DIL_Final_RFP_Consolidated_Industry_Questions_and_Government_Responses_8OCT19.xlsx

Sheet1

RFP L.2.8 Does the Government want the Volume title on the CD/DVD Case for each volume as well? If not, that would contradict L.2.5 Yes. RFP Paragraphs L.2.5 and L.2.8 have been modified.

RFP L.2.8 and L.3.1 To clarify, for the Management and Technical Volumes:

-No cover page is allowed with offeror name and/or logo?

-No offeror name and/or logo in the header or footer?

-The offeror cannot refer to themselves or their subs by name anywhere within those volumes? (This will be extremely limiting when trying to articulate management and technical approach) -The offeror cannot include their name and/or logo or those of their subs on any graphics, including organization charts? A cover page shall not be submitted.

RFP Paragraphs L.2.8 and L.3.1 have been modified.

The restriction regarding logos, pictures, etc., has been eliminated.

RFP L.2.8 and L.3.1 Can the offeror include a cover letter/letter of transmission, with company name and logo, with the package of DVDs submitted to the Government? No. Offerors shall not submit a cover letter.

RFP L.1.1 and RFP Section K 52.204-8 (a)(2) New SBA Size standards released 19 August increase size standard for NAICS 541513 to $30M. Will that size standard be recognized for this solicitation? Yes. Clause 52.204-8 has been updated.

RFP L.3.2.1 With only one volume per DVD (as required by L.2.8), and submissions only allowed by mail or hand delivery, why do they need to be compressed (zipped)? This would seem to introduce unnecessary effort and risk to both offeror and the Government. Could compression be an option? Yes. Compression is already an option.

Offerors are encouraged to read RFP Paragraph L.3.2.1 in its entirety.

RFP L.7.1 The requirements seem to indicate that the cost proposal will consist of a completed attachment 7, an additional workbook with cost element breakdown, and a document with assumptions and profit explanations and professional compensation plan and other narrative data.

1. Is this correct?

2. Can we submit just one workbook by adding spreadsheets to attachment 7 for Breakdown of cost elements that populate existing spreadsheets in the attachment, as long as we do not alter format or formulas in the existing attachment spreadsheets?

2. Can a single Word doc be used for assumptions and profit explanation and professional compensation plan and accounting system info and other narrative data? RFP Paragraph L.7.1 has been modified.

An offeror must provide all required information. How it is presented (one document or several documents) is the offeror's decision.

RFP L.7.4.6 Should L.7.4.6 be L.7.5 and subsequent paragraphs (L.7.4.76 thru L.7.4.12) be similarly renumbered as they are not part of L.7.4.5 Subcontracts? The RFP Paragraph numbers identified in Volume IV - Cost/Price have been renumbered and language has been added.

RFP L.6.3.5 and L.6.3.7 Both sections indicate that a list of who the offeror sent past performance questionnaires to must be included as an attachment to volume II section 6. Why can't this list simply be included in section 5 of volume 3? It is only a table and there is no content in section 5? Offerors shall follow the RFP instructions for submissions.

RFP L.3.6.7 The referenced section states that offerors shall "submit a list of all recent contracts (prime and major subcontractors) which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.".

1. Does this mean any effort where the work performed was similar in nature to the DIL SOW, regardless of size and scope?

2. Is a list required from major subcontractors too? Offerors are encouraged to read RFP Paragraph L.6 in its entirety.

For question 1, reference is made to the last sentence in RFP paragraph L.6 and the definitions for Recent and Relevant at RFP Paragraph L.6.1.

For question 2, Yes. All information required for the Prime is also required for each major subcontractor.

RFP L.6 Does the prime offeror only submit sections 1 and 2 for each contract submitted as past performance? Offerors are encouraged to read RFP Paragraph L.6 in its entirety.

Refer to the first paragraph in RFP Paragraph L.6.1. Past Performance Definitions.

RFP L.6 Are all Contract Descriptions and Performance Narratives submitted by major subcontractors to be provided under section 3 of volume 3, following the prime offeror's identification of the sub, the work they will perform, and their corporate data? No. The information required in Sections 1 and 2 must also be submitted in those Sections for each major subcontractor. The requirement in Section 3 is additional information.

Attachment 9 Is it acceptable for offerors to include a note in the header of the form to indicate who the prime offeror is on the DIL proposal to help ensure the completed questionnaire is properly attributed? Yes.

L.1.3 Attachment 6 - DIL PWS Reference. Where is this completed form to be placed in the proposal?

Attachment 6 has been modified.

Factor 1 - Management shall be included in the Management Volume and Factor 2- Technical shall be included in the Technical Volume.

L.1.3 Attachment 6 - DIL PWS Reference. Coluimn D, is it acceptbale to list multiple proposal sections? Yes. Listing multiple proposal sections in column D is acceptable.

L.1.3 Attachment 6 - DIL PWS Reference. The header indicates this attachment is for use in the STOC II proposal? Sugggest removing or editing The header on Attachment 6 has been removed.

W900KK-19-R-0010, L.6.3.7. Section 6 – Attachments, Page 46 RFP states: "Note: The letters of consent, teaming arrangements, and commitments shall be included in Section 6 – attachments."

Questions:

1) Should Section 6 Attachments be provided as one separate document?

OR

2) Should each piece of Section 6 (i.e. Copies of cure notices, List of POCs, Team Arrangements, Written consent) be provided as individual separate documents?

OR

3) Should these be provided as Appendices to the volume (and provided within the same volume/file)? All applicable information in Volume III, Section 6 - Attachments, shall be submitted/provided as described in RFP Paragraph L.6.3.7.

The information may be in whichever format the Offeror desires, as long as it is clearly labeled so that the Government can understand and evaluate the information.

W900KK-19-R-0010, Section L.6.3.3, Section 3 - Subcontracts, Page 45 This section states "As an attachment to Volume III, the Offeror shall submit a list of all recent contracts (prime and major subcontractors) which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. This list shall include the appropriate Government Technical and Contracting POC’s email address and phone number; or, if submitted as a subcontractor, the Prime’s POC details."

Question: Is this a list of contracts to include what is already provided in the Past Performance volume OR is this list to be those contracts provided PLUS any other contracts that are in excess of the limit for the volume (3 for Prime and 2 for each major sub)? Please clarify. The list is the same as identified in Section 1 - Contract Description and Section 2 - Performance Narrative. Refer to RFP Paragraph L.6.3.5.

W900KK-19-R-0010, Section L.2, Proposal Submission Requirements, Pages 41 -50 The instructions do not state requirements for file name conventions (i.e., DIL_Volume 1…..). Are the file names up to the discretion of Offerors? The file name should correspond to the volume title.

W900KK-19-R-0010, Section L.2.8, Page 42 of 55 RFP states:

The Management and Technical Volumes contents within (pages, including appendices, Table of Contents, Title Pages, Glossary, Dividers/Tabs, Blank pages, etc., 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 (except for resumes and letters of commitment).

Question:

Can the Letters of commitment contain the offeror's (prime, or subcontractor) name and logo in the header of the commitment letter? RFP Paragraph L.2.8 has been modified.

The restriction regarding logos, pictures, etc., has been eliminated.

W900KK-19-R-0010, Section L.1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION The solicitation Closing Date and time is listed as October 15, 2019. Since that day is the day after a Federal holiday (Monday October 14 is Columbus Day), this will require Offerers to ship the proposal NLT Friday October 11 for guaranteed delivery by October 15 since Government offices will be closed on Monday October 14, in essence shortening the response time by four days. Will the government extend the due date a few days to Thursday October 17? The proposal due date and time has been extended to October 23, 2019, 9:00 AM, local time Orlando, FL

W900KK-19-R-0010, Section L.2.8 This section dictates requirements specifically for the Technical and Mangement volumes, but does not state whether company information and logos can be included on the covers and inside Volume III (Past Performance), Volume IV (Cost), and Volume V (Admininstrative). Please advise if Offerors can use their company names and logos for the Prime and subcontractors inside of these volumes. RFP Paragraph L.2.8 has been modified.

The restriction regarding logos, pictures, etc., has been eliminated.

Attachment_9_DIL_Past_Performance_Questionnaire In Attachment_9_DIL_Past_Performance_Questionnaire, Part IV - For the sub questions in the tables under Questions 1 - 5, what rating are the respondents to use? Are they to use a numbering system (i.e. 1-5) or are they to pick one from the "Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, N/A" list? The instructions are not clear on that. Attachment 9 has been modified.

PWS, Page 23, Table 1.MCIS Training Requirement Electronic Warfare Planning Management Tool (EWPMT) was added as a MCIS on the RFP and had not been on the DRFP or any of the Draft PWSs. As an emerging application residing in the Command Post Computing Environment, upon award, the DIL prime contractor should be prepared to support this MCIS, however to require both the Operator & Maintainer and System Administrator to be Formally Trained and/or Certified is a pretty significant change between the Draft and Final RFP.

Would the Government consider that since this is an emerging system with multiple assessment criteria issues requiring resolution, that the training and experience requirement be changed for both the "Operator & Maintainer" and "System Administrator" to only "Recent" (two years experience in the last five years)? The US Army recently began fielding (2015) and very few individuals would have "Relevant" experience (5 years) or be formally trained and/or certified, "FC". Please refer to the Inside Defense magazine article dated August 19, 2019, "The service is currently fielding the third capability drop of Increment 1 of the EWPMT, the Army's software-intensive tool for commanders to plan, control and manage the electromagnetic spectrum." Offerors are encouraged to read PWS Paragraph 4.4 in its entirety.

On the job training is acceptable per definition for "Formal Training and/or Certification”. On the job training can be performed by EWPMT personnel from PEO EIWS or Offeror personnel. Five years of experience is not required.

RFP, page 45, Section L.6.2 Will the govenment consider eliminating the requirement to provide the Administrative Contracting Officer contact information on past performance contract descriptions? If the Procuring Contracting Officer and Technical Representative (COR) contact info are provided we would hope that would be sufficient. The requirement for information on the Administrative Contracting Officer will remain.

RFP, page 43, Section L.5.1.2 Since the government is asking for the offeror to "describe how their processes align and work with the Army COE inititives, published COE schedules, AIC, and the internal processes and structures in the CTSF in Fort Hood , TX......." would the government provide a document or documentation that describes the CTSF's internal processes and structures in an ammendment. Otherwise the incumbent (or the team the incumbent joins) is the only one that has access to this information and it puts the remainder of offerors at a clear disadvantage and stifles fair competition. RFP Paragraph L.5.1.2 and Attachment 6 have been modified.

RFP, L.7.4., Page 48 Numbering on Volume V appears to be off - Section L.7.4. outlines the elements prime offerors are to include for Subs. It appears L.7.4.6 - L.7.4.12 should not be included in this section. Please clarify. The RFP Paragraph numbers identified in Volume IV - Cost/Price have been renumbered and language has been added.

RFP Attachment 7 Attachment 7, Cell I39 does not appear to calculate the price to extend services. Please verify that the price to extend services will be calculated at ½ CLIN 4002 and added to the other price elements at Cell I39. Attachment 7 has been modified.

CDRL A003 CDRL A003 – Contractors Progress Status and Management Report (CPSMR) … CPSMR DID DI-MGMT-80227 requires under content “any costs incurred for the rating period and total contractual expenditures” and “cost curves showing actual and projected conditions”. Question – Given the FFP nature of the primary CLINS on the contract request that any reports for costs incurred and cost curves be limited to “COST” type CLINS only. The CDRL applies to Travel and ODC which are Cost type CLINs.

CDRL A004 CDRL A004 – Title of the CDRL appears to be incorrect. Data Item Description references “Status Government Furnished Equipment”; CDRL title is “Contract Invoicing and Payment Report (CIPR)”. Please verify intent and nomenclature of the CDRL. CDRL A004 has been modified.

Attachment 7 Cost Breakdown, Cell H10 totals the entire column. We believe that Cell H10 should sum the subtotal and profit (H8+H9). Please verify. Attachment 7 has been modified.

RFP, Section L.2.8 and L.4.1, Page 44 and Section M 3.4, Page 52 Given that key personnel themselves are not evaluated but rather their qualifications, recommend the Government revise Section L.2.8 and L.4.1 to require a redacted resume that shall omit current company information and the key personnel’s first/last name throughout the resume. This would ensure unbiased review of all key personnel candidate information. RFP Paragraph L.2.8 has been modified.

The restriction regarding logos, pictures, etc., has been eliminated.

RFP, Section L.6.3.5., Page 46 This section requires offerors to ask the POCs who receive the Past Performance Questionnaires to complete "Part II" of the Questionnaire, however, in the Questionnaire the respondents actually need to complete Parts II through VI. Please correct or clarify the instructions Offerors are to relay to the POCs who will be asked to complete these questionnaires. RFP Paragraph L.6.3.5 has been modified.

RFP, Section L.8.2, Page 49 It is unclear what the Government means by: "shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in Volume V" - please clarify. RFP Paragraph L.8.2 from the original RFP has been deleted and the following paragraph has been renumbered. In addition, language in the new L.8.2 has been modified.

RFP The RFP does not mention an acronym list. Please confirm an acronym list will not count against page count. Offerors shall identify all acronyms in the glossary. A separate acronym list shall not be submitted.

RFP For the acronym list, should it be a master list or should each volume have its own acronym list? Where and to what volume should an acronym list be submitted with the proposal? A separate acronym list shall not be submitted. Offerors shall identify the acronyms in the glossary of each Volume.

RFP Section L.6.2.2 (pg 45) Government contracting activity states we need to include current address. Will the gov consider removing this requirement as it is not requested for TPOC/COR or GCA/ACO? RFP Paragraph L.6.2.2 has been modified.

RFP Section L.2.6 (pg 41) Can the government clarify what constitutes a "blank space between paragraphs?" Is 6pt between pargraphs sufficient space? RFP paragraph L.2.6 has been modified.

Attachment_1_DIL_PWS_12SEP2019, Section 4.4, Table 1, Page 23 Noting that Electronic Warfare Planning Management Tool (EWPMT) is in extremely limited use outside of the DIL, and that Simulation Stimulator System (SISTIM) is apparently used only in the DIL, and in the spirit of allowing competition, would the Government consider modifying the requirement to allow MCIS staff to be trained and certified on these two products with on-the-job training? Offerors are encouraged to read PWS Paragraph 4.4 in its entirety.

On the job training is acceptable per definition for "Formal Training and/or Certification”. On the job training can be performed by EWPMT personnel from PEO EIWS or Offeror personnel.