RFP Questions_W58RGZ-20-R-0305_Customer_14Jan21.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W58RGZ-20-R-0305
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question Number | Question | Response (Completed by Government) | For ACC Consideration |
| 1 | 1. This RFP requires a SECRET clearance. Is this requirement able to be fulfilled upon contract award? Is there a process for which to obtain or reactivate a previously held clearance for purpose of this RFP? | The secret clearance is required at contract award. Please check with your Facility Security Officer for further direction. | |
| 2 | 1. The Estimated Ceiling dropped from $49.5M to $14.5M, which is rather shocking as the last touch‐point was the Army was going to increase the ceiling, split the contract into Domains like the products IDIQ, and go heavy into software. Would you be able to provide any insight as to why the government went in this direction? | The Performance Work Statement associated with draft RFP which was issued by ACC-APG NATICK on 20 Dec 19 included both Design Engineering and Sustainment Engineering tasks. Based on concerns arising from that draft RFP, and because the Sustainment Tasks are defined enough to justify a FFP contract, it was decided to segregate the contracts into a FFP Sustaining Engineering contract and a CPFF Design Engineering contract. The current RFP will focus on the Sustainment Engineering tasks. ACC-Redstone also plans to issue a separate RFP for the Design Engineering tasks later this FY. | |
| 2. Also, the first task order changed from being very specific (Raven RQ‐11 Radio switch out) to a generic program anagement and re‐initialization of PMRs‐what was the reasoning for this? And are there other plans for the original task order? | The initial task order associated with the draft RFP which was issued by ACC-APG NATICK on 20 Dec 19 aligns with the CPFF Design Engineering tasks. Please also refer to the response to question 2.1. | ||
| 3 | 1. Award Date: What’s the anticipated award for this requirement? The anticipated award for this requirement is stated at 12/31/2020. {Section L: page 2} | The anticipated award date in Section L has been changed to 26 Feb 21. | |
| 2. Section 2 – Contract Performance: Will the government provide Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire or should contractor provide their own? The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. (Attachment 1 – Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire) {Section L: page 13}. | The Past Performance Questionnaire requirement has been deleted from RFP section L, paragraph 2.3 and from RFP section M, paragraph 2.2. | ||
| 3. Attachment 1/6: Can you explain the difference between Attachment 1 and Attachment 6? Representations and Certifications. {Section L: page 6-7}. | The requirement for Attachment 6 has been deleted. The signature requirement in Attachment 1 was changed from SF 1449 to SF 26. | ||
| 4. Are there any requirements for the subcontractors to provide fully disclosed pricing and cost narrative directly to the government? | No. | This is an ACC answer, but we don't see the need for it. The offered fully burdened rates should include the subcontractor rates and there is no need for the subcontractor costs to be evaluated separately. | |
| 5. Please confirm the government is requesting offerors to provide an onsite and offsite fully loaded labor rate for all labor categories provided in the RFP attachment 9 page 1. Sections from Attachment 1 page 18-19 Performance Work Statement are included below for reference |
- 7.2. Location and Hours of Work,
- 7.2.1. Accomplishment of the results contained in this PWS requires work to mainly be performed at the Contractor facilities. Contractor employees shall also perform infrequent work at various Contractor, Subcontractor, or USG facilities. Most facilities are located in CONUS.
- 7.6. Place of Performance: The place of performance for this contract shall be CONUS (onsite / offsite) only. Specific places of performance will be detailed in individual TOs. Yes, the work is estimated to be performed at the contractor's facility 95% of the time and at other CONUS sites 5% of the time. Section L of the RFP and the Labor Hour estimate in Attachment 9 have been updated to reflect this distinction and to clarify that there will be no OCONUS effort.
Note, this 5 % estimate is for support at various TDY events, not to be seated at our Government facility and provided a laptop, CAC, desk, cubicle, etc. The labor hours for the Technical Management, Technical Data, and Contractor Manpower Reporting CLINs are included in the Labor Hour estimate in Attachment 9.
This was changed in the new CLIN structure, but please also change the Technical Management, Technical Data, and Contractor Manpower Reporting CLINs from FFP to NSP in the Base Periods and Option Periods on pages 2 and 3 of the RFP.
ACC has completed.
| 6. Attachment 008 Key Labor Categories page 1-4 includes two categories (Program/Project Manager II and a Cyber Security Engineer III) that ARE NOT listed in Attachment 009 (page 1) Labor Hours Plug In. | The Key Personnel attachment has been updated to remove the Program/Project Manager II and the Cyber Security Engineer III requirements. | ||
| 7. Please see listing for Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire (POCs) attached. Note: Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire (Attachment 1) was not provided as stated in Section L instructions. Therefore, we submitted the standard PPAQ to our customers. See Attachment 1. | Please see the response to question 3.2. | ||
| 4 | 1. We understand that the draft SUAS Engineering Services solicitation that was released almost one year ago has been broken into two parts. Please confirm if this is the case, and if so, that W58RGZ20R0305 is the RFP for SETA support and will be followed by a second solicitation for SUAS Design Engineering Support. | W58RGZ20R0305 is for Sustainment Engineering Support. Please also see the response to question 2.1. | |
| 2. If the SUAS Engineering Services solicitation is being released in two parts as described in the previous question, does the Government consider there to be a potential OCI between the two awards? | The government does not consider there to be a potential OCI violation if the same offeror is awarded both contracts. | ||
| 3. The draft RFP from 2019 included a “Sample Task Order (TO): W911QY-19-R-SUAS-ENG” to “integrate modifications to the MRR Flight Control System (FCS), the H-GCS, and the Digital Data Link (DDL) radio to operate in a new frequency spectrum.” Has this sample task been canceled or will it still be addressed as the first task awarded under the awarded IDIQ? | The intial task order (note: no longer a sample task order) under the draft RFP is related to the Design Engineering requirements and will be included in the Design Engineering RFP. Please also see the response to question 2.1. | ||
| 4. The draft RFP from 2019 specified a ceiling of $49.5M. Can the Government provide some insight into the ceiling reduction to $14.5M for this RFP? Was this due to budget limitations, changes in program priorities or contracting approach, etc.? | Please see the response to question 2.1. | ||
| 5. Attachment 7 (Section L), page 2 – states anticipated contract award of 12/31/2020. Please clarify. | Please see the response to question 3.1. | ||
| 6. Attachment 7 (Section L), page 4 – under description of Volume 1, Attachment 4, states that subcontracting plan (if applicable due to size). Since this is all SBSA, would a subcontracting plan still be required, regardless of size? | No. Please see the statement beginning on the 7th line of the referenced paragraph - "Also, Other Than Small Business (Large businesses) offerors ONLY shall submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9 and DFARS Clause 252.219-7003 (for reference see FAR 19.704 and DFARS 219-704)." | ||
| 7. Attachment 7 (Section L), top of page 5 – states 60 pages total Sections 2-6, yet right after that describes different sections with different page limits. Can the Government please clarify specific page limits by section in this volume? | The section L references has been updated to change the Page Limit for the General Technical Capability overview requirement to 2 pages and to change the 60 page limit for Sections 2-6 combined to a 60 page limit for Sections 2,3,5, and 6 combined. The page limit for Section 4 remains at 15. | ||
| 8. Attachment 7 (Section L), page 7 – Attachment 4 (TA description) asks for description of work to be performed by each subcontractor, yet for 12.5 LOE, this seems a bit much to break down to this level. Many of the TAs were developed and fully executed months ago with an expectation of a $49.5M ceiling (as briefed in the Industry Day in Jan 2020) where this requirement would make sense. Request reconsideration of requiring TAs to describe the new efforts since it would require a complete redo of currently executed TAs. | Teaming arrangements will be required for both the Sustainment Engineering Contract and the Design Engineering Contract. Please also see the response to question 2.1. | ||
| 9. Attachment 7 (Section L), page 13 – in the description of Attachment 1, it requires that PPQ be completed by Government POCs during a holiday period and while many Government personnel are taking “use or lose PTO”. Prospective bidders will be reluctant to contact current customers during their planned time off, potentially limiting past performance citations that may negatively impact the contractor’s past performance rating (to Neutral). Will the Government consider a 1 – 2 week extension to provide sufficient time to obtain PPQ input from Government customers after the first of the year? | Please see the response to question 3.2. | ||
| 10. Attachment 7 (Section L), page 13 – under section ii (Performance Confidence Assessment) notes there is a chart below, but no chart appears to exist. Can you please clarify where the chart is? | The chart is included as Figure 3 on page 24. | Check the page number after other Section L changes are made. | |
| 11. Attachment 8 (Section L – Key Personnel Labor Categories), page 1 – there are 5 key personnel resumes required, yet this Attachment describes all labor categories and levels. Since the pricing volume (Attachment 9) lists these 5 major labor categories with various levels, can the Government please clarify specific labor cats – AND – level they require for these 5 key personnel resumes? | Please see the response to question 3.6. The Key Personnel attachment has been updated to remove the Program/Project Manager II and the Cyber Security Engineer III requirements and now includes only the 5 categories with one level each. | ||
| 12. Attachment 9 (Labor hours plug-in) – two questions: 1) where will the work be performed? Customer site or contractor site, or both? 2) If customer site, then there are several positions (PM, Cybersecurity Engineer II, Safety Engineer II, and Technical Writer I) that are only part-time positions which would be issues for customer site. | Please see the response to question 3.5. | ||
| 13. Attachment 10 (Section M), top of Page 7 (Section II, Attachment 1, Standard description) – would the Government consider extending the 3 year viability for PP to 4 years since this was already done for SUAS Training proposal? | Yes, Section M has been updated for reflect the 4 year requirement. | ||
| 14. Attachment 10 (Section M), top of Page 7 (Section II, Attachment 1, Standard description) – has the Government completed market research that supports a $1M minimum value for Past performances? Would the Government consider lowering that minimum ceiling to $500K to foster greater competition? | Yes, Section M has been updated for reflect a minimum ceiling of $500K. | ||
| 15. Attachment 10 (Section M), Page 7 (Factor 3, Volume 4 – Price) – when mapped to Attachment 9 (labor hour plug-in), is it the Government’s desire for the offeror to bid these exact number of hours per labor category per year? | Please see the 4th full paragraph in Section L - "Offerors may deviate from the Government provided labor mix (e.g. propose more or less hours for a certain labor category and/or propose other labor categories to perform the PWS). Any deviations must be explained in the Basis for Estimate. Any alternate mix will be evaluated as part of the technical approach and technical understanding described in paragraph 2.1 of Section M. As indicated in paragraph 2.4 of Section M, the hours described in the technical volumes will be compared to the hours priced in the cost volume will be reviewed for inconsistencies. | ||
| 16. Attachment 10 (Section M), Page 7 (Section III- Initial task order) – Since Initial task Order will form basis of cost eval across the contract, where are the specific hours to be proposed for the initial task order identified to ensure that all bidders are being evaluated to the same standard? | Specific hours for Task Order 0001 will not be provided. As stated in paragraph 2.2, Subfactor 5 of Section L, the Government will evaluate the offerors use of proposed labor Task Order 0001 hours and labor mix in regards to realism and efficiency, and this will be part of the technical evaluation. The hours for Task Order 0001 should be a subset of the hours included in Attachment 0009. The price of Task Order 0001 will not be added to the total evaluated price. The intent of Section L, paragraph 2.4, Section 3 “Initial Task Order 0001” is to indicate that the offerors should provide the same labor pricing information (fully burdened rates applied to the offered hours) for Task Order 0001 as was provided for the total contract. Although the paragraphs following Section 3 “Initial Task Order 0001” describe the price evaluation of the total contract price, an unbalanced pricing review and a review of inconsistencies between the technical proposal and price proposal will be included in the Task Order 0001 evaluation. |
Future task order proposals should be submitted similarly to Task Order 0001. The successful offeror will provide a proposal which shows the application of the Firm Fixed Price fully burdened rates from the total contract price proposal to their offered hours for the applicable performance period. Rates will not be evaluated, but a technical evaluation will be performed on the proposed labor hours and labor mix.
| 5 | 1. Attachment 0001 Performance Work Statement for SUAS Section 3.3.1. 3.3.1. The Contractor shall develop and deliver the Contractor’s Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) IAW DI-SESS-81785 (CDRL A039) in accordance with (IAW) the SUAS Systems Engineering Plan (SEP). Please provide the SUAS Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) as an attachment to the RFP. | The SEP is in for PEO signature. The draft SEP is provided as an RFP attachment. The approved Configuration Management Plan referened in PWS paragraph 3.4.1 is also provided. |
| 2. Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) CBAs for current incumbent personnel was not included in the RFP. Please provide the current Collective Bargaining Agreements. | Collective Bargaining Agreements and Wage Determinations will not apply to this contract. | |
| 3. CBA - CBA seniority data for incumbent personnel was not included in the RFP. Please provide the CBA seniority for each of the incumbent personnel. | Please see the response to question 5.2. | |
| 4. Wage Determinations (WD) - Wage Determination (WD) data sheets for the performance locations were not included in the RFP. Please provide the current applicable Wage Determination sheets for all Labor Categories at all locations. | Please see the response to question 5.2. | |
| 5. Attachment+0009 Labor+Hours+Plug+In+Numbers - IDIQ ceiling rates for potential labor categories, as well as a FFP priced TO1 are requested for evaluation of pricing. Please clarify the methodology for evaluation of price with regards to the priced TO1 vs. the Priced Labor category sheet. | Please see the response to question 4.16. | |
| 6. Section L-Instructions to Offerors, 1. General, p. 1 - Proposals are due by 12 Noon, CST, on 7 January 2021 Given that the Government has yet to provide prospective offerors the SEP, CBAs, WDs as attachments to the RFP, and that questions are not due to the government until 21 December, will the government please extend the due date for proposals for 30 days following receipt of all data requested by Industry? | Please see the reponses to questions 5.1 and 5.2. | |
| 7. Section L-Instructions to Offerors, 1. General, pp. 1 and 2. - (p. 1): Proposals are due by 12 Noon, CST, on 7 January 2021 (p. 2): Award Date: The anticipated award for this requirement is 12/31/2020. Please clarify anticipated award date for the requirement. | Please see the response to question 3.1. | |
| 8. Section L- Instructions to Offerors, Proposal Files, p. 3 - Offeror’s proposal submission shall be submitted via email or file transfer site in Microsoft Word format, PDF format clearly indexed, Microsoft Excel (Pricing Volumes), and logically assembled Please clarify that offeror proposals shall be submitted in Microsoft Word format OR PDF format. | The instructions have been updated to read "Offeror’s proposal submission shall be submitted via email or file transfer site. Spreadsheet files included in the pricing volume shall be submitted in Microsoft (MS) Excel format. Price volume narratives and the remaining volumes shall be submitted in either MS Word or PDF formats. PDF formats must be searchable by Optical Character Recognition. All volumes shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled." | |
| 9. Section L- Instructions to Offerors, Section 2.1 Volume I Administrative, p. 7 Attachment 3 - Identification of the applicable Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) with POC name, address, phone, email and DODAAC. There appears to be a word missing after “(DFAS)”. Please clarify what the government wishes offerors to identify. | There is no word missing after DFAS, however the requirement to provide the offeror's applicable DCAA information has been deleted. The intent is for the offerors to provide the POC information for their applicable DCMA and DFAS offices. | |
| 10. Attachment 0001 Performance Work Statement, p. 4, section 3.3.9 - The Contractor shall use the PM SUAS Cameo Enterprise Architecture (EA) suite of modeling software, requiring a Common Access Card (CAC), External Certification Authority (ECA) or other Government approved means, to support SUAS system requirements, design, analysis, and verification / validation activities. Please provide more details on the PM SUAS Cameo Enterprise Architecture (EA) suite of modeling software in sufficient enough detail so offerors can determine what information in that EA is to be used to support SUAS system requirements, design, analysis, and verification/validation activities? | Cameo Enterprise Architect (CEA) is a SysML modeling tool provided by No Magic. The government's intention is to eventually model the Systems Specifications (requirements, design constraints, and logical architecture) IAW SysML 1.5 in the CEA mdzip format. This model will be provided as GFI to the contractor and is expected to use the GFI to develop a model of their detail design specifications IAW SysML 1.5 in CEA mdzip format in a subsequent Task Order, if issued. Configuration management of these model files will be done using the PEO AVN standard Teamwork Cloud server/repository. At least one person from the contractor's organization will need a PEO AVN network account and CAC or ECA to access the Teamwork Cloud server/repository. | |
| 11. Attachment 0001 Performance Work Statement, Section 8.4, p.20 - The Contractor shall have access to and support the Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) website, Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE), found at: https://wawf.eb.mil/piee-landing/ Please clarify what is meant by “support” of the WAWF website. What type of support of the WAWF website will be needed? | The intent of this statement is to inform that the successful offer will invoice through WAWF. | |
| 12. Section L-Instructions to Offerors, Section 2.2, p.9., and Section 2.3, p. 10, Attachment 0001 Performance Work Statement , Sections 3.2 through 3.13, and And Attachment 0003 Document Summary List pp. 1-5. |
--Section L: p. 9: The Offeror shall describe their approach to perform all aspects of the scope of the Soldier Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS) technical support services contract IAW the Performance Work State (sic).
--Section L p. 10 The Government’s intent in this assessment is to identify those offerors whose Past Performance is recent and relevant. Recent is defined as the past three (3) years from the date of the release of the RFP. Relevancy is described as contracts for engineering services provided to the Government of $1M or more being similar in service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.
PWS Sections 3.2-3.13: Multiple references to “IAW DI-MISC-xxxxx (CDRLS XXXX)”, where the “x” references alpha numeric references to documents referenced in Attachment 0003
QUESTION: As part of submission, offerors are asked to provide recent and relevant past performance as well as describe their approach to perform all aspects of the scope of the technical support services contract IAW the PWS. The PWS the references that Contractors are to accomplish tasks in accordance with multiple documents referenced in the Document Summary List. Will the government please provide access to all the referenced documents in Attachment 3 (DSL) so offerors can specifically describe their past performance in performing work of similar scope and so offerors can write to how they would perform the work IAW with stated requirements found in referenced documents? Alternatively, if the government does not intend to release those referenced documents, can it clarify how it will evaluate offerors that do not have access to those documents against those that either currently or previously had access to referenced documents?
See Attached Table for clarity.
Section 1 of our DSL contains a listing of all CDRLs we require as part of the base contract as well as all possible CDRLs we may require within a subsequenetly awarded Task Order, each shown with their affiliated Data Item Description (DID) depicting the required format and content of said deliverable. To access any and all DIDs, utilize the ASSIST site at https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsSearch.aspx.
Section 2 of our DSL contains a listing of a myriad of pertinent Army Regulations and Military Standards, amongst a few DOD guidelines, which should also be commonly accessed by the public. If any or all of these cannot be found, this office will be happy to provide via GFI.
| 6 | 1. Based upon the PWS most of the work will be on the contractor Site. “Accomplishment of the results contained in this PWS requires work to mainly be performed at the Contractor facilities”. Will employees be supplied Government laptops? Many of the systems and areas for collaboration require VPN access at a minimum. | ||
| 2. Proposals are listed as being due by 12 Noon, CST, on 7 January 2021 to the Contract Specialist (KS) with the Contracting Officer (KO) on CC. Then it is stated that the anticipated award for this requirement is 12/31/2020. How can it be awarded before all proposals are received? | Please see the response to question 3.1. | ||
| 3. The request is for 9 FTEs and 4 PTEs and the request asks for 5 Key Personnel. Which personnel need to be identified? | Please see the responses to questions 3.5, 3.6, and 4.11. Most of the work will be performed at the offeror's facility and 3 of the 5 Key Personnel categories are estimated to be less than full time equivalents. | ||
| 4. 3.2.3 Mentions coordinating Video Teleconferencing (VTC) activities, is this to be at SUAS (BLDG 5681) or at an offsite facility? | Please see the response to question 3.5. The successful offer is not expected to participate in VTCs in Building 5681. | ||
| 5. 3.3.9 Mentions using model-based engineering to include PM SUAS Cameo Enterprise Architecture (EA) suite of modeling software. I would assume that this is the virtual version on PEO Aviation servers, but you may want to verify. | Yes. Contractors will access our MBSE toolsuite via virtual machine (e.g. VM Ware's Horizon) client in order to launch a virtual desktop | ||
| 6. 3.5.11 Is this just design of the Hardware-In-the-Loop (HWIL) and system simulation tools for SUAS products or is physical products? If physical products where are they to be built as BLDG 5681 does not have a lab. | Most of the artifacts affiliated with this task will be GFE. Any unique hardware required to be provided by the contractor will be explicitly stated within the affiliated Task Order, and built at the contractor's facility. | ||
| 7. 3.6.3 Where should the following be produced; test / special test equipment and test fixtures for engineering, production, supportability, verification, and integration testing of own hardware, software, and third-party components? | Any unique hardware required to be provided by the contractor will be explicitly stated within the affiliated Task Order, and built at the contractor's facility. | ||
| 8. 3.6.5.5 Flight and operation support at CONUS sites on 10,000 travel per year? | The travel and ODC amounts are estimates only. Estimated travel costs have been slightly increased per year, and the shipping CLINs have been deleted with the estimated costs included in ODC. Please note that due to the uncertainty of actual costs these CLINs are cost reimbursable with G&A, and not FFP. Please also see the response to question 8.12. | In the recommended CLIN structure we also deleted the words "and materials (except GFP)" from the X0001 CLINs and moved it to the ODC line for clarification. We moved the "with G&A only" to be on the same line as the description on the Travel and ODC CLINs and added "No Fee" just for clarity. Please note that in the RFP, the "AA" SUBCLINs didn't always match the CLINs with the description or the contract type. For example, CLINs 0004, 0006, and 0008 were shown as Cost No Fee, but SUBLINs 0004AA, 0006AA, and 0008 were shown as Firm Fixed Price. All the ODC SUBCLINS should be the same type as the CLINs. |
ACC Completed
| 9. 3.6.5.6 Government Flight Representatives yet there is not a listing under hours. | GFR activities are rolled up under the Test Engineer Labor Category. |
| 10. 3.11 Obsolescence / Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (DMS) Risk Management - Obsolescence Engineer not listed under hours. Is this the Logistics engineer? | Yes |
| 11. Requirements for Administrative Assistant? | Administrative Assistant duties and responsibilities of the job include: |
•Answering and directing phone calls to relevant staff •Scheduling meetings and appointments •Taking notes and minutes in meetings •Ordering and taking stock of office supplies •Being a point of contact for a range of staff and external stakeholders •Preparing documents for meetings and business trips •Processing and directing mail and incoming packages or deliveries •Greeting and directing visitors and new staff to the organization •Writing and issuing emails to teams and departments on behalf of teams or senior staff •Researching and booking travel arrangements for staff members •Finding ways to improve administrative processes
Please also see the response to question 3.5.
| 12. Who is the incumbent? | This effort is a subset of previous contract W911QY-13-D-0097 awarded to Bosh Global Services, which was later acquired by Momentum Aerospace Group. The previous contract included flight training, repairs, and logistics services which will not be included in this contract. | |
| 7 | 1. There doesn’t appear to be an Attachment 1: Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire even though Attachment 0007 – Section L Proposal Instructions requires that we fill out and submit the Attachment 1: Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire, stating in the first full paragraph on page 13, “The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire and e‐mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract.” Will this document be provided in a forthcoming amendment? | Please see the response to question 3.2. |
| 8 | 1. Reference: Attachment 7 – Section L 2.3 Past Performance Questionnaire - Comment: The requirement asks offerors to provide the Past Performance Questionnaire, listed in List of Attachments Section. Section J of the RFP lists all Attachments provided. No Past Performance Questionnaire is listed. |
| Question: Can the Government please update the List of Attachments and provide the Questionnaire? | Please see the response to question 3.2. | |
| 2. Reference Attachment 7 – Section L.2.3 Past Performance Attachment 1 - Comment: Instructions require past performance questionnaires be provided to contract POC’s and returned to the Government within 15 days of release of the RFP. No Questionnaire was provided in the RFP release. |
| Question: Will the Government allow Questionnaires, along with the list of who questionnaires were submit to, be submitted by proposal due date? If no, will the Government please allow 15 days from when the Questionnaire is provided to offerors? | Please see the response to question 3.2. | |
| 3. Reference Attachment 7 – Section L.2.3 Past Performance Attachment 1 |
| Question: If CPARS are available, does the Government require a Questionnaire also be submitted? In our experience, most contracting officers will not provide a questionnaire response when CPARS exist. | Please see the response to question 3.2. | |
| 4. Reference Attachment 7 – Section L Proposal Files - Comment: Within the proposal files instructions for Vol. II (Factor 1), Section 1 is identified as General Technical Capability and allotted a 15 Page Limit. Section 2 identifies Subfactor 1 Technical Understanding as the first of the evaluated subfactors within Vol II. Section 1, General Technical Capability does not appear to be evaluated per Section M, nor are any instructions provided for what specifically the Government is requesting in this section. |
| Question: Will the Government please clarify its intentions for content within Section 1, General Technical Capability and what elements should be differentiated between Section 2: Subfactor 1, Technical Understanding? | Please see the response to question 4.7. | |
| 5. Reference: General Pricing - Comment: If the intent of the Government is to establish an ID/IQ with task orders on an as needed basis, would all contractors need to establish Base ID/IQ rates to accomplish all aspects of the PWS based on future task orders? We assume if the labor categories are not established on initial award of the ID/IQ, an offeror would not be able to propose labor categories to follow-on task orders, if rates are not established on the ID/IQ. |
Question: Can the Government please clarify their intentions with the Base ID/IQ labor categories and how Total Evaluated Price will be determined between Base ID/IQ pricing and the Initial Task Order? As stated in Section L paragraph 1, the offered labor hours shall be the hours provided in Attachment 0009 or as provided in the offeror’s alternate skill mix. The labor included in the total evaluated price will be the application of the offeror’s fully burdened FFP hourly labor rates to those offered hours for the base year and each fiscal year option. The offeror should provide the application of the fully burdened rates to the offered hours for each year in the offeror’s format in a Price Workbook as referenced in Section L paragraph 2.4, Factor 3, Section 1.
The price of Task Order 0001 will not be added to the total evaluated price. The hours for Task Order 0001 are a subset of the hours included in Attachment 0009 or as provided in the offeror's alternate skill mix. The hours and skill mix for Task Order 0001 will be evaluated as described in the Technical Subfactor 5 narrative in Section M. The intent of Section L, paragraph 2.4, Section 3 “Initial Task Order 0001” was to indicate that the offerors should provide the same labor pricing
| 6. L.1 Proposal Volumes - Instructions state that Volume II Sections 2-6 are limited to 60 pages and that section 4 is limited to 15 pages total. Is Section 4’s page limit a portion of the overall 60-page limit for the broader Section 2-6 or is it separate and in addition to the 60 pages? Can resumes be submitted as an attachment to Volume II while still following the 15-page limit? If allowed to submit as an attachment, will the 15-page limit be in addition to the 60 pages? | Please see the response to question 4.7. | ||
| 7. L.1 Proposal Files - Will the Government allow for a smaller font size in tables and images as long as it is legible? Will the Government allow for a smaller font in the headers and footers? | The government will allow Arial size 9 font for the header/footer and the tables as needed. | ||
| 8. L.2.1 - For Volume I Administrative, Attachment 1 and Attachment 6 are ostensibly duplicates. Will the Government clarify the attachment requirements for Volume I? | Deleted Attachment 6 in Section L.2. | ||
| 9. General – Does the Government want/require an acronym/abbreviation list for each volume? If so, will they be excluded from page limitations? | The Government prefers that the acronyms be defined at the first use. However, if they are not defined at first use an Acronym index will be allowed and will not count towards the page number limit. | ||
| 10. L.1 Proposal Volumes & L.2.3 – Proposal Volumes lists the Executive Summary section titled “Offeror POCs, Cage Code, and DUNS” but the CAGE Code and DUNS requirement is not mentioned as part of the L.2.3 section “e” of Offeror POCs instructions. However, CAGE Code, DUNS and TIN or DODAAC is requested in the Attachment 3 instructions of L.2.3. Will the Government clarify in which section the offeror should include the CAGE Code, DUNS, and TIN/DODAAC information? | The offeror should include the CAGE Code, DUNS, and TIN/DODAAC information in Volume 1, Administrative, Attachment 3. | ||
| 11. Reference: PWS 6.2 Subcontract Management states: Cross-teaming shall be permitted at USG discretion. Does the Government have any preclusions in regards to non-exclusive subcontractors for this contract who may be on multiple teams? | No | ||
| 12. General Pricing Question – Are offerors expected to include G&A on ODC, Travel and Shipping CLINS. If so, shall the offeror reduce the available CLIN dollars in accordance with the individual G&A percentage to provide a total that equals the Government provided “plug numbers” for those CLINS? | Offeror shall apply to their G&A rates to the provided dollars. The provided dollars should not be reduced for the G&A amount. The evaluated price used in the award decision will be the total offered amounts for the Labor CLINs, the Government provided travel and ODC amounts, and the offered travel and ODC G&A amounts. Please also see the response to question 6.8. | ||
| New | |||
| Questions | Will Past Performance beyond y years be acceptable? | Please see the response to question 4.13 and to the revised Section M. Past Performance of 4 years is acceptable. | |
| On page 7 , in section L, Attachment 5, it states that we need to sign an NDA with SSEB contractor. We can not locate the NDA. Please advise. |
| Please let us know what the expectations are for attachment 5- Volume 1- Administrative. | The original intent was for the offerors to provide the NDAs in their format as part of the Administrative volume. However, the requirement has been deleted from Secion L since there will be no contractors on the SSEB. | |||
| Concerning the PPQ , In section L- factor 2: Past performance, on page 11, it says that the offeror shall provide the Past Performance Questionnaire, listed in List of Attachments section, to the customer program manager and the Contracts POC. I have not been able to find the PPQ. Please advise. | Please see the response to question 3.2 and to the revised Section L. | |||
| Attachment 1/6: Can you explain the difference between Attachment 1 and Attachment 6? Representations and Certifications. {Section L: page 6-7} | Please see the response to question 3.3 and to the revised Section L. | |||
| Other Changes Not Covered in the Above Questions and Responses | ||||
| The PWS provided with the RFP wasn't the version that corrected the eCMRA reference to SAM in paragraph 4. ACC now has corrected version and will post with Q&As. | ||||
| In RFP Section A-7, please change the start dates for the 6 month option CLINs to 26 Feb 2026 instead of 26 Feb 2025. (The prior year ended on 25 Feb 2026.) ACC has completed. | ||||
| Section A-7 currently states that the "total ordering period is for sixty (60) months or for four (4) years." The ordering periods shown in A-7 total to 66 months (or 5.5 years) including the 6 month option. The total ordering period without the option would be 60 months (or 5 years). ACC has completed. | ||||
| The statement just under the list of clauses in Section I which discussed the task ordering period states that "such orders may be issued from award date of contract through 5 years." It is unclear to us if this includes ordering the 6 month option. If it doesn't, please change the time to include the 6 month option. ACC has completed. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .