NDA templates.

Section L.5.8 requires offerors to provide evidence of adequate financial management and fund tracking procedures to accommodate a cost-reimbursement type contract and states that the accounting system adequacy review must be conducted by DCAA or DCMA. Would the Government consider revising this language to allow for review by an independent, third-party accounting and consulting firm to allow for verification at time of proposal with the full approved accounting system review provided at time of award?

RESPONSE: Section L.5.8 will be updated to clarify that DCMA or DCAA evidence of an acceptable accounting system is only required for eligibility for award, not at time of proposal submission.

Clarifications are requested regarding how paragraph H.1.1.3 “TOs and TO Projects will be awarded in accordance with Section B of this contract. Prices will be based on the period in which the TO is awarded and NOT the period of completion” will apply in execution.

RESPONSE: Section H.1.1.3 has been revised in the draft RFP to indicate that labor prices will be based on the period that specific labor is added to the TO or TO Project. For example, if 500 hours of labor are awarded for a TO Project in Ordering Period 4, those 500 hours will be priced at the labor prices for Ordering Period 4. If an additional 100 hours are added to the same TO Project in Ordering Period 5, those hours would be priced at the labor prices for Ordering Period 5 even though the TO Project itself was awarded in a prior Ordering Period.

The Minimum Qualifications tab in the GFPM does not contain minimum required education or experience per labor category. Request the Government please provide so that all offerors bid the same mix of personnel that the Government deems necessary to perform this work and can certify that proposed personnel meet those qualifications.

RESPONSE: Attachment 0001 Personnel Minimum Qualifications provides the minimums that offerors are required to certify their proposed personnel to.

As of 5/11/2022

Section L.4.3 indicates that the Government is now contemplating something other than a Cost-Plus- Fixed-Fee contract that will not guarantee that the successful offeror will recoup all of their legitimate contract costs that would normally be reimbursable under applicable regulations. Placing ceilings on

Fully Burdened Labor Rates shifts the financial risk of contract performance fully onto the successful offeror.

RESPONSE: The USG has included a 10% ceiling (and in some cases removed the ceiling rate altogether) over the proposed FBLR’s to account for cost risk in the direct and indirect rates to meet the minimum qualifications for each LCAT.

If one or more LCATs are not used for subcontractors in the original proposal, can the resulting prime contract be modified to add new FBLRs and associated ceilings if the need arises among originally proposed cost-type subcontractors or if new subcontractors are added to the contract at the task order level?

RESPONSE: Any FBLR (whether new labor category or new subcontractor) added after the fact will need to be determined fair and reasonable on a sole source basis prior to awarding it on any task order. Unless it meets an exception, certified cost or pricing data may be required.

As of 5/19/2022

Section C

Section C.3.2.1 cites GVSC design tools. Is there a list of GVSC design tools that can be added to the

SOW?

RESPONSE: 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.

Section C.4.6.4.5 states “The contractor shall ensure that software development maximizes the use of GFE/M/P/S and other available technology components and software.” Could a list of GFE/M/P/S be included with the official RFP?

RESPONSE: The list of GFE/M/P/S will be Task Order Project dependent.

In the draft RFP, Sections C.4.6.6.1 and 4.6.6.3, and again in Section H.15.9 it cites CMMI. What is GVSC’s current CMMI level? Is there a minimum CMMI level requirement? Is there a stated goal for the “higher levels of CMMI”?

RESPONSE: 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.”

For Section C.4.6.6.2, what software metrics are already identified?

RESPONSE: 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.

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

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

Section L

Is the Key Subcontractor’s $75M minimum value as defined in L.4.1 over the full life of the contract?

RESPONSE: Correct, the key subcontractor minimum value is over the full life of the contract.

Reference: L.4.1.3.1 Subfactor 1 Ground Vehicle Robotics (GVR): Development of autonomy, Human Robot Interaction, Platform Electronic Control, and Autonomy Safety technologies and its integration using the Robotic Autonomous Systems - Ground (RAS-G) Interoperability Profile (IOP) standard onto multiple unmanned military ground vehicle systems for an operational test and demonstration; for integrated unmanned military ground vehicle systems of comparable complexity to that of a Robotics Combat vehicle (RCV) and Expedited Leader Follower efforts. The updated language seems to put a premium on the development using RAS-G, which is much more restrictive and limiting competition than the previous requirement, focused on system integration, test, and demonstration. The ability to do both development of autonomous technologies and then also integrate and test these technologies on “multiple” unmanned ground vehicle systems seems unlikely to be done on a single task order/work directive/contract (submission). Can you help us understand what the driving force behind this chance is, so that we may best accommodate the technical experience being evaluated?

RESPONSE: Updated paragraph L.4.1.3.1 is better aligned with GVR’s mission support requirements.

Offerors can submit up to three “Contracts” as defined in L.4.1(c) to demonstrate its experience for the components in this subfactor. See also the response to the next question.

Section M

Reference: Per M.4.1.1.1 The Government will only consider recent experience in the evaluation, as defined in Section L.4.1.2, and in the Section L.4.1 definition of a Contract. 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 base the evaluation on the submissions identified in the Technical Experience Matrix (Attachment 0005) Subfactor tab. The Government will not evaluate any submissions for a Subfactor where the three submission limit is exceeded in the Technical Experience Matrix (Attachment 0005), thus resulting in a deficiency. The Government will not evaluate any key subcontractor submission(s) for a Subfactor where the one key subcontractor submission limit per Subfactor is exceeded in the Technical Experience Matrix (Attachment 0005), which may result in the offeror being assessed with higher risk and/or a deficiency. If a proposed submission for any Subfactor contains more than one Contract, as defined by Section L.4.1, the Government reserves the right to exclude this submission in the evaluation, which may result in the offeror being assessed with higher risk and/or a deficiency. Is it the Government’s intention to encourage offerors to submit only 1 “Contract” as per L.4.1 (c) “A submission is defined as the offerors proposed historical contractual instrument that is identified in cell B7 or C7 of a Subfactor tab in the Technical Experience Matrix (Attachment 0005)” for each subfactor?? It is our understanding that each subfactor could have up-to 3 contract submissions, (9 total for Technical Experience), one of which (per subfactor) could be from a “key” subcontractor. (L.4.1.2 The Government will only consider recent experience limited to (up to) three Recent Contract(s) for each Subfactor (L.4.1.3.1, L.4.1.3.2, and L.4.1.3.3) See L.4.1 for definition of a Contract. Recent experience is defined as tasks completed on a Contract determined to be recent. Recent Contract(s) are those performed within five years of the date of issuance of this Request for Proposal (RFP)).

RESPONSE: The language in M.4.1.1.1 speaks to how the Government may or will exclude certain submissions in the evaluation, subject to the circumstances described. The Government is not encouraging offerors to only submit one "Contract" as defined in L.4.1(c). The RFP will allow up to three "Contracts" as defined in L.4.1(c) per subfactor (subject to the additional limit of one "Contract" from a key subcontractor) for a total of up to nine “Contracts” for the Technical Experience Factor.

Pricing

Reference H.8.8, H.8.8.1, L.4.3.3.5.1 and L.4.3.3.5.2: In contract performance, are FBLR ceilings applicable at the average LCAT-level as calculated in the GFPM, or at the individual employee-level within a LCAT? The same question applies to subcontractors subject to FBLR ceilings.

RESPONSE: Offerors are asked to propose rates to the minimum qualification requirements as specified in the RFP. Offerors should propose in those rates whatever they believe it needs to retain this labor taking into consideration the 10% ceiling constraint.

Reference: L.4.3.1.5 The Government has established direct labor rate floor rates that by definition, are realistic and fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404-1. “ and L.4.3.3.5 The Government is requiring contractors to propose a cost ceiling on their proposed Fully Burdened Labor Rates (less fee), where the ceiling is equal to the proposed Fully Burdened Labor Rates (less fee) plus 10% for each labor category. If an offeror identifies additional labor categories that they still consider to be too low, how should the offeror address this concern?

RESPONSE: The floor rate is the minimum that an offeror must propose to. Offerors may propose above the floor rates provided in the GFPM, but not below. Therefore, the offeror should adjust its floor rate accordingly based on what it believes is a reasonable ceiling rate.

What is the basis of the indirect rate ceilings and where are they addressed in the RFP?

RESPONSE: The Government is revising the language and the GFPM to address this concern.

Reference: Q&A response 23 from the government states: "23. Will the contractor-owned facility be directly reimbursable to the Government, i.e. will offerors be able to charge the government for the facility? RESPONSE: The Government Furnished Pricing Model (GFPM) used to craft the proposal will incorporate the use of the facility as a component of the Indirect Rates." Recognizing that not all offerors' accounting systems will treat the facility as an indirect rate, will offerors be able to modify the GFPM to correctly and accurately reflect the facility cost in accordance with their disclosed accounting practices?

RESPONSE: The GFPM cannot be modified. The cost for the facility could be charged as either a direct or an indirect IAW the offerors accounting system, but it would still need to be spread across the labor hours and proposed as a “dollars-per-hour” figure instead of a lump sum.

Reference: Attachment 0007 Government Furnished Pricing Model. In the GFPM ordering period tabs for the non-labor costs (found at the bottom of each tab) the Government includes a cell for an indirect rate. There is nowhere to add G&A to the materials plug and nowhere to add FCCM to either the travel or materials plug. Will offerors be allowed to modify the Attachment 0007 GFPM to include these costs in accordance with cost estimating system requirements?

RESPONSE: The Government is revising the language and the GFPM to address this concern.

Facility

Reference: H.10.1 “The contractor shall have an operational facility within 30 miles or less from 6501 E.

11 Mile Road, Warren, MI 48397-5000 that meets the following requirements which are to be completed no later than 180 days after contract award:

e) Shall have an overhead mounted crane capable of lifting a minimum of (4) tons.

f) Crane shall have a lifting height of at least 16 feet above floor level.

Could the Government explain the need for an “overhead mounted crane” as there are mobile gantry-style hoist solutions that offer the ability to lift 5 tons 16 feet above floor level. Would an alternate lifting solution to the overhead-mounted (i.e., ceiling) crane be acceptable?

RESPONSE: The purpose of the overhead-mounted crane is to remove turrets and other overhead mounted components from vehicles in support of GVSC’s integration work. The Government has determined this to be the requirement.

Miscellaneous

When will the Attachment 0004 DD Form 254 be released?

RESPONSE: Attachment 0004 has been added to the SAM.gov posting as of 19 May 2022.