Draft_RFP_Q_and_A_2019-03-18.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- eXportable Combat Training Capability (XCTC)
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-19-R-0003
About this file
This document contains a draft request for proposal and related questions and answers for the eXportable Combat Training Capability program. Key details include:
-
The U.S. Army Contracting Command - Orlando intends to award an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to provide training support services at the eXportable Combat Training Capability program. Services include exercise planning and support, property management, systems support, and travel excluding rotations. Potential offerors were encouraged to submit questions on the draft RFP by March 4, 2019.
-
The eXportable Combat Training Capability program enables Army National Guard Brigade Combat Teams to attain Level 3 training readiness through force-on-force and live-fire training exercises. The mission is to develop adaptive leaders and enable platoon proficiency in core functions. The final RFP is expected to differ from the draft provided for industry questions.
Draft RFP Q&A set 2019-03-18
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 233 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Question set 2019-03-18
| Number | Type | Reference | Industry Question and Government Response |
| 1 | Question | DRFP | Will contractors be required to comply with the Service Contract Act clause? |
| Answer | Yes | ||
| 2 | Question | Section L.7.1 | With regard to section L.7.1, can you please clarify the meaning of "large workforce with security clearances?" The PWS, Exhibit 1 Draft DD254 and the tour given on Industry Day last June in Idaho imply a much more limited number of personnel will need access to military classified information in which case this particular Past Performance criteria should be relaxed / broadened. Hiring large numbers of individuals with security clearances significantly drives up labor costs. Is it possible that the government meant "background checks" to support base access requirements? |
| Answer | Paragraphs L.7.1 and M.10.1 have been changed regarding the definition for relevant. | ||
| 3 | Question | PWS 3.3.12, Foreign Language Role Players | The phrase "In the event" regarding Foreign Language Role Players indicates a reimbursable contract method. All of the CLINS are identified as FFP. If PWS 3.3.12 is to be included as part of our FFP, what is the expected number of Foreign Language Role Players required for each rotation? If not, will Schedule B be revised to include ELINs for cost plus fixed fee items such as Foreign Language Role Players? |
| Answer | The requirement for Foreign Language Role Players is based on the training scenario and training objectives established by the RTU and will be identified on an as needed basis. When needed, the Government will request the contractor to provide a FFP proposal. | ||
| 4 | Question | PWS 3.3.14, Civilians on the Battlefield | The phrase "In the event" regarding Civilians on the Battlefield (COBS) indicates a reimbursable contract method. All of the CLINS are identified as FFP. If PWS 3.3.14 is to be included as part of our FFP, what is the expected number of COBS required for each rotation? If not, will Schedule B be revised to include ELINs for cost plus fixed fee items such as COBS? |
| Answer | The requirement for Civilians on the Battlefied (COBS) is based on the training scenario and training objectives established by the RTU and will be identified on an as needed basis. When needed, the Government will request the contractor to provide a FFP proposal. | ||
| 5 | Question | PWS 3.3.16, Opposing Force Personnel | The phrase "In the event" regarding OPFOR personnel indicates a reimbursable contract method. All of the CLINS are identified as FFP. If PWS 3.3.16 is to be included as part of our FFP, what is the expected number of OPFOR personnel required for each rotation? If not, will Schedule B be revised to include ELINs for cost plus fixed fee items such as OPFOR personnel? |
| Answer | The requirement for OPFOR personnel is based on the training scenario and training objectives established by the RTU and will be identified on an as needed basis. When needed, the Government will request the contractor to provide a FFP proposal. | ||
| 6 | Question | PWS 3.3.19, Opposing Force Vehicles | The phrase "In the event" regarding near-peer OPFOR vehicles indicates a reimbursable contract method. All of the CLINS are identified as FFP. If PWS 3.3.19 is to be included as part of our FFP, what is the expected number of near-peer OPFOR vehicles required for each rotation? If not, will schedule B be revised to include ELINs for cost plus fixed fee items such as near-peer OPFOR vehicles? |
| Answer | The requirement for OPFOR vehicles is based on the training scenario and training objectives established by the RTU and will be identified on an as needed basis. When needed, the Government will request the contractor to provide a FFP proposal. | ||
| 7 | Question | PWS 3.6.1.2, Personnel Staffing | "The Contractor shall maintain adequate staffing to facilitate continued performance throughout the duration of the transition with no loss of services or impact to the Government." It is our understanding the incumbent contractor maintains responsibility for XCTC staffing during the transition period. The incoming contactor is responsible for transitioning the XCTC workforce during the transition period on a non-interference basis and assuming operational control at the end of the transition period. Is this correct? |
| Answer | Yes | ||
| 8 | Question | PWS 3.6.1.2, Personnel Staffing | The Contractor shall submit a personnel roster to the government that shows a transition-in plan of personnel, by name and day. The roster is due to the Government five days after the effective date of the contract. 1. What is meant by the "effective date of the contract"? 2. If the effective date of the contract closely corresponds in timing with the contract award notification, 5 days may not be sufficient time for a complete roster. We recommend this version be a draft roster. |
| Answer | The term 'effective date of the contract' is changed to become 'contract award'. | ||
| 9 | Question | Attachment 09, Baseline Resources | There are multiple circular reference errors in the referenced attachment. There are also formulas that include #REF (which indicates a column was deleted). Can the Government provide a revised Attachment 09 Baseline Resources spreadsheet with formulas corrected? |
| Answer | Attachment 09 has been updated. | ||
| 10 | Question | Attachment 09, Baseline Resources; Example 03, Five Year Rotation Tracker | Our review of the Example 03 Five Year Rotation Tracker indicates there will be rotation events designated as "FAB." The Attachment 09 Baseline Resources lists resources for IBCT, ABCT and SBCT types of rotations, but does not provide work load or resources data for FAB type of rotation. Will the Government update Attachment 09 Baseline Resources to include a FAB resources tab? |
| Answer | Attachment #09 has been updated to include the "FAB" detail. | ||
| 11 | Question | Attachment 09 Baseline Resources | Tab IBCT, cell B38 references a "Moulage Events Tab." We were not able to find the referenced tab. Will the Government provide the referenced information? |
| Answer | Attachment #09 has been updated. | ||
| 12 | Question | Attachment 09 Baseline Resources | Tab ABCT, cell B23 and B25 appear to be duplicate items. Are these items the same thing? It could also be that cell B25 is a typo and should instead read "OPFOR 7.62 Blank (RPK). Should we sum the values in rows 23 and 25 in order to arrive at the total for AK47 7.62 blank rounds, or should cell B25 be edited as noted above? |
| Answer | Attachment #09 has been updated. | ||
| 13 | Question | Attachment 09 Baseline Resources | There are formulas nested throughout tabs SBCT and ABCT that help provide understanding as to the nature of the data (i.e. on tab SBCT, Cells C4 through C12 total in cell C3). On tab IBCT there are no formulas, only hard coded values. Would the Government consider revising tab IBCT to include formulas similar to the other tabs in order to provide clarity? |
| Answer | Attachment #09 has been updated. | ||
| 14 | Question | Attachment 09 Baseline Resources | Attachment 9 appears to be a mix of labor, ODCs and material. It appears that some of the items are GFE, some are contractor provided. It also appears the listings are a picklist for commanders to use in developing rotatation plans. 1) Would the Government clarify which items in Attachment 9 are labor elements, which are ODCs, which are material? 2) Would the Government clarify which of the items are to be included in CLINX004, and which would be included in future task orders as a "pick list"? |
| Answer | Attachment #09 has been updated. | ||
| 15 | Question | Attachment 09 Baseline Resources | The lists provided in columns B of each of the tabs appear to have typographical errors (gunt instead of gun, etc.) as well as duplicate items with variants (7.92 verses 7.92mm). We are concerned that the data in its current form would lead us to unitentionally include errors in our estimate. Would the Government consider conforming the data so that the intent is clear? |
| Answer | Attachment 09 has been updated. | ||
| 16 | Question | Attachment 9 OPFOR Rows | The items in Attachment 9 for OPFOR appear to include equipment that is MTOE. Is it the Government's intent to provide the MTOE equipment for each rotation? |
| Answer | No. The government will not provide MTOE OPFOR equipment. | ||
| 17 | Question | CLIN X0005, H.3 (Travel), p. 36 | "Travel or subsistence for work in support of an XCTC rotation shall not be separately charged." CLIN 5 is for Travel not during rotations. How are we to account for Travel during rotations? Will there be a CLIN for rotation travel that will be cost-reimbursable? |
| Answer | Travel required to execute a rotation shall be included in the price of the rotation. | ||
| 18 | Question | L.3.1 (Copies), p. 86 | "2 CD Copies (1 Original, 1 Copy), 1 Paper Copy" Given the size of the proposal, is a paper copy necessary? |
| Answer | The RFP has been updated to remove the requirement to provide a paper copy. | ||
| 19 | Question | L.5.1, p. 88 | "The offeror shall provide a staffing solution…" What will be the basis for the staffing solution required in L.5.1? |
| Answer | The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s staffing solution for a reasonable, comprehensive, and feasible approach to successfully manage the PWS requirements. | ||
| 20 | Question | Section B Pricing, Attachment 9, and Exhibit 3 | Attachment 9 appears to a picklist of maximum amounts needed per exercise depending on what the scenario build is for each rotation. Is it the Government’s intent for all exercises to include pricing for all support tasks in Attachment 9, or will the Government provide enough detail about each exercise to allow pricing to be built on only those tasks in Attachment 9 that are relevant to the exercise? |
| Answer | The Horseblankets and Attachment 09 have been updated. | ||
| 21 | Question | Schedule B, Section L 9.9 and Section M.12.3 | RE: CLINs 0007, 0008, 1007, 1008, 2007, 2008, 3007, 3008, 4007 and 4008…: Typically these types of CLINS are not separately priced and are not part of the total evaluated price. This is for manpower reporting, which is typically NSP. Should we assume that these CLINS should not be separately priced in Schedule B? |
| Answer | It is the offeror's decision to separately price or not separately price the referenced CLINs. | ||
| 22 | Question | Section M, paragraph M.12.0 and M.12.8 | The text says, "perform analysis of the fully burdened labor rates proposed for the OPFOR CLINs to determine fair and reasonable." Is the expectation that this will be a Cost Plus CLIN based on IDIQ task orders? |
| Answer | The Opposing Force Personnel, Civilians on the Battlefield, and Foreign Language Role Players, if needed, will use a FFP CLIN. | ||
| 23 | Question | Schedule B and PWS | In our mapping of the PWS to CLINs, we had difficulty mapping some of the PWS sections (2.0 General Requirements and 3.0 Program Management). Is it the Government's intent that the cost for General Requirements and Program Management be spread across the other CLINs? |
| Answer | It's the Government's intent for the offerors to use the 'Exercise Planning and Support' CLINs to map PWS sections 2.0 and 3.1. | ||
| 24 | Question | Schedule B | All CLIN descriptions in schedule B state "In accordance with (IAW) Section C and as further specified within each Task Order issued under this contract. |
FOB: Destination
PSC CD: U013".
Could the Government provide greater detail regarding what cost elements should be included in each CLIN (i.e. ODCs, program management costs, etc.)?
| Answer | The Government anticipates that most TO CLINs under XCTC will be FFP with travel (excluding rotations) on a Cost CLIN. All CLINs in Section B of the IDIQ are marked as FFP for the sole purpose of facilitating administration of the contract in the Government’s Procurement Desktop Defense (PD2) system. | ||
| 25 | Question | Section B, CLIN 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005, 4005; PWS 3.1.10.1 - Travel (excluding rotations); 3.1.10.1 XCTC Staff Support Travel | Draft referenced CLINS indicate non-rotation travel is FFP; PWS states "Travel that is not in support of an XCTC rotation will be reimbursed for actual costs incurred (cost no fee)." Will the USG please clarify if travel CLINS include fee? |
| Answer | The travel (excluding rotations) CLINs will not include fee. All CLINs in Section B of this IDIQ are marked as FFP for the sole purpose of facilitating administration of the contract in the Government’s Procurement Desktop Defense (PD2) system. | ||
| 26 | Question | PWS 3.1.11.1 - 3.1.11.10 - Key Personnel | Reference PWS paragraphs 3.1.11.1 through 3.1.11.10, did the government intend to identify every position defined by these paragraphs as requiring designated Key Personnel? Would the government consider limiting the key personnel designation to the three positions defined in paragraphs 3.1.11.1 through 3.1.11.3? These three positions are arguably the most important leadership positions with the widest control and effect on program operations and management. Establishing contingent employment arrangements months in advance for the number of candidates with the skill sets defined in paragraphs 3.1.11.4 through 3.1.11.10 would be extraordinarily difficult. Qualified candidates would have multiple employment opportunities during the waiting-for-award period and the offeror’s list of key personnel would almost certainly change multiple times prior to contract award. |
| Answer | The TAC analyst(s) Key Personnel requirement was removed. | ||
| 27 | Question | PWS 1.2.3, Synchronizing FLEXTRAIN with MILES | Recommend revising "synchronizing MILES with FREDI-2" to "synchronizing MILES with EDI or FREDI-2" Old tracking equipment (EDI) are still in use and are anticipated to be in use for the next 3-4 years |
| Answer | The PWS will be amended to read "synchronizing MILES gear with EDI or FREDI-2". | ||
| 28 | Question | PWS 3.3.12, Foreign Language Role Players | Specific numbers and types of foreign language/role players will not be known at the time of the base proposal submission as these resources are identified/locked in during the Main Planning Conference (MPC). Will the government identify the # and type of the foreign language role players required in the RFP or will this requirement be implemented/added through a change order after award of the base contract? |
| Answer | The requirement for Foreign Language Role Players is based on the training scenario and training objectives established by the RTU and will be identified on an as needed basis. When needed, the Government will request the contractor to provide a FFP proposal. | ||
| 29 | Question | PWS 3.3.14, Civilians on the Battlefield/Role Player | Specific numbers and types of COBs/role players will not be known at the time of the base proposal submission as these resources are identified/locked in during the Main Planning Conference (MPC). Will the government identify the # and type of the COBs/role players required in the RFP or will this requirement be implemented/added through a change order after award of the base contract? Would the Government consider a cost-type CLIN for this work? |
| Answer | The requirement for Civilians on the Battlefield is based on the training scenario and training objectives established by the RTU and will be identified on an as needed basis. When needed, the Government will request the contractor to provide a FFP proposal. | ||
| 30 | Question | M.8.0 FACTOR 1 – MANAGEMENT. DPWS Section 3.1 Program Management | The Government states in 3.1 that program management includes “integration of technological tools.” In order to manage a program as large and complex as the XCTC in a real time environment, these tools are essential to program success. Would the Government consider adding evaluation criteria in Factor 1 to rate the quality of the offeror’s integration of technological tools? |
| Answer | Section L and Section M of the RFP has been updated. | ||
| 31 | Question | FAR 42.5 | Given the type, value and complexity of the contract, recommend the Government hold a post award conference IAW FAR Subpart 42.5. |
| Answer | It is the Government's intent to hold a post award conference. | ||
| 32 | Question | 3.6, Transition & Post Award Conference | Recommend the Government revise all Transition-In requirements outlined in Section 3.6 to be due 2 weeks after the completion of a post award conference, typically held 10 days after award. |
| Answer | The Government will not change the requirements to be due 2 weeks after a post award conference. | ||
| 33 | Question | Section L, General Question - Response Time | Due to the complexity and volume of the response, request the Government allow 60 day response time. |
| Answer | The Government intends to have proposals due 30 days after RFP is posted. | ||
| 34 | Question | L.9.8 and L.9.9 | L.9.8 states that "Base Year: Two months of Transition-In, to run concurrent with 12 months of full performance" and L.9.9 includes CLIN 0009 for transition costs. Does the Government intend to include CLIN 0009 for transition activities in Task Order 0001, with a period of performance that starts and ends prior to the start date of the other CLINs? If not, please explain how the Government envisions full performance of transition activities to run concurrent with the full performance of Task Order rotation requirements. |
| Answer | Transition-In shall run concurrent with initial 12 months of performance. L.9.8 has been updated. | ||
| 35 | Question | Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form, A.2 | Section A.2 states that the minimum amount is stated in Section D. This information is not currently in Section D, but rather Section B. Given that Section D is for packaging and marking, recommend correcting the reference in Section A.2. |
| Answer | Section A.2 has been corrected. | ||
| 36 | Question | Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form, A.2 and Section I, Contract Clauses | The Solicitation states that other than FFP contract types may be utilized, and Section A.2 states "Cost types, etc." Please clarify if the Government intends or anticipates the issuance of T&M or LH contract types, and if yes, please add the appropriate T&M FAR clauses. If not, recommend removing FAR 52.216-30 from Section I. |
| Answer | The Government does not intend to use T&M or LH contract types. FAR 52.216-30 is removed from Section I. | ||
| 37 | Question | H.3 Reimbursement of Travel, Per Diem, and Special Material Costs | c. (4) states "In no event will such payments exceed the rates of common carriers." Please clarify what the Government means by "rates of common carriers." |
| Answer | Common carriers include airline, train, ship, bus, or other transit system. | ||
| 38 | Question | Section I, FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services (Nov 1999) | Given the number of personnel that could be affected if the Government decides not to extend services, request this notification be changed from 15 days prior to pop end to 60 days prior to pop end. This would ensure all affected contractors have adequate time to meet legal requirements of the WARN act. |
| Answer | The clause has been updated to become 45 days prior. | ||
| 39 | Question | L.4.0. Volume I General, Section 2 | Volume 1 requires Sections G and K to be filled-in and provided within the volume. Section G doesn't have any proposal fill-ins. Please clarify if this should be Section I and not Section G. |
| Answer | Volume I General, Section 2 has been updated to reflect Section I. | ||
| 40 | Question | L.4.0. Volume I General and FAR 52.215-1. | Section L.4.0 requires an Executive Summary that includes a statement of compliance. This statement allows for "objections, exceptions, contingencies or additions" to the solicitation. This contradicts the statement of compliance required of FAR 52.215-1(c)(2)(iii)., which requires offerors to state agreement with "all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation." Will the Government remove the FAR 52.215-1 statement of compliance requirement? |
| Answer | L.4.0 has been updated. | ||
| 41 | Question | L.4.0, Volume I and General, and L.8.0, Factor 4, Small Business Participation (Volume V) | L.4.0, a. (3) requires Joint Venture/Teaming or Major Subcontracting Agreements to be provided with Volume I. L.8.1.f requires copies of documentation and enforceable commitments to utilize SB firms, which would include teaming agreements. Does the Government want teaming agreements included in both Volumes I and V? |
| Answer | L.4.0, a. (3) has been updated. | ||
| 42 | Question | L.4.0, Volume General, a. Section 1 – Executive Summary, (2) Statement of Compliance, C. | Request clarification of: "Additional Exercise Planning & Support and the Property Management will not be proposed unless the XCTC base PWS scope or ceiling is revised." It appears the Government's intent is to state that the base ceiling will not be increased unless there is a change to the base scope of work. Please clarify. |
| Answer | The offeror shall certify that they shall not request additional Exercise Planning & Support, Systems, and Property Management price/costs unless the ID/IQ base PWS scope or ceiling is revised by the Government. | ||
| 43 | Question | L.4.0, Volume General, a. Section 1 – Executive Summary, (4) (4) Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) or Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR). | This section states: "The Offeror and each major subcontractor (defined as one that will be responsible for 10% or more of the yearly proposed XCTC value) shall provide their current FPRA or FPRR by their cognizant ACO in support of future negotiations, if available. 1.) Is the Government requesting a copy of the offeror's (and major subcontractor's) FPRR or FPRA to be included in the offeror's Volume 1, and the major subcontractor's sealed packages? 2.) Given how often FPRAs and FPRRs can change, how does the Government intend to use this information in it's evaluation? 3.) Will the offerors be required to provide updated FPRRs and FPRAs during performance and future TO negotiations? 4.) Is there a reason this is required in Volume I and not the Cost volume? |
| Answer | 1) The offerors shall provide their current FPRA or FPRR by their cognizant ACO in Volume 1. The Offerors shall submit subcontractor proprietary or sensitive information on a separate DVD/CD-ROM (appropriate number of copies according to volume number) in a separate sealed envelope. 2) The Government will evalute proposals IAW Section M. 3) TBD. | ||
| 44 | Question | L.7.0, Factor 3, Past Performance (Volume IV), L.7.1 | The DRFP states that past performance projects can include: "... projects from predecessor companies, proposed XCTC key personnel, and/or subcontractors." Please explain how the Government intends to evaluate the past performance of proposed XCTC key personnel. |
| Answer | L.7.1 has been updated regarding XCTC key personnel. | ||
| 45 | Question | L.7.0, Factor 3, Past Performance (Volume IV), L.7.1 | Please clarify: "...(no need for brief description if project description is relating to the XCTC prime offeror)." |
| Answer | L.7.1 has been updated to remove the statement. | ||
| 46 | Question | L.7.0, Factor 3, Past Performance (Volume IV), L.7.2 | L.7.2 states.: "All past performance submitted in response to this solicitation shall have been performed as a prime contractor, subcontractor, or JV partner." which is not consistent with L.7.1, which also includes proposed XCTC key personnel. Please clarify what may be submitted as past performance. |
| Answer | L.7.1 has been updated regarding XCTC key personnel. | ||
| 47 | Question | 2.10, Intellectual Property and 2.11, Technical Data | The intent of paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11 of the draft PWS is unclear, particularly given the apparent absence from the DPWS of any DFARS clauses relating to technical data or computer software, such as DFARS 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014, which are prescribed by statute (see, inter alia, 10 U.S.C. 2320(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F)). 1) Would the government clarify its intent regarding paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11 of the draft PWS, relating to contractor ownership rights in intellectual property (including patents, technical data, and computer software). 2) More specifically, is the intent merely to require the XCTC contractor to notify the government that it plans to use privately-owned intellectual property in performing the contract, or is it to enable the government to determine whether it will require the contractor to relinquish its ownership rights to such intellectual property? |
| Answer | IP clauses have been added to the RFP. The PWS has been updated. | ||
| 48 | Question | Section I, Contract Clauses, FAR 52.208-9 | Per FAR 52.208-9 -- Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of Supply or Services, and as prescribed in 8.005 Contract Clause: in solicitations and contracts that require a contractor to provide supplies or services for Government use that are on the Procurement List maintained by the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. The contracting officer shall identify in the contract schedule the supplies or services that shall be purchased from a mandatory source and the specific source. Request the Government identify the mandatory sources of supply or services. |
| Answer | Clause 52.208-9 removed. | ||
| 49 | Question | Section 3.2, Planning | This section states that contractors shall assist and support ammunition requirements. Please explain what the government means by "ammunition requirements." All other references to ammunition within the PWS refer to blank ammunition. Does this requirement imply the contractor will store live ammunition? Does this mean the contractor will have to transport live ammunition? |
| Answer | The contractor will not be responsible to store live ammunition nor transport live ammunition. | ||
| 50 | Question | Annex B | Annex B provides a definition for Live Fire Exercise (LFX) and refers to an opportunity to use LFX. Does the Government intend or envision issuing TOs to support live fire exercises under this contract? |
| Answer | The Government does not envision issuing TOs to support live fire exercises. | ||
| 51 | Question | Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form, A.1 | In section A.1 the Government refers to "Task Order (TO) 0001." Does the Government intend to award the Sample Task Order as TO 0001? |
| Answer | Elements of the Sample Task Order will appear in Task Order 0001. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .