ATMP_RFP_Q_And_A's_as_of_20161123.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted

Attached to
Army TADSS Maintenance Program (ATMP) Final Solicitation
Solicitation number
W900KK-17-R-0034
Issued by

About this file

From the source

ATMP RFP Questions Answers

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
ATMP_Changes_Worksheet.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
ATMP_RFP_Q_And_A's_as_of_20161206.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
FINAL_ATMP_RFP_A0001_W900KK-17-R-0034_Mod_Copy_.docx DOCX document
ATMP_RFP_TOC_A0001_161128.docx DOCX document
ATMP_RFP_Amend_0001_Attachs.zip ZIP file
ATMP_RFP_Amend_0001_Attachs_TrkdChgs.zip ZIP file
FINAL_ATMP_RFP_A0001_W900KK-17-R-0034_Conformed_Copy_.docx DOCX document
ATMP_Changes_Worksheet.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
ATMP_RFP_Q_And_A's_as_of_20161117.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
ATMP_RFP_Sect_J_Attach_1-20.zip ZIP file
ATMP_RFP_TOC_161109.docx DOCX document
ATMP_RFP_Sect_J_Attach_21-52.zip ZIP file
FINAL_ATMP_RFP_W900KK-17-R-0034.pdf PDF
ATMP_Changes_Worksheet.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
ATMP_RFP_Sect_J_Attach_53-59.zip ZIP file
ATMP_DRFP_Q_And_A's_as_of_20160928.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
ATMP_Changes_Worksheet.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Show all 17

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

RFP-Q&As-Q007-011 RFP - Q# Reference Relates to: Reference Text if applicable Question Response

007Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016Final RFPSection H.6 (D)Please confirm the USG will recognize level of effort obligations when in support of a verifiable effort and in accordance with the approved company disclosure statements and policies. For example, this may include virtual meetings supported during transit, transit to support requirements, business meals and virtual work location assignments, all as approved by company policy and charged accurately.This clause applies only to cost type efforts, which are not part of the proposals in response to this RFP. Generally speaking, the details will be worked out when these efforts are put on contract. However the Government will approve costs in accordance with cost accounting standards (CAS) and FAR Parts 30 and 31.
008Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016Attachment 58, Cross Reference MatrixSection L.4.0(a)(7)In order to reference the Volume, Section and Paragraph where each subfactor requirement is met, additional rows are needed to show where the individual requirements within the subfactor are depicted in the Offeror's proposal. Is it acceptable for Offerors to modify Attachment 58, Cross Reference Matrix, by adding additional rows to break down the subfactor requirements into more detailed requirements?Additional rows are acceptable, but not additional columns. It is the offerors responsibility to ensure their matrix clearly shows traceability of requirements to their proposal.
009Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016Final RFP; L.6.3 / L.7.0 / M.8.3;
Base PWS Page 31 of 89; Section 2.23Paragraph L.6.3. Management Subfactor 2.3 – Organic Army Depot Support, states “The Offeror shall describe how it will meet or exceed the minimum (5% of contract value per year) requirement for Army depot subcontracted work.”1. Does the Government intend to evaluate bidders' ability to demonstrate meeting this requirement by showing their depot allocated costs within the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and within the anticipated ceiling price of $3.5B, or can bidders' demonstrate their intent to meet the requirement in only allocating depot work in the anticipated Over and Above Work?

2. Would the Government consider adding the following table to the RFP in order to verify proposal compliance and state whether the requirement needs to be demonstrated within the TEP? 1. The requirement is "...minimum (5% of contract value per year) requirement for Army depot subcontracted work." The offerors are advised that "only when directed…" work is not guaranteed.

2. The offerors are responsible for clearly communicating their depot approach in response to the depot subfactor; no particular format will be required. For purposes of this subfactor, "5% of contract value per year" is equivalent to 5% of the total contract value over the seven year ordering period.

010Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016Appendix BAppendix B, PPSS, refers to attachment 4 as requiring PPSS. Attachment 4 is the FON map. Will an updated attachment be released?Appendix B has been updated for the CTC TOs 02, 03, 04, and 05, changing the Attachment 4 reference to Attachment 5.
011Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016Attachment 01, Base PWS, Pages 31/32 of 49, Section 2.24 and 3.4The language in the Base PWS paragraph 2.24 states “…computer software, computer software documentation,…is finalized or a work-in-progress, hosted, maintained, or otherwise resident on the MIS is considered to be delivered to a Contracting Officer or otherwise furnished to the Government.” Paragraph 3.4 states “The Government does not intend to procure MIS hardware or software;…The Contractor shall provide license to the Government to use the Contractor’s MIS in accordance with the requirements of this PWS.”1. These paragraphs appear to be ambiguous as it relates to the Government’s intent and expectations regarding rights to the MIS itself and the associated documentation. Is the Government’s intent and expectation to be granted a Restricted/Limited license to use the Contractor’s MIS and related documentation for providing access rights to Government data generated under the contract during the Period of Performance only?

2. Is it an expectation under this RFP that the Contractor’s MIS will not be delivered to, deliverable under, or otherwise furnished to the Government in any manner? 1. Correct. Also, IAW PWS 3.1.7.1 the Contractor's Phase-Out plan must include transitioning all technical data to the Government; and IAW PWS 3.1.7.5 all technical data is to be delivered to the Government annually starting 3 years prior to end of contract performance.

2. Para 2.24 has been edited to state: "All TADSS technical data, computer software and computer software documentation regardless of whether the technical data, computer software and computer software documentation is finalized or a work-in-progress, hosted, maintained, or otherwise resident on the MIS is considered to be delivered to a Contracting Officer or otherwise furnished to the Government. Note that the Government does not intend for the contractor to deliver MIS software to the Government...."

Questions and AnswersATMP RFP
W900KK-17-R-0034&P of &N

RFP-Q&As-Q001-006

RFP - Q#ReferenceRelates to:Reference Text if applicableQuestionResponse
001FBO posting dated 26 Oct 2016Volume IV (Factor 3- Past Performance)Additionally, Volume IV (Factor 3- Past Performance) has been removed and will no longer be part of evaluationsPer USD AT&L memo, 1 April 2016, Department Defense Source Selection Procedures, para 2.3.4.2.2, a past performance evaluation is required in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3), unless the PCO documents the reason Past Performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition (FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii). Based on the above and with the removal of Past Performance as an evaluation factor, why is Past Performance not considered an appropriate evaluation factor? Will the USG maintain the Best Value proposal evaluation approach without Past Performance discrimination?IAW FAR 15.304(c )(3)(iii), the PCO has determined evaluation of past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition and has documented appropriately, with concurrence of the necessary parties per the DOD Source Selection Procedures 2.3.4.2.2. The PCO does not find past performance to be a discriminator for award, nor would it likely change the award decision, therefore, it has been removed.
002Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016VOL I General- L.4a.5"The Offeror and each major subcontractor shall provide their current FPRA or FPRR by their cognizant ACO in support of future negotiations."Please clarify what constitutes as "Major Subcontractor" for purposes of this procurement.The Government inadvertently removed the definition of a major subcontractor. The following will be added to L.4(a) 5: a major subcontractor is defined as one that will be responsible for 10% or more of the yearly proposed ATMP value.
003Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016VOL I General- L.4a.5"The Offeror and each major subcontractor shall provide their current FPRA or FPRR by their cognizant ACO in support of future negotiations."If an offeror or major subcontractor does not have an FPRA nor a FPRR from their ACO, would the Government accept a Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP) to meet requirement of L.4a.5?Submitting a FPRP is not necessary. The Government will add "if available" to the end of this requirement.
004Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016VOL I General- L.4a.5"The Offeror and each major subcontractor shall provide their current FPRA or FPRR by their cognizant ACO in support of future negotiations."With the removal of the Labor Rate Table from the ATMP DRFP, does the Government anticipate FAR 15.408-2 negotiated proposals for Additional Task Orders? This requirement could delay processing additional work on this IDIQ contract in a timely manner.The Government is aware that there may be additional burden in negotiating post award task orders and efforts that may prolong negotiations.
005Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016VOL V- Attachment 57 Pricing Workbook
TO 29 FMS-GRCAttachment 57, Tab TO 29 FMS-GRC contains a hardcoded value in cell G74, which is marked as the Total for Ordering Period 7. Please clarify if this cell value is intended to be the Travel value for Item Number 6100, and correct cell G74 to include a summation formula for Ordering Period 7 subtotal.Attachment 57 will be updated to convert the cell value to the Travel value for Item Number 6100 and add summation formula to cell G74.
006Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016Appendix BLocations Germany - Schinnen, Germany, Dal Din, and Germany - EderleWould the Government please confirm the countries of these locations? Schinnen appears to be in Netherlands while Del Din and Ederle appear to be in Italy.Appendix B will be updated as follows:

FROM: Germany-Schinnen TO: Netherlands-Benelux;

FROM: Germany-Dal Din TO: Italy-Del Din; and FROM: Germany-Ederle TO: Italy-Ederle

Questions and AnswersATMP RFP
W900KK-17-R-0034&P of &N

image1.png

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .