DIL_DRFP_Consolidated_QA_FINAL_12_SEP_2019.XLSX
XLSX spreadsheet 37 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Digital Integration Laboratory (DIL)
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-19-R-0010
About this file
This document contains answers to industry questions on a draft request for proposal for Digital Integration Laboratory services. The solicitation seeks proposals for technical and management support of the Digital Integration Laboratory and Central Technical Support Facility. Key requirements include integrating Mission Command Information Systems, supporting software development and integration initiatives, and Army Interoperability Certification testing. The incumbent contractor provides these services. The summary addresses staffing, security clearances, resume and commitment letter submissions, past performance references, and clarifies labor categories, period of performance, and travel estimates.
Consolidated Q&A
View the file
Other files
Show all 24
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
| DIL Draft RFP Consolidated Questions and Answers | ||
| Relates To: (RFP or Attachment #/Section #/Page # | Question/Comment | Government's Response |
| The PWS, page 10, 1.6.10 | A contractor agreement to assign “ALL” Key Personnel whose positions/personnel submitted as part of the proposal could be viewed as non-competitive, not offer the government the smoothest path of transition or least of paths of disruptions. Understanding E.O. 13495 does not apply to professionals on DIL, recommend an additional period of identification (transition) of current “ALL Key and non-key contractor incumbent personnel” with the opportunity to maintain positions. This is particularly true for the key personnel requirements of 14 days at 100% staffing given the Security, training, and transition time necessary to ensure incumbents are properly onboarded and rebadged. Will the Government insert a clause to establish a “reasonable and realistic timeline” during this phase-in of an approved incumbent certified contractor’s list of displaced employees by seniority to successor contractor from incumbent Transition-Out Plan, Transition of Key Personnel? This request reasonably ensures displaced incumbents are provided with opportunity, “First Right of Refusal”, and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO). Current incumbents being aware of opportunity and being provided a reasonable timeline for transition to include “First Right of Refusal”, allows for the least disruption to the delivery of services, during a period of transition between contractors and provides DIL review, approval, and benefits of a workforce currently familiar with DIL personnel, facilities and requirements. Recommend contractor naming personnel by labor category and name at conclusion of transition period to COR. | The awardee shall have each key personnel proposed on board and fully engaged during the 60 day transition period. PWS Paragraph 1.6.8 - Post Award Conference has been revised. |
PWS, Page 11, b) SIMCI Architect SIMCI Definition as written, is too specific, or narrow, concluding the government does not want a competitive environment targeting the qualifications of a singular person or the only two at Ft Hood, Texas with experience of combined MCIS experience with CTSF HW/SW architecture versus a competitive environment of current, operational, strategic, Officers, Warrant Officers or Senior Non-Commisioned Officers ( i.e., a qualified SIMCI Architect that has executed significant Battle Management network architecture for Digital Training Tables (DTTs), or Global Simulation Capability (GSC), or MRF-WARSIM, or Mission Training Complexes (MTC), or U.S. Army Combined Arms Center-Training (CAC-T), SIM/STIM, or MC information Systems would qualify?) Recommend removing specificity to CTSF to be competitive (i.e., Network connectivity of training enablers that allows integrated vertical and horizontal training and reach (field training areas, simulation ranges, other MTCs, CTCs, Foundry, deployed forces, Centers of Excellence /schools). The definition for SIMCI Architect has been revised. Reference PWS Paragraph 1.6.10.1 - Definition of Key Personnel.
PWS, Page 11, c) Technical Liasion definition Technical Liasion Definition as written, is too specific, or narrow, concluding, concluding the government does not want a competitive environment and wants a that of a singular person, or the only one at Ft Hood,Texas with experience qualifications with “current” technical expertise of combined Army Interoperability Certified and MCIS experience within the CTSF for the last (5) years? Recommend removing specificity of CTSF to be competitive and including the technical job qualifications needed to accomplish the job versus that of a person to open up for competitiveness within the last five years. The definition for Technical Liasion has been revised. Reference PWS Paragraph 1.6.10.1 - Definition of Key Personnel.
| Q-PWS, Page 24, RRC: | Relevant, Recent, and Formal Training. The U.S. Army's Formal Training definition, for clarification; Request to strike the definition of formal training and consider utilizing certification as previously written. IAW AR 350-1, Formal training is defined as a scheduled training event through ATTRS that is generally classroom based having an objective of teaching a specific skill that results in a Soldiers understanding and mastering the fundamental concepts of the skill. This definition also is in alignment with TRADOC Regulation 350-70 , Combined Arms Center and TRADOC CFL for leader development, education, lessons learned, doctrine, training development, training support, and functional training. CAC is the proponent for Army analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE), and executes Mission Command CoE proponent responsibilities. CAC also develops and integrates doctrine as well as Army training and education across all cohorts in support of Sustainable Readiness. CAC validates and prioritizes course growth requirements within TRADOC pertaining to both professional military education (PME) and functional training to provide the operating force with trained and ready Soldiers and Army Civilians with efficient management of resources. |
| PWS Paragraph 4.4 - Operations, Maintenance and System Administration, has been revised to include Certification and its definition. |
| Attachment_9_û_Past_Performance_Questionnaire | In Part I, if data overfills the text box frames in the Past Performance questionnaire, the field will move past the text on the left column, thereby causing a misalignment of information. An example is the field for "i. Scope of Effort." (A suggestion is to change to a table layout, allowing extra data to automatically increase the size of the cell.) | |
| Question: Will the government be posting an updated form in the Final RFP? | Attachment 9 - Past Performance Questionnaire, has been revised. |
| W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation, section L.2.6, page 43 | REQUIREMENTS state that "Tables shall be 12-point font and may be landscape. Illustrations (e.g. images or diagrams) shall use a font size of no less than 12-point and may be landscape." | |
| Question: Will the Government allow a minimum font size of 10 for tables, illustrations, and figures? | Yes. The Government will allow no smaller than font 10 for tables, illustrations, and figures. |
| W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation, section L.2.8, page 43 | REQUIREMENTS state that "The Management and Technical Volumes CD/DVDs and contents within (pages, including appendices, Table of Contents, Title Pages, Glossary, Dividers/Tabs, Blank pages throughout the digital copies of the Management and Technical Volumes of the proposal) shall not contain company logos and/or names, pictures or any information that indicates the company’s identification or personnel." | |
| Question: Is the offeror required to redact the employee names from the resumes AND the letters of commitment for each key personnel? | Resumes or Letters of Commitment shall not be redacted. |
W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation, pages 42, 44 L.2.5. states "Each volume shall be submitted in Microsoft Office 2013.
L.3.1. Format states that "All files on each CD/DVD shall be in Microsoft Office 2013 and Adobe Acrobat Reader (PDF)."
Question: Can all Volume files, with the exception of the Volume IV Cost/Price Excel file, be submitted in Adobe .pdf format? Or are both Microsoft Office 2013 and Adobe pdf formats required for each volume (other than Cost/Price Excel file)? Volumes I - IV shall be submitted in Microsoft Office 2013. Volume V may have Microsoft Office 2013 with Acrobat PDF. Reference RFP paragraph L.2.5 for revision.
W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation, section L.3.1., page 44 Per L.3. VOLUME I - Factor 1: Management Factor, Question: Can the resumes be excluded from the page count? Yes. Resumes are excluded from the page count.
| Attachment_1_DIL_PWS, section 4.4, page 23 | In Section 4.4, Table 1, the terms "RR", and "RRFT" are used within the table. The Legend dfines "RR" and "RRC" but does not define "RRFT". | |
| Request for Clarification: Please provide a definition for "RRFT". | PWS Paragraph 4.4 - Operations, Maintenance and System Administration, has been revised to include the definition for RRFT. |
| W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation | There are several places where text is less than normal spacing and therefore, letters are squeezed together or overlaying each other. (i.e. Sections. L.1, L.2.1, etc.). | |
| Question: Can the government correct these issues in the final RFP, so that all informaiton is legible? | Edits made. |
| W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation, Section J, page 29 | Exhibit A was not provided with the Draft RFP. | |
| Question: Will the Government please provide so Offerors can review and provide feedback? | The CDRLs were uploaded to FBO on August 13, 2019. |
| W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation, pages 13, 26, 49; Attachment_1_DIL_PWS, page 7 | The six month option is mentioned in Section B (CLIN 4007), Section K (Page 26), and Section L.6.1 (Page 49). However, this six month extention is not included in Attachment 1, Draft DIL PWS. | |
| Request for Clarification: Please clarify discrepancy. | PWS Paragraph 1.5 Period of Performance, has been revised to reflect the potential additional six months. CLIN 4007 has been deleted since a separate CLIN is not required to extend the services up to six months. |
| W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation; Attachment_1_DIL_PWS | Section J references Attachment 1, with the file name "Draft DIL_PWS_20190611v1"; However, Attachment 1 provided with the Draft RFP package has a different name "Attachment_1_DIL_PWS" and a date of 31 July 2019. | |
| Request for Clarification: Please clarify which PWS is to be referenced for our proposal. | The file name has been updated to correspond with the name of the PWS. |
| W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation, page 39 | The table in Section L states "Proposal Validity: 180 days after final RFP", but Section L.1 on the same page states " The proposal shall be valid for 180 calendar days from date of initial proposal submission." | |
| Request for Clarification: Please clarify. | The table in RFP paragraph L.1 has been revised to 180 calendar days. |
| W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation, page 44 | Section L.3 is duplicated on page 44 for both "Proposal Files" and "Volume I - Factor 1 - Management Factor". | |
| Request for Clarification: Request for updated numbering in Final RFP so Offerors can cite the correct references where need be. | Final RFP numbering has been corrected. |
W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation, page 44 The Numbered items in L.4. state L.4., L.4.1., L.5.1.1, L.5.1.2, which seems to be an incorrect sequence. Please clarify/correct the numbering. Final RFP numbering has been corrected.
W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation, Section L.3.1, Page 44 Will the Government allow resumes and letters of commitment to be exluded from page count? Resumes are excluded from the page count.
| W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation, page 51 | Per Section L.7.1, "….Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP." | |
| Question: Since Offerors are not to modify the file, shall Offerors include the entire RFP with only those sections filled in, as an attachment to Volume V? | "Without modification to the file" does not mean documents cannot be extracted. Offerors shall only submit the SF33 and the applicable reps, certs and other statements. |
| W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL Solicitation, page 54 | Both M.3.3 Volume I, Factor 1: Management and M.3.4 Volume II, Factor 2: Technical state: "The Government will evaluate the adequacy and feasibility (as defined in M.3.2.1 & M.3.2.2).." M.3.2.1 and M.3.2.2 do not exist in the RFP. | |
| Request for Clarification: Please clarify these references. | Final RFP numbering has been corrected. |
| W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL PWS, page 25 | Para. 4.8.2 Cybersecurity Artifacts in PWS implies that contract would be performing this function, however during industry day it was stated that this function would was performed and would continue to perform by the government. | |
| Question: So is this function going to be perfromed by contract? | Cybersecurity support functions are conducted by the awardee per PWS paragraph 4.8.2 - Cybersecurity Artifacts. |
W900KK-19-R-0010_DIL PWS, page 43 Page limits are listed in the table on page 43 of 57 for Volume III Past Performance Section 1-5. Question: Are these page limits per contract reference or per section? Page limits for Sections 1-4, identified in RFP paragraph L.2.7 at Table 1 for Volume III- Past Perfomance, are per contract.
| RFP M.3.3. and M.3.4, p. 54 | |
| Reference is made on this page three times to "Sections M.3.2.1 and M.3.2.2". | |
| Comment: These Sections do not exist. | Final RFP numbering has been corrected. |
| PWS 4.4 (Vol II, Factor II, Technical), p. 23 | “The Contractor shall maintain MCIS qualified staff capable of operating, maintaining, and administering, at a minimum, the MCIS listed in Table I below: …." | |
| Question: The above-referenced PWS Section (4.4) is dedicated to staff qualifications. Can this be addressed in Volume I, Management, in which the requirements include “qualifications of key personnel” instead of in Volume II, Technical? | PWS paragraph 4.4 - Operations, Maintenance and System Administration, discusses both staff qualifications and technical functions. Oferrors shall propose per the instructions identified in Section L. |
L.4.1., p. 45 L.4.1 The volume shall be organized into the following sections:
L.5.5.1 Subfactor 2.1. Mission Command Information Systems Capabilities. …. L.5.5.2 Subfactor 2.2. Simulation to Mission Control Interoperability (SIMCI) and Interoperability Testing / Certification...
Comment: Headings are misnumbered.
Final RFP numbering has been corrected.
L.2.7, p. 43 "*Table of Contents, Title Pages, Glossary, Divider/Blank Pages, Teaming Arrangements, Letters of Commitment, and PWS References (Section J, Attachment 6) are excluded from the page count."
Questions:
| a) | We note LOCs are excluded from page count. Are resumes also excluded? | |
| b) | What does the asterisk (*) before "Table of Contents" denote? Is there supposed to be a footnote? | Final RFP removes asterisks and excludes resumes from the page count. |
Attachment 1 - DIL PWS , Section 1.6.6.1, Page 8 and Section 2.1, Page 19. Please Clarify "Only those prime and subcontractor personnel who require access to classified information shall have a valid SECRET personnel security clearance." against "....The Contractor shall provide a Secret-US clearance for each on-site employee prior to being granted network access." PWS paragraphs 1.6.6.1 - Facility and Personnel Security Clearance and 2.1 - Facilities, have been revised to clarify on-site lab personnel.
Attachment 1 - DIL PWS Section, Section 1.6.10.1 Definition of Key Personnel, Page 11 Please Clarify that all MCIS Staff members required to staff the three simulataneous integration/test events, utilizing the all MCIS Systems shown in Table I. on page 23 and page 24, are each considered Key Personnel. Event Reference: "Ensure sufficient qualified MCIS staff is in place to support 3 simultaneous Integration events comprised of 1 small, 1 medium, and 1 large event (small < 3 MCIS; medium 3-7 MCIS; large >8 < 13 MCIS)." It is the oferror's responsibility to determine the appropriate staffing strategy to sucessfuly execute required test events.
Attachment 1 - DIL PWS Section, Section 1.6.10.1 Definition of Key Personnel, Page 11 and Paragraph 4.1.2 – Page 21 Please Clarify: Does there need to be a SIMCI Architect at both CTSF – FT Hood and DIL - Orlando or just one SIMCI Architect total (located @ Hood primarily)? Reference PWS Paragraph 4.1.2 - CTSF-Ft. Hood, TX.
| The PWS, page 10, 1.6.10 | Comment: This text from the PWS, "In order to efficiently and effectively fulfill the requirements of the DIL effort, the contractor agrees to assign to the contract those persons identified as Key Personnel whose positions/personnel qualifications were submitted as part of the contractor’s proposal" could be viewed by DCMA, GAO, and industry offerors as setting the conditions for a non-competitive solicitation, not offer the government the smoothest path to transition, and prevent incumbent key personnel from being re-hired if the winning offeror does not propose incumbents. This is particularly true for the key personnel requirements of 14 days at 100% staffing given the Security, training, and transition time necessary to ensure incumbents are properly on boarded and rebadged. Question: Will the Government insert a requirement for the offeror to propose and support a “reasonable and realistic timeline” during the phase-in period of approved incumbent Key Personnel for the incumbent's Transition-Out Plan and the successor contractor's Transition of Key Personnel plan so the winning offeror can make a reasonable attempt to hire incumbents for the contract ? |
| PWS Paragraphs 1.6.8 - Post Award Conference and 1.6.15 - Phase-In Period, have been revised. |
| PWS, Page 11, b) SIMCI Architect | Comment: The SIMCI Definition as written is too specific, or narrow. This wording creates an unfair advantage for the incumbent workforce and prevents the government from evaluating proposed key personnel based capability, but more on matching the current qualifications and experience of the incumbent employee for this position. Targeting the qualifications of a singular person at Ft Hood, Texas with combined MCIS experience and CTSF HW/SW architecture versus looking competitively for current, operational, strategic, candidates who are qualified SIMCI Architects that have significant experience with Battle Management network architecture for Digital Training Tables (DTTs), or Global Simulation Capability (GSC), or MRF-WARSIM, or Mission Training Complexes (MTC), or U.S. Army Combined Arms Center-Training (CAC-T), SIM/STIM, or MC information Systems provides an unfair advantage for the offeror that proposes the current SIMCI Architect at Fort Hood, TX for the PEO STRI DIL. This is most-likely the incumbent who has teamed with a qualifying small business. | |
| Question: will the government consider removing "CTSF" from the SIMCI Architect relevancy description and allow the offeror to describe their proposed candidate's "(7) or more years of combined Modeling and Simulation (M&S) and Mission Command Information Systems (MCIS) experience with current US Army Battle Command HW/SW architecture? | The definition for SIMCI Architect has been revised. Reference PWS Paragraph 1.6.10.1 - Definition of Key Personnel. |
| PWS, Page 11, c) Technical Liasion definition | Comment: The Technical Liasion experience as written is too specific, or narrow to foster a fair competition and evaluation of qualified key personnel. The way the requirement for relevancy for this psoition is written is very specific to a singular person versus a capability. The only person with the experience, qualifications and “current” technical expertise in Army Interoperability Certification (AIC) and MCIS experience within the CTSF for the last (5) years is the current incumbent employee. | |
| Question: Will the government remove the specific requirement of expereince and expetise in "AIC and MCIS within the CTSF"? To be an open and fair evaluation of the key personnel qualifications and experience we recommend including the technical job qualifications needed to accomplish the job. Will the government consider this edit for the Technical Liaison's relevant and recent expereince and capability, "Technical Liasion - qualified with recent and relevant experience. “Relevant" is defined as seven (7) or more years of experience with AIC and configuration management dealing with MCIS software baselines. "Recent" is defined as at least two (2) years of experience with the Mission Command Information Systems used for current Army Mission Command Exercises and in Deployed Army Tactical Operations Centers within the past five (5) years. | The definition for Technical Liasion has been revised. Reference PWS Paragraph 1.6.10.1 - Definition of Key Personnel. |
RFP pg. 43 Section L.2.6 Will the Government consider allowing use of Times New Roman font in addition to Arial? Arial font is the only authorized font.
RFP pg. 43 Section L.2.6 Will the Government consider allowing smaller than 12 point font in illustrations? Yes. The Government will allow no smaller than font 10 for tables, illustrations, and figures.
RFP Page 44 L3 There are two Sections named L.3 (Proposal Files and Volume I). Please clarify section numbering. Final RFP numbering has been corrected.
RFP page 54, M.3.3 and M.3.4, Subfactor 2.1 and 2.2 References to Section M.3.2.1 & M.3.2.2 are made, but these sections do not exist. Is the correct reference M.1.6.1 and M.1.6.2? Final RFP numbering has been corrected.
RFP page 43, L.2.7, Table 1 and RFP page 44, L.3.1 Vol I - Factor 1: Management. Are resumes required within Vol I, Management included in page count? Resumes are excluded from the page count.
RFP General What is the Funding Profile for this effort? For the base year, the funding profile is FY19 OPA, FY19 RDT&E, FY20 OMA, FY20 OPA and FY20 RDT&E.
RFP page 45; Section L.5.1.b Due to the fact that this is a small business set aside; would the government consider removing the word "magnitude" from the definition of "relevant"? This would still allow the government to evaluate past performace for similar scope and complexity. The definition for "relevant" is from the DoD Source Selection Procedures. For consistency, the word "magnitude" will remain.
RFP Page 13 Is the Option to Extend Service CLIN 4007 included in the Total Evaluated Price? The price to extend services up to six months is included in the Total Evaluated Price (reference RFP paragraph M 3.7 - Volume IV, Factor 4: Cost/Price). CLIN 4007 has been deleted since a separate CLIN is not required to extend the services up to six months.
RFP page 46, Section L.5.2 For each POC in the Contract Descriptions, a fax number is required. The majority of our customers do not use fax machines. Would the Government please consider removing this requirement? The option to state "not applicable" has been added.
RFP page 48, Section L.5.7 This section requires the Offeror to submit a list of all recent contracts which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Because practically all of our contracts require Program Management, Meetings and Reviews, Quarterly Program Management Reviews, cybersecurity and IA, planning and coordination, etc., this list could be quite long. Does the Government want Offerors to focus on key areas of the PWS or the entire PWS when building this list? Reference section L. 6. for the maximum number of contracts to be submitted by the prime Offeror and its major subcontractor(s). It is the prime Offeror's responsibility to determine which contract(s) to submit.
RFP, Attachment 6, DIL PWS Reference In row 10 of Factor 2 – Technical, the last column, Proposal Paragraph Number, has a superscript 2. Could the Government please clarify what this refers to? Attachment 6 has been corrected.
Attach 1_PWS/Sect. 1.4/Pg. 6 How many FTE staff per year are in the current contract and is the scope for this opportunity the same as the incumbent contract scope? Offeror's shall propose a staffing strategy to the scope of work defined in the PWS at Attachment 1.
Attach 1_PWS/Sect. 6.1/Technical Exhibit 1/Pg. 32 How do these performance objectives identified in Technical Exhibit 1 translate to the performance criteria evaluated in CPARs reports? Technical Exhibit 1 in the PWS is only one of many tools that the Government uses to assess performance.
PWS section 1.6.12.2 travel planning page 14 Some of the section tables indicate 0 # of people, please clarify PWS paragraph 1.6.12.2 has been revised.
| PWS section 1.6.12.2.4 | ||
| page 14 | The requirement is for 12 people for one annual OCONUS trip. Is this correct? | The number of travelers in PWS paragraph 1.6.12.2 is to estimate labor associated with travel. Since travel requirements cannot be defined before contract award, the Government has provided an estimated cost for each Travel CLIN per year. |
| PWS section 4.8.2 | ||
| page 25 | What is the current status of the DIL's Risk Management Framework? When does the current DIL ATO expire? | Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) annual Review will be on 4 OCT 19. DIL Authority To Operate (ATO) expires on 4 OCT 21. |
| RFP section L.2.8 | |
| Page 43 | Draft RFP para L.2.8. states "The CD/DVD case of each digital copy of each proposal volume shall contain the Offerors name, the solicitation number, the title of the solicitation, the Volume number, and the copy number (i.e., sequentially number the required copies with the original being labeled as Copy No. 1). Company logos and/or names and pictures that identify company identification or personnel shall be used on the CD/DVD case cover only of the Management Volume and not printed on the face of the CD/DVD. The Management and Technical Volumes CD/DVDs and contents within (pages, including appendices, Table of Contents, Title Pages, Glossary, Dividers/Tabs, Blank pages throughout the digital copies of the Management and Technical Volumes of the proposal) shall not contain company logos and/or names, pictures or any information that indicates the company's identification or personnel. The Management and Technical Volumes shall not contain any pictures that identify company personnel or Government personnel." |
This is in direct conflict with Draft para L.3.1 requirement for Management.
"The volume shall be organized as follows: The Offeror shall describe their management approach to execute Army specific Mission Command Information Systems (MCIS) integration support in a secure environment requiring Secret level clearances. The Offeror shall provide a staffing plan and an organizational chart describing their approach to staffing the DIL. The offeror shall provide their plan/process to recruit and train MCIS Staff and SIMCI Architect Key Personnel, including; availability of personnel at start of contract performance; recent and relevant experience; education and/or training; and procedural expertise with the family of MCIS. Offeror shall provide a one page resume and provide letters of commitment for each key personnel supporting the DIL activities at Orlando, FL and CTSF at Ft Hood, TX."
Please clarify RFP paragraph L.2.8 has been revised.
| RFP section L.5.1 | |
| Page 45 | Paragraph states "A Joint Venture (JV) is considered a single entity. If the Offeror is a JV, relevant past performance should be submitted for contracts/efforts completed by the JV entity over the past five years. If the JV does not have shared past performance, at least one (1) relevant contract or effort shall be submitted for each JV partner. No more than five (5) total examples may be submitted." |
If a JV has major subcontactors on their team, are we allowed to submit 5 past performances for the JV and 2 past performances for each major subcontactor to the JV?
Draft RFP paragraph L.5.1. is now RFP paragraph L.6.1 and the language has been revised.
Does the DIL use the Army's P-BUSE system to inventory the GFE? No. Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) is used to inventory the GFE in the DIL.
Reference Paragraph: 1.6.11 Key Personnel Paragraph 1.6.11 Key Personnel of the PWS identifies a Contract Manager as part of the key personnel requirements. In subsequent versions of the PWS released November 14, 2018 and May 9 2019, the position of Contract Manager was removed as a key personnel requirement.
Question: Because a Contract Manager would manage cost, schedule, and oversee the critical technical activities of the DIL, would the Government provide the rationale for removal of the Contract Manager as a key personnel requirement?
Question: Will the position of Contract Manager be included in the solicitation labor categories? PWS paragraph 1.6.10.1 Definition of Key Personnel has been revised to add the Contract Manager as one of the key personnel.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .