Att11-_SOF_RAPTOR_IV_Presolicitation_Conference_Q-and-A-final(30Oct2018).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 47 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SOF RAPTOR IV
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-19-R-0078
About this file
This is a synopsis for the SOF RAPTOR IV solicitation from the U.S. Army PEO STRI PM STS. The solicitation seeks to award a single-award IDIQ contract with a $245M ceiling and 7-year period of performance to provide services and capabilities to USSOCOM and SOF-like OGA organizations. The contract will be set aside for SDVOSBs and have a NAICS code of 541330 and PSC of R. Questions are due by 30 October 2018, with responses incorporated into the final solicitation. The incumbent is SOF RAPTOR III. Services include advanced SOF support requiring tier 1/tier 2 experienced individuals. The contractor must support an IPT including government and subcontractors to facilitate management.
Att11- SOF RAPTOR IV Presolicitation Conference Q-and-A-final(30Oct2018)
View the file
Other files
Show all 42
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
| Category | Reference | Question | Gov Response | Solicitation Reference | Actions | ||
| 1 | Contracts | Sec I pg. 33 52.216-7 subpara | The RFP allows only for the contractor to submit a completion invoice within 120 days (or “longer period” if approved in writing by the Contracting Officer). CPFF orders require a DCAA annual incurred cost audit before a final/completion invoice. This process takes many years. Is 120 days sufficient time to complete this process? How is the contractor expected to comply with this clause? | The requirement to submit rates is required within 120 days. DCAA approval timeline is unrelated (not part of this requirement) | Sec I pg. 33 52.216-7 subpara | No action | |
| 2 | Contracts | Clarify "working at risk"; letter /Notice to proceed | Contractors will not be expected to work at risk. Notice to Proceed may be issued at Contracting Officers discretion to incur a predetermined level of preaward costs before a task order has been finalized. | COL H comments | No action | ||
| 3 | Contracts | If there is a catastrophic failure post award, is there a possibility of going back to your next highest rate best value? | No action taken. There are too many variables to be able to speculate on this at this point. | None | No action | ||
| 4 | Contracts | M.2 | Is the “Best Value Subjective Tradeoff Process” a documented process at PEO STRI? If so, is this document available? | The Subjective Tradeoff is in accordance with FAR 15.204-5(c) and DFARS 215.300 "DOD Source Selection Procedures" | M.2 | Add to M.2 reference for vendor to look up. | |
| 5 | Contracts | 5212-11 | would like clarification of "Liquidated damages" clause; how is this applied to a task order? | Applies to Task Orders are contract awards. No change to reference. | 5212-11 | ||
| 7 | Contracts | Att 1b SECTION 10. Security | |||||
| In paragraphs 10.8 to 10.15, the word “Vendor” was introduced. Is “Vendor” the same as “Contractor”? | In this instance, "vendor" is used interchangeably with "Contractor" | Solicitation | Updated | ||||
| 8 | Contracts | Att 1b SECTION pg 11 | |||||
| On my copy of the SA PWS page 11 is blank. Was that intentional or is there something missing? | page 11 was blank. Blank page deleted | Completed | |||||
| 9 | Contracts | L.3.1 | In our proposal volume, can we reference between subfactors or should each subfactor be written on a stand alone basis? | Each factor/subfactor is standalone / evaluated on its own. | Admin volume | Complete | |
| 10 | Contracts | PM Remarks, | |||||
| Slide 6 | Reference text: "Although it could be (@50% of the work), and has been in the past, SR IV isn't meant to be just a pass-through vehicle. But, we also don't want a bench of 100 capabilities that we have to continually pay for just in case" |
Question: Would the Government explain how it has used the program in the past as a pass-through vehicle?
| SOF RAPTOR III is not a pass through vehicle. As per FAR Clause 52.219-14 - Limitations on Subcontracting: By submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the Offeror/Contractor agrees that in performance of the contract in the case of a contract for -- (1) Services (except construction). At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern. | N/A | N/A | |||||
| 11 | Tech/ACC | “Att9-SOFRAPTORIV-PWS-TO-0001-SetUpPlan” and “Att1d-SOFRAPTORIV-PWS-STO-CRF” are referenced as TO-0001 and TO-001 respectively. Please confirm which TO will be Task Order Number 1 | STO-001 PWS is for Sample TO - CRF. TO 0001 is the Set-up plan and will be the first awarded task order. Setup Plan will be awarded as Task Order 0001 upon contract award. | STS change TO STO x 3 sample task orders (Title and in doc). | |||
| 12 | Tech/ACC | L.4.3.4 | Reference text: To this end, the Offeror shall demonstrate their ability to provide Requirements Analysis, Prototyping, Training, and Operation Rehearsals support to the SOF community. | ||||
| Question: Does the Government plan on conducting site visits so Offerors can demonstrate these abilities? | No | No action | |||||
| 13 | Contracts | NEED TO clarify the gov't "making them whole"? | Misspoke. There is no such concept as "making them whole" | COL H comment | No action | ||
| 14 | Contracts | Des the Gov't anticipate Major changes to the Draft RFP? | Answers to the questions will be incorporated into the final Solicitation. | See Updated RFP to be released | |||
| 15 | Contracts | Purpose, Slide 4 | Reference text: The Government indicated it would, "Answer questions in one-one engagements" | ||||
| Question: Would the Government indicate when it will compile and release those questions and answers so all bidders have equal access to that information? | Answers to the questions will be incorporated into the final Solicitation. | N/A | See Updated RFP to be released | ||||
| 16 | Contracts | Purpose, Slide 4 | Reference text: The Government indicated it would, "Answer questions in open forum" | ||||
| Question: Would the Government indicate when it will compile and release those questions and answers so all bidders have equal access to that information? | Answers to the questions will be incorporated into the final Solicitation. | N/A | See Updated RFP to be released | ||||
| 17 | Contracts | Requested that historical % be shared regarding SOF RAPTOR III scope | Past work not indicative of future work. Will not be included. | N/A | N/A | ||
| 18 | Contracts | Are there contract vehicles the gov't can fall back on to meet SR IV requirements? | Question is unrelated to the SOF RAPTOR IV Source Selection. Generally speaking, the Government has many contract vehicles. | N/A | N/A | ||
| 19 | Recommendation | Would like to see 541179 NAICS (500 employees or less, but not services). | NAICS will remain as is. | N/A | N/A | ||
| 20 | Contracts | Requests ACC add requirement for "non exclusive Teaming agreements" | N/A Govt does not mandate team arrangement in this case. | N/A | N/A | ||
| 21 | Tech | Clarify classification requirement in Labor categories/descriptions; some have it while other don't | It is anticipated that certain labor categories will require clearances, while others may not. | ||||
| 22 | G2 | Is a foreign source acceptable for the STS STO | No, it is not. Government is looking for an American source for this hypothetical Task Order. In the event of an actual Task Order this position could be reconsidered.” | STO-STS | |||
| 23 | Tech/MIS | No Management Information System (MIS) required/mentioned | MIS is not listed as a requirement. | ||||
| 24 | PP/Tech | Clarify how to demonstrate "relevance" in PP and Tech vol | See table M.5.2 | M.5.2 | |||
| 25 | Tech | Ability to submit RMT and AAR from work performed as a JV (who owns it)? Clarify how to get credit in PP for content of a product that one company can't submit because they were part of a JV/not a sole prime or a sub w/100% ownership. | Offeror will only receive credit for work (RMT/AAR) produced organically. Credit will not be given for work done by another entity regardless of relationship, association, affiliation, etc. with offeror. | M4.1.1 | |||
| 26 | Tech | Att 1c SECTION 3.0 | |||||
| In paragraph 3.0, will the STS systems be Government Furnished Property (hand receipted) to the Contractor to maintain? How many devices are there? What are their current locations? | Sample Task Order is notional. See Sample Task Order. | ||||||
| 27 | Tech | Att 1c SECTION 3.9 | |||||
| The current STS set of manuals of the operation and maintenance were not mentioned as Government Furnished Information. Will the Government provide the current STS documentation (manuals, technical publications, parts lists, component failure histories, SW Source code, Software Design, Requirements and Specification Documentation, etc. for patches and updates, etc) to the Contractor? | Sample Task Order is notional. No additional documentation will be provided. | ||||||
| 28 | Tech | Att 1c SECTION 3.12 | |||||
| Concerning the Warranty of the STS. Is the Government requiring the Contractor to Warrant against the STS OEM devices that have been fielded and used in training for 12 months after contract award, or only Warrant the repairs made by the Contractor after contract award? | Sample Task Order is notional. | ||||||
| 29 | Tech | Att 1d SECTION 10.5 pg. 9 | Paragraph 10.5 requires the Contractor to submit an OPSEC SOP Plan within 90 calendar days of contract award. No reference to a deliverable CDRL or DID was provided. Was this an oversite or was Contractor’s Format acceptable? | Sample Task Order is notional. | |||
| 30 | Tech | PWS | For each of the Sample Task Orders, a CDRL exhibit is expected identifying the required deliveries. Without this information, accurate pricing of the effort will be impossible. Will CDRL exhibits be made available for the formal RFP? | Sample Task Order is notional. | |||
| 31 | Tech | Clarify "SOF Like" | See SOF RAPTOR PWS | SOF RAPTOR PWS Par. 1 (Scope) | |||
| 32 | Tech | Clarify Facilities requirement; what would be of value | Offeror is responsible for fully supporting all training requirements including physical infrastructure where applicable. | ||||
| 33 | Tech | Clarify Proposing an existing CRF RMT vs developing one, for the purpose of proposing | RMT must be historical, organically produced, and unedited. | M4.1.1.1 | |||
| 34 | Tech | Clarify "SOF Like" for Other agencies; is that acceptable? | See SOF RAPTOR PWS | SOF RAPTOR PWS Par. 1 (Scope) | |||
| 35 | Tech | Questioning Offerors ability to provide an unedited RMT/AAR, which may be thousands of pages and hundreds of hours of video? | RMT/AAR must be historical, organically produced, and unedited. | ||||
| 36 | Tech | How will the gov't confirm submitted RMTs/AAR are unedited and original? | Confirmed through Government sources | ||||
| 37 | Tech | Consider requiring Offerors to demonstrate ability to provide logistics in various environments (OCONUS, Contingency, large scare footprint, etc.) | See source selection documents | ||||
| 38 | Tech | Edit out/correct "USASOC" Ref from RFP | See source selection documents | ||||
| 39 | Tech | Clarify proposing PP against the STOs as well as the Base Scope of the contract | Offeror can propose against the base PWS also | ||||
| 40 | Tech | How does the Gov't plan on evaluating innovation? | There is no reference to “innovation” in the solicitation. | N/A | |||
| 41 | Tech | Clarify where the exercises are to take place (locations of the STOs) | See updated source selection documents | Updated in relevant STO | |||
| 42 | Tech | L.5Q | Clarify relevance to both the PWS & the STO's; to help Offerors focus | See source selection sections "L" & "M" | |||
| 43 | Tech | Clarify costing/pricing of STS STO | Specific budget constraints are not provided for the STS STO. | ||||
| 44 | Tech | Address Intellectual property protection for STS STO | Sample Task Order is notional. | ||||
| 45 | Tech | Recommends the RMT/AAR to come from the Prime | See source selection documents | ||||
| 46 | Tech | Recommends a phased proposal approach with limited turn-a-round time | See source selection documents | ||||
| 47 | Tech | How will innovation be evaluated in the STS STO? This is vague and hard to define and distinguish | There is no reference to “innovation” in the solicitation. | ||||
| 48 | Tech | Suggests prioritizing objectives of STS STO by cost, time to field, technical risk, SWaP logistic trail, etc. to assist in evaluation of innovation | There is no reference to “innovation” in the solicitation. | ||||
| 49 | Tech | Is it the Gov'ts intention to emphasize CRF to be just as important as all the other core competencies across the sample Toss and RAPTOR PWS areas combined? | See source selection sections "L" & "M" | N/A | |||
| 50 | Tech | The STS STO is too vague; how is innovation/development process and results be evaluated? | See source selection sections "L" & "M" | ||||
| There is no reference to “innovation” in the solicitation. | N/A | ||||||
| 51 | Tech | will the lowest price be the goal of the STS STO? | No | N/A | |||
| 52 | Tech | L.4.2 | In paragraph 3, you ask for an RMT packet and AAR from an exercise. If an offeror has only served as a participant/piece/subcontractor in an exercise, these documents wouldn’t demonstrate the breadth of performance required to lead an exercise and would not be very useful for evaluation. |
• Are you going to consider packets/AARs from subcontractors? If so, a submission from a subcontractor doesn’t seem to adequately evaluate the prime’s ability to manage/integrate complex exercises as they will need to do on RAPTOR.
| • We recommend stating that these packets/AARs should come from an exercise where the offeror was responsible for delivering full support for or led an exercise versus just were an element of the exercise | Offeror will only receive credit for work (RMT/AAR) produced organically. Credit will not be given for work done by another entity regardless of relationship, association, affiliation, etc. with offeror. | M4.1.1 | |||||
| 53 | Tech | Will IPT environment require local representation | Local office is not required. | ||||
| 54 | Tech | Address access to classified documents post award | Determined post award | ||||
| 55 | Tech | Are there specific/unique software requirements | See source selection sections "L" & "M" | ||||
| 56 | Tech | L.4.3.1 | L.4.3.1 references Sample Task 2, UWEX FMP, Attachment 1b. However, Attachment 1b is the PWS for the Special Activities Exercise Support task. | ||||
| Please confirm or correct the attachment reference. | See updated source selection documents | ||||||
| 57 | Tech | L.4.1 | L.4.1 references Sample Task 1, CRF Emergency Deployment Readiness Exercise (EDRE) Full Mission Profile (FMP), Attachment 1a. However, Attachment 1a is the PWS for the Unconventional Warfare Exercise (UWEX) Support and Full Mission Profile (FMP) Training task. | ||||
| Please confirm or correct the attachment reference. | See updated source selection documents | ||||||
| 58 | Tech | L.4.3.2 | L.4.3.2 references Sample Task 3, SA Exercise, Attachment 1c. However, Attachment 1c is the PWS for the Soldier Tracking System (STS) task. | ||||
| Please confirm or correct the attachment reference. | See updated source selection documents | ||||||
| 59 | Tech | Clarify RMT and AAR are not included in Page count | Yes, RMT and AAR are not included in page count | ||||
| 60 | Tech | Please confirm that a description for how an offeror will support each of the Sample Tasks to include how intelligence is utilized will suffice and a list of all mission tasks and intelligence injects are not necessary per Sample Task. | See source selection sections "L" & "M" | ||||
| 61 | Tech | The Government provided the location for Task Order 003 (Special Activities Exercise Support). Will the Government also please provide the locations for the UWEX Support and FMP Training? | See updated source selection documents | ||||
| 62 | Tech | The Government provided the location for Task Order 003 (Special Activities Exercise Support). Will the Government also please provide the location or locations for the CRF EDRE FMP Training? | See updated source selection documents | ||||
| 63 | Tech | Clarify expectation of Offeror to assist unit with the acquisition process | Discuss in proposal | ||||
| 64 | Tech | 5.1.3. | Clarify CAC access hosting requirement; no mention in Base PWS about SIPR Tokens or in STOs | Task Order dependent | |||
| 65 | Tech | Inquired about Leasing options in STO's | Offeror is responsible for fully supporting all training requirements. | ||||
| 66 | Tech | Concerned with the ability to provide a gov't owned RMT/AAR package | Offeror will only receive credit for work (RMT/AAR) produced organically. Credit will not be given for work done by another entity regardless of relationship, association, affiliation, etc. with offeror. | M4.1.1 | Add to M 4.1.1 | ||
| 67 | Tech | Clarify ITAR requirements | Task Order dependent | ||||
| 68 | Tech | Will a country/locations be provided in the STOs | See updated source selection documents | Add toSTOs | |||
| 69 | Tech | VOL I, CRF STO | clarify "supporting" vs having to provide full scope planning of the CRF | Offeror is responsible for fully supporting all training requirements. | |||
| 70 | Tech | L.4.1 | The Government states, “Offeror must provide a detailed description of their logistics plan, to include a complete list of material and infrastructure requirements. Offeror must explain how they will support a dynamic scenario, which enables the unit to execute Joint Operation Planning Process (JOPP) in an unconstrained environment. The description must include, at a minimum, their plan to support multiple transportation modes, physical infrastructure, training aids, and hostile force actions”. For exercises requiring the units’ organic equipment would the unit be providing the equipment? | Offeror shall discuss their plan for supporting all training requirements in proposal. | |||
| 71 | Tech | L.4.2 | The Government states, “The Offeror shall include their process for conducting market research for task orders outside their core competencies”. Does the Government mean outside the core competencies as specified in the IDIQ PWS, or outside the Prime contractor’s core competencies? | Outside the Prime Contractors Core Competencies. | |||
| 72 | Tech | M.5.1.1 | The Government states, “The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of CRF EDRE support by assessing the detail of their exercise logistics support plan, to include a complete list of material and infrastructure requirements”. For purposes of the Sample Tasks will the Government provide a material estimate for pricing purposes? | Offeror shall discuss their plan for supporting all training requirements in proposal. | |||
| 73 | Tech | M.5.1.3 | The Government has not referenced the tasks to be trained as an important element for scenario development. Is it the offeror’s responsibility to develop these tasks? | Offeror shall discuss their plan for supporting all training requirements in proposal. | |||
| 74 | Tech | M.5.1.3.3 | The Government states, “The Government will evaluate the networking capability of the Offeror’s proposed Next Generation STS solution”. Can the Government define “capability” as used in this context? | Offeror should discuss their engineering solution including wireless network in proposal. | |||
| 75 | Tech | Att 1 |
SECTION_4.4
| The Government states that “the Contractor is responsible for providing consumables and expendables used in the maintenance, servicing, and utilization of SOF RAPTOR IV program requirements, and used in the administrative and operational support of SOF RAPTOR IV sites, as required”. Will the Government provide a list of consumables and expendables utilized under the current SOF RAPTOR III contract? | Task Order dependent | ||||
| 76 | Tech | Att 1b | Can the Government confirm that the Special Activities Task Order is in support of SOCSOUTH? The RFP mentions SOCAF as well. | See updated source selection documents | Add toSTOs |
| 77 | Tech | Att 1a |
SECTION_10.7
| Can the Government explain the intent of section 10.7 in this PWS? Our understanding is that the exercise takes place in the U.S. | See updated source selection documents | Add toSTOs | |||
| 78 | Tech | Recommend asking how Offerors about security capabilities; how are they going to protect security vulnerabilities, IT data and equipment; protect PII, avoid breaches (Encryptions, IT management, Scripts, computers, open advertising etc.) | Discuss in proposal | ||
| 79 | Tech | Requests clarification on STS STO - what does the Gov't want? | See source selection sections "L" & "M" | ||
| 80 | Tech | Clarify EDRE's for CRF is from start to finish; the work "support" is misleading vice conducting | See source selection sections "L" & "M" | ||
| 81 | Tech | Recommend Offerors provide for TPP/IP protections | Discuss in proposal | ||
| 82 | Tech | Clarify the expected Turn-a-round time of Toss; recommends Offerors address surge | Discuss in proposal | ||
| 83 | Tech | Concerned with Customer not releasing RMT/AAR to provide for proposal | Offeror must provide packets (RMT and AAR) they submitted to the customer. Offeror will not receive credit for work done by another entity including the Government (DOD customer). | L 4.1 / M 4.1.1 | |
| 84 | Tech | Clarify how the gov't is going to evaluate STO #4 | See source selection sections "L" & "M" | ||
| 85 | Tech | Recommends Oral Presentations in order to provide the gov't fidelity on Offeror's capabilities | See source selection sections "L" & "M" | ||
| 86 | Tech | Clarify Gov't customer involvement with the STO's | Offerors are not to reach out to customers | ||
| 87 | Tech | L.4.2 | RMT/AAR are classified; is there an alternative way to meet these deliverable if their release will not be allowed? | Offeror must provide packets (RMT and AAR) they submitted to the customer. Offeror will not receive credit for work done by another entity including the Government (DOD customer). | L 4.1 / M 4.1.1 |
| 88 | Tech | L.4.3.4 | Offerors required to address PWS Section 3 requirements only; should this also include PWS Section 4; if not, in which sections of the proposal will section 4 requirements be addressed? | See updated source selection documents and selection sections "L" & "M" | |
| 89 | Tech | L.5. | is % of work referring to the entire contract, specific lane of work (PWS section 3), STOs or something else? Recommend defining in terms of work to be performed. | See updated source selection documents. | |
| 90 | Tech | M.5.1.3.3. pg 58 | M.5.1.3.3. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for providing a Next Generation Soldier Tracking System (STS). “The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach in sourcing, engineering and delivering a robust, technically mature, integrated solution for the proposed Next Generation STS solution.” Please specify and define “robust” within the context or specification of Next Generation STS solution. |
| “…four-hundred (400) solider worn devices…” Is “solider” meant to be “soldier?” | See updated source selection documents. | ||||
| 91 | Tech | Clarify intent of STS STO | See source selection documents and selection sections "L" & "M" | ||
| 92 | Tech | L.4 | Reference text: The Offeror's understanding of these mission sets is critical to the adaptability and responsiveness necessary to execute SOF training requirements. To this end the Government has selected three specific training exercises as Sample Tasks that represent a spectrum of SOF mission sets. Does the Government plan to have these sample tasks go live at contract award? | Sample Task Orders is notional. | |
| 93 | Tech | L.4 | Reference text: The Offeror's understanding of these mission sets is critical to the adaptability and responsiveness necessary to execute SOF training requirements. To this end the Government has selected three specific training exercises as Sample Tasks that represent a spectrum of SOF mission sets. | ||
| Question: When does the Government expect to have these sample tasks go live? | Sample Task Orders is notional. | ||||
| 94 | Tech | L.4.3.3 | Reference text: STS is a self-contained, wireless mobile training system that collects data from networked devices worn by soldiers. | ||
| Question: Would the Government detail the capabilities ad specifications of the STS so all offerors are aware of what is in use today? | Sample Task Order is notional. Offeror must provide their solution to the provided STO. | ||||
| 95 | Tech | L.5.5 | Reference text: For Sections 1-3 of this volume, each joint venture party shall clearly be distinguished for the purpose of evaluation. | ||
| Question: Would the Government specify how each joint venture party should distinguish itself from other parties that are sharing the execution of their combined work? | Offeror will only receive credit for work produced organically. Credit will not be given for work done by another entity regardless of relationship, association, affiliation, etc. with offeror. | ||||
| 96 | Tech -Recommendation | Recommends requiring SOF Community "Reach back" | See source selection documents and selection sections "L" & "M" Offerors are not to reach out to customers | ||
| 97 | Tech/ACC | “Att9-SOFRAPTORIV-PWS-TO-0001-SetUpPlan” and “Att1d-SOFRAPTORIV-PWS-STO-CRF” are referenced as TO-0001 and TO-001 respectively. Please confirm which TO will be Task Order Number 1 | STO PWS is for Source Selection evaluation. Set-up plan will be the first awarded task order. | ||
| 98 | Tech/ACC | L.4.3.4 | Reference text: To this end, the Offeror shall demonstrate their ability to provide Requirements Analysis, Prototyping, Training, and Operation Rehearsals support to the SOF community. | ||
| Question: Does the Government plan on conducting site visits so Offerors can demonstrate these abilities? | No site visits | ||||
| 99 | Tech/Admin | Request to increase Tech Vol page count from 75 to 100 | 75 | ||
| 100 | Tech/cost | 4.2.8 | Are Offerors to bid for civilian travel and Per Diem rates? | Offeror proposal must be realistic and complete | |
| 101 | Tech/G2/G8 | Att 1 |
SECTION_5.
| Paragraph 5.3 states that “All Contractor employees working cybersecurity/IT functions must comply with DOD and Army training requirements in DODD 8570.01, DOD 8570.01-M “Information Assurance (IA) Workforce Improvement Program” and AR 25-2 “Information Management/Information Assurance” within six months of employment”. This appears to conflict with paragraph 5.4, Cybersecurity/IT Certification. Paragraph 5.4 states that, “Per DOD 8570.01-M, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.239.7001 “Information Assurance Contractor Training and Certification” and AR 25-2, states that the Contractor employees supporting cybersecurity/IT functions will be appropriately certified upon contract award”. Can the Government please clarify? | As required for individual TaskOrders: As part of the system design and component selection process, CS shall be considered a requirement for all systems used to enter, process, store, display, or transmit DoD information. CS shall be achieved through the acquisition and appropriate implementation of evaluated or validated Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) or Government-Off-The-Shelf (GOTS) CS and CS enabled IT products. All CS products and CS enabled products shall be certified compliant with National Security Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Policy Number 11 (NSTISSP-11) by labs accredited under the National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme (CCEVS) or National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP). Similarly, GOTS CS products or CS enabled products employed by the system shall be evaluated by the National Security Agency (NSA) or in accordance with NSA approved processes. All CS and CS enabled products shall be securely configured IAW DoD-approved security configuration guidelines. You shall obtain Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) (http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/index.html) and implement each applicable STIG into the design | 5.3 | 5.3 Updated | ||
| 102 | Tech/PM | M.3.1 | We understand that Sample Task Order 1 is more important than the other Sample Task Orders. However, the management and execution of a single Task Order is significantly less complex than the Program Management associated with a seven year single award IDIQ with a ceiling value of $245M. The most important subfactor within Factor I, Capability should be Program Management and recommend that it is more important than the other subfactors combined. | See updated source selection documents and selection sections "L" & "M". | |
| 103 | Tech/PM | Clarify requirement of IPT (i.e. face-to-face-, VTC, Telecom, etc.) | Regular IPTs will be required. How this will be accomplished will be up to the winning bidder. | ||
| 104 | Tech/PM | 4.6 | SCIF requirement? | Task Order dependent | No action |
| 105 | Tech/PP | Clarify relevancy and how relevancy and processes will be evaluated | See source selection documents and selection sections "L" & "M". | No action | |
| 106 | Tech | L.4.3.4 | Reference text: Entire paragraph |
Question: Section M does not indicate how the Government will evaluate these abilities. Would the Government specify if it seeks a narrative response to them?
| See source selection documents and selection sections "L" & "M". | No action | ||
| 107 | Tech | PM Remarks, Slide 6 | Reference text: "Although it could be (@50% of the work), and has been in the past, SR IV isn't meant to be just a pass-through vehicle. But, we also don't want a bench of 100 capabilities that we have to continually pay for just in case" |
Question: Would the Government explain what it means by not wanting "a bench of 100 capabilities that we have to continually pay for just in case"
| Offeror proposal must be realistic and complete. No PMO provided to keep stable (bench) of vendors on standby. | No action | |||||
| 110 | Admin | Sec L; pg 22 (Clause 52 204-15) | Clarify where Offerors are to provide 1st TIER sub-contractor's data/agreements (Ref: section L pg. 22); recommends Admin Vol vs PM | Section added: "L.7.7. Partnerships/Teaming/Joint Venture Offeror shall include in full all executed teaming arrangements, partnerships, joint venture ownership documentation, associate contractor agreement and contingencies, as applicable. Further, any previous teaming arrangements, partnerships, and joint venture documentation that is referenced within the proposal shall be included as attachments in the admin volume as supporting documentation." | Partnerships-Teaming-Joint Venture | Added Sect 7.2.2 |
| 111 | Tech/ Admin | No Management Information System (MIS) required/mentioned | MIS not required or evaluated | ||||
| 112 | Admin | Clarify VOL numbering requirements/preference (internal to vol) | L.3.2 States: " Each volume shall be submitted within a unique file saved in the following format: “Prime Name – Factor X – SRIV” or “Prime Name – Subcontractor Name – Factor 3 – SRIV”. Subfactors shall not be submitted in individual files." | ||||
| Contractor format acceptable | L.3.2 | Completed | |||||
| 113 | Admin | clarify requirements for accounting practices; "Letter/line of credit" | Not a requirement | N/A | Closed | ||
| 114 | Admin | Clarify $10,000 Threshold for awarding setup plan | That will be for the first Task Order awarded under SOF RAPTOR IV as setup plan. The first Task Order is FFP and is required at contract award. | See Solicitation section B. | Task Order Minimum value is $10K and will be solictied as a $10K FFP Task Order at contract Award | ||
| 115 | Admin | _ Att 1d |
SECTION_5.4 pg. 7
| Paragraph 6.4.1 requires a formal written report within 2 working days on an incident. No CDRL / DID information was identified for this report. Is this an oversite or is Contractor’s Format sufficient? | Contractor format | No action | |||||
| 116 | Admin | Pg 45 Section L.2.5 | Section L.3.2:Clarify line spacing. Will the Government allow 11x17 pages? If so, will the 11x17 pages count as one page or two? | refrerence L.3.2 Clarified Single Space. | |||
| 11x17 "foldout" pages allowed. They will count as 2 pages. | L.3.2 | Updated L.3.2 | |||||
| 117 | Admin | 7.3 | TYPO should be "RFP" | L.3.2 Fixed | L.3.2 | Updated | |
| 118 | Admin | L.3.2. | Clarify digital submissions only, no hard copies | Digital Submission only. See "L.2.1. Delivery and Due Date" | Clarified | ||
| 119 | Admin | Clarify teaming documentation required; "Vendor agreements" | Section L.7.7 revised to state: Offeror shall include in full all executed teaming arrangements, partnerships, joint venture ownership documentation, associate contractor agreement and contingencies, as applicable. Further, any previous teaming arrangements, partnerships, and joint venture documentation that is referenced within the proposal shall be included as attachments in the admin volume as supporting documentation. | L.7.7 | Updated | ||
| 120 | Admin | Recommends Offerors submit teaming agreemts and contracts of partnering | Section L.7.7 revised to state: Offeror shall include in full all executed teaming arrangements, partnerships, joint venture ownership documentation, associate contractor agreement and contingencies, as applicable. Further, any previous teaming arrangements, partnerships, and joint venture documentation that is referenced within the proposal shall be included as attachments in the admin volume as supporting documentation. | L.7.7 | Updated | ||
| 121 | Tech/ Admin | Request to increase Tech Vol page count from 75 to 100 | See L.3.3 Table L-1 Proposal Volume Organization | L.3.3 | No change. | ||
| 122 | PP/Admin | The current page count of the draft does not provide offerors with enough page count to establish relevancy across the Base IDIQ and Sample Task Orders. We recommend increasing the page count to 20-25 pages for Factor 2 – Past Performance. | See L.3.3 Table L-1 Proposal Volume Organization | L.3.3 | Page count was increased Past Performance | ||
| 123 | PP/Admin | Request to increase PP page count by 5 pages | See L.3.3 Table L-1 Proposal Volume Organization | L.3.3 | Page count was increased Past Performance | ||
| 124 | Admin | Clarification of Line spacing (Single, 1.5, double, etc) | Duplicate Question | Complete | |||
| 125 | Admin | L.3.2. | Are Foldouts allowed? How many and how are they counted (one or two pages)? | Duplicate Question | Complete | ||
| 126 | Past Performance | "Major sub-contractors" may not be binding throughout the life of the contract (need to clarify 25% work requirement) | Major subcontractor no longer identified by percentages (%) | L.2.5 & L.2.6 | Complete | ||
| 127 | Past Performance | Can Citations be at the IDIQ Task Order level or must they be at the Contract (Prime) level only | "…..In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, GSA contracts, or Blanket Purchase | ||||
| Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers and/or modification numbers if necessary" | L.5.1 | Complete | |||||
| 128 | Past Performance | Clarify ability of a SUB-Contractor to submit Questionnaire directly to the COR/Customer vs to the Prime | No change. "offerors shall make every attempt to submit questionnaire’s directly to the Government POCs vice the responsible prime contractor." | L.5.3 | Complete | ||
| 129 | Past Performance | Ability to accept classified past performance materials | "Files shall not contain classified data." | L.1.5 | Complete | ||
| 130 | Past Performance | Requests a 5 year lookback vs 3 year in order to open the competition | Citations for contract performance or awarded during the past three (3) years | Section L.5. pg 50 | Complete | ||
| 131 | Past Performance | Clarify Major Sub-contractor definition (would prefer it not to be by %) | Definition pending; Major subcontractor no longer identified by percentages (%) | L.2.5 & L.2.6 | reference to "major" removed | ||
| 132 | Past Performance | Comment - believes 5 PP citations is sufficient; up to 7 not required | Up to 9 submissions (5 shall be for the Prime, with up to four additional submissions by subcontractor(s) | Section L.5. pg. 50 | Complete | ||
| 133 | Past Performance | Will size of the PP contract effort be measured and if so, how | "Awarded price/cost as well as final or projected final price/cost" shall be provided for context to depth, breadth and scope | L.5.1. | Complete | ||
| 134 | Past Performance | Sect L. 2.5 | Ref to Major Sub Contractors is not consistent with 20-25% | Major subcontractor no longer identified by percentages (%) | L.2.5 & L.2.6 | reference to "major" removed | |
| 135 | Past Performance | L.5.3. | clarify ability of Offeror to submit PP Questionnaire directly to the TO COR/Customer vice Prime contractor | "offerors shall make every attempt to submit questionnaire’s directly to the | |||
| Government POCs vice the responsible prime contractor." | L.5.3 | M.4.2.1 corrected to three years. | |||||
| 136 | Past Performance | Is Prime more relevant than Sub PP | Past Performance as a prime will be evaluated with more confidence…. | M.4.2.1. | Updated. | ||
| 137 | Past Performance | L.5 | Your instructions for past performance relevancy seem vague, described as “Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort required by the RFP.” Given the broad nature of SOF RAPTOR IV, this leaves a lot of discretion and could open this to offerors who have no SOF experience to propose. |
• If you value SOF-related past performance, have you considered stating that explicitly?
• Do you value performance as a prime more than performance as a sub?
• If so, we recommend stating that in Section L and M.
• Have you considered stating you will only evaluate performance as a prime? The Government will evaluate more favorably those examples that reflect experience in executing relevant Special Operations Forces requirements, with additional emphasis as they relate to successfully performing work similar to that as presented in the Sample Task Performance Work Statements located in Attachments 1a-1d.
| Past Performance as a prime will be evaluated with more confidence…. | M.4.2.1 | Considered. No changes made. | |||||
| 138 | Past Performance | Relevance Clarification | Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort required by the RFP | Section L.5. pg 50 | Complete | ||
| 139 | Past Performance | Will the Prime be given more credit for doing the work than if the subs are doing the work from an evaluation perspective. | Past Performance as a prime will be evaluated with more confidence…. | M.4.2.1. | Updated. | ||
| 140 | Past Performance | L.5.5 | How will PP be evaluated by JV | " For the purposes of this solicitation, if the Offeror is a joint venture comprised of two or more interests, the entire joint venture will be considered as the Prime Offeror – with individual joint venture members able to provide past performance information to be evaluated collectively" and a JV is considered as a Prime with "Five of the nine submissions shall be for the Prime Offeror, with the additional submissions, up to four additional, being provided by any subcontractor(s) that the bidder deems necessary to demonstrate their team approach to substantiate this solicitation’s requirements" | Section L.5. pg 50 and L.5.5. | Complete | |
| 141 | Past Performance | Recommend one citation per Sub Contractor | Up to 9 submissions (5 shall be for the Prime, with up to four (4) additional submissions by subcontractor(s) | Section L.5. pg 50 | Updated | ||
| 142 | Past Performance | Concern that Prime and Sub are equivalent in PP | Past Performance as a prime will be evaluated with more confidence…. | M.4.2.1. | Updated. | ||
| 143 | Past Performance | Recommend 7 TO's vs 7 different contract citations in PP | Up to 9 submissions (5 shall be for the Prime, with up to four (4) additional submissions by subcontractor(s) | Section L.5. pg 50 | Updated | ||
| 144 | Past Performance/Program Management | Recommend PM be Factor 1 vs sub- factor 2 in order of priority | "For Factor I, Capability, Subfactor 1.1 – |
Program Management is more important than Subfactor 1.2 – Crisis Response Force and Subfactor 1.2 – Crisis
| Response Force is more important than Subfactor 1.3 – Core Competencies." | M.3.1 pg 57 | Updated | |||||
| 145 | Past Performance | L.5 & M.5.2.1 | The evaluation of Past Performance remains unclear. Please confirm how exactly Past Performance will be evaluated between the Base PWS and the Sample Task Orders. Please also confirm how dollar size of each citation, performance as prime, and contract type (CPFF, T&M, FFP) will be evaluated. | "The Government will conduct a past performance confidence assessment based on the quality, relevancy, and recency (within four years) of the Offeror's past performance example(s) as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the SOF RAPTOR IV requirements. The evaluation may consider all aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, including the Offeror’s record..." | M.4.2.1 | Past Performance evaluated independently on both PWS and Sample Task Orders. No changeto M4.2.1…"The evaluation may consider all aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, including the Offeror’s record..." | |
| 146 | Past Performance | L.5 & M.5.2.1 | The Prime bidding (to include joint ventures) must be a single entity and all past performance represented as Prime should align directly to that single entity. A Joint Venture without past performance should be evaluated as neutral given the JV does not possess a performance history. | "….individual joint venture members able to provide past | |||
| performance information to be evaluated collectively. | L.5.5 | Complete | |||||
| 147 | Past Performance | Industry Day clarified that offerors could utilize the past performance of major subcontractors. We recommend that the Government limit the total number of major subcontractor citations to one (1). | Up to 9 submissions (5 shall be for the Prime, with up to four (4) additional submissions by subcontractor(s) | Section L.5. pg 50 | Modified/updated | ||
| 148 | Past Performance | recommend defining a "Major Sub" by capabilities vs 20% | subcontractor no longer identified by percentages (%). Deleted the word "major" | L.2.5 & L.2.6 | Modified/updated | ||
| 149 | Past Performance | Clarify weighting of Prime and Sub PP | Up to 9 submissions (5 shall be for the Prime, with up to four (4) additional submissions by subcontractor(s) | Section L.5. pg 50 | Modified/updated | ||
| 150 | Past Performance | Clarify number of PP citations per Prime and Sub | Up to 9 submissions (5 shall be for the Prime, with up to four (4) additional submissions by subcontractor(s) | Section L.5. pg 50 | Modified/updated | ||
| 151 | Past Performance | Recommend requiring the Prime have PP experience managing an IDIQ as a Prime | "Past Performance as a Prime will be evaluated with more confidence to successfully perform the required effort than Past Performance as a Subcontractor." | M.4.2.1 | Modified/updated | ||
| 152 | Past Performance | L.5.3 | Will the Government accept CPARS in lieu of PPQs? | "The Government may use past performance information readily available in program and technical offices in addition to information contained on the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Past Performance Questionnaires, as well as any other source as determined by the Government" | Section M.4.2.1 Pg 61 | No change | |
| 153 | Past Performance | M.5.2.1 | If the Government intends to allow past performance references from a major subcontractor, we recommend that the maximum number allowed from a major sub be limited to two past performances, to ensure that the majority of the volume represents the prime contractor. | Up to 9 submissions (5 shall be for the Prime, with up to four (4) additional submissions by subcontractor(s) | Section L.5. pg 50 | Modified/updated | |
| 154 | Past Performance | M.1.4 | “The Government may use information other than that provided by Offeror in its evaluation. Such information, referred to as extrinsic information, is obtained from sources outside the proposal. Sources of extrinsic information may include DCAA, DCMA, Government Databases, past performance questionnaires, and other means.” Can the Government define the scope of “other means”? | "The Government may use past performance information readily available in program and technical offices in addition to information contained on the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Past Performance Questionnaires, as well as other sources available to the Government." | Section M.4.2.1 Pg 61 | Deleting reference to "other meqns". | |
| 155 | Past Performance | M.1.4 | “The Government may use information other than that provided by Offeror in its evaluation. Such information, referred to as extrinsic information, is obtained from sources outside the proposal. Sources of extrinsic information may include DCAA, DCMA, Government Databases, past performance questionnaires, and other means.” Excluding Government authoritative information, how does the Government ensure “other means” are authoritative and true? Other means appears to be excessively broad. | "The Government may use past performance information readily available in program and technical offices in addition to information contained on the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Past Performance Questionnaires, as well as other sources available to the Government." | Section M.4.2.1 Pg 61 | Deleting reference to "other means". | |
| 156 | Past Performance | Major Sub Contractor 25% requirement as issue | Major subcontractor no longer identified by percentages (%) | L.2.5 & L.2.6 | |||
| 157 | Past Performance | L.5.1 & L.5.3. | In the absence of a gov't COR available; will the Questionnaire be accepted from the Prime to provide assessment? | "offerors shall make every attempt to submit questionnaire’s directly to the | |||
| Government POCs vice the responsible prime contractor." | L.5.3 | No action | |||||
| 158 | Past Performance | L.5..5 | Will the Gov't consider making 3-4 of the 7 PP citations be required from the SDVOSB vice JV/Large? | subcontractor no longer identified by percentages (%). Deleted the word "major" | L.2.5 & L.2.6 | Modified/updated | |
| 159 | Past Performance | M.4 Factors | L.3.3. Volume Organization and Page Count , Table L-1 | ||||
| Factor 2 and related to L.5.1 and L.5.2 “Not to exceed 15 pages. 8.5 x 11 inch pages, 12 Point Arial font. Sections 1 and 3 do not count toward page count.” In order to ensure that the Government is receiving the services of a fully experienced and mature entity, will the Government consider requiring a minimum number of Past Performance citations? In this situation, where training of SOF personnel requires such a strong background, would the Government consider requiring entities to provide “no less than three” relevant past performances and because the Government desires limited page count for the Past Performance Volume, and also provides for “up to seven” past performance citations, will the Government consider providing a concise and streamlined past performance citation format presented in sections L.5.1 and L.5.2? | Updated to "Not to exceed 25 pages. 8.5 x 11 inch pages, 12 Point Arial font. Sections 1 and 3 do not count toward page count." Up to 9 submissions (5 shall be for the Prime, with up to four (4) additional submissions by subcontractor(s) | Table L-1: Proposal Volume Organization & Section L.5. pg 50 | Complete | ||||
| 160 | Past Performance | recommends requiring min of 4 PP citations and increasing the Max to 9 overall between Prime and Subcontractors | Up to 9 submissions (5 shall be for the Prime, with up to four (4) additional submissions by subcontractor(s) | Section L.5. pg 50 | Complete | ||
| 161 | Past Performance | L.5.3 | Reference text: Past Performance Questionnaire |
Question: The Government did not include the Past Performance Questionnaire with the draft solicitation. Would the Government please release this so Offerors can better prepare to address them?
| Questionnaire | To be released with final RFP | ||
| 162 | Past Performance | L.5.5 | Reference text: For Sections 1-3 of this volume, each joint venture party shall clearly be distinguished for the purpose of evaluation. |
Question: Would the Government specify how each joint venture party should divide up its share of the seven past performance references?
For the purposes of this solicitation, if the Offeror is a joint venture comprised of two or more interests, the entire joint venture will be considered as the Prime Offeror – each individual joint venture member must provide at least
| one past performance to be evaluated collectively." | L.5.5. | Updated | ||
| 163 | PP - Concern | Concenrned that CRF Past performance extremely limits offerors that don't have that experience? | The Government will evaluate more favorably those examples that reflect experience in executing relevant Special Operations Forces requirements, with additional emphasis as they relate to successfully performing work similar to that as presented in the Sample Task Performance Work Statements located in Attachments 1a-1d. |
| Those with no past performance will receive a "Neutral" rating | M.4.2.1. | No change | ||||
| 164 | PP/Tech | Clarify how to demonstrate "relevance" in PP and Tech vol | "….past performance in performing requirements of similar scope and magnitude" | M.4.2.1. | Complete | |
| 165 | PP/Admin | The current page count of the draft does not provide offerors with enough page count to establish relevancy across the Base IDIQ and Sample Task Orders. We recommend increasing the page count to 20-25 pages for Factor 2 – Past Performance. | Past Performance Factor/Volume Page count increased to 25 pages | Table L-1: Proposal Volume Organization | Updated | |
| 166 | Tech/PP | Clarify relevancy and how relevancy and processes will be evaluated | "….past performance in performing requirements of similar scope and magnitude" Added "breadth and depth" language . | M.4.2.1. | ||
| 167 | PP/Admin | Request to increase PP page count by 5 pages | Past Performance Factor/Volume Page count increased to 25 pages | Table L-1: Proposal Volume Organization | Updated | |
| 168 | Past Performance | Recommends: evaluation criteria remain Prime only; or weighting Prime with more value over Subs | The Government will evaluate more favorably those examples that reflect experience in executing relevant Special Operations Forces requirements, with additional emphasis as they relate to successfully performing work similar to that as presented in the Sample Task Performance Work Statements located in Attachments 1a-1d. |
Those with no past performance will receive a "Neutral" rating M.4.2.1 Considered. No changes made.
169 Past Performance SOF is not being viewed as more valuable? Recommend PP evaluation criteria be SOF only or emphasize SOF with at least two PP citations from recognized (TOE) SOF organizations "The Government will evaluate more favorably those examples that reflect experience in executing relevant Special Operations Forces requirements, with additional emphasis as they relate to successfully performing work similar to that as presented in the Sample Task Performance Work Statements located in Attachments 1a-1d."
| Those with no past performance will receive a "Neutral" rating | M.4.2.1. | Recommendation noted | ||||
| 170 | Past Performance | Recommend Citations be at least $500K in total contract value to ensure relevant minimum size and scope | Offeror Shall provide "Awarded price/cost as well as final or projected final price/cost" | Section L.5.1. | Recommendation noted | |
| 171 | Past Performance | Recommend requiring Offerors demonstrate having managed other Subs; giving weight to those that have | "The Government will evaluate more favorably those examples that reflect experience in executing relevant Special Operations Forces requirements, with additional emphasis as they relate to successfully performing work similar to that as presented in the Sample Task Performance Work Statements located in Attachments 1a-1d." |
| Those with no past performance will receive a "Neutral" rating. | M.4.2.1. | Recommendation noted | |||||
| 172 | Past Performance | Comment - believes 5 PP citations is sufficient; up to 7 not required | Up to 9 submissions (5 shall be for the Prime, with up to four (4) additional submissions by subcontractor(s) | Section L.5. pg 50 | Updated | ||
| 173 | Cost | Clarify how cost realism will be obtained; believe Offerors could "game the system" with Labor rates on Task Orders. | The Government will conduct a Cost Realism Analysis on the proposed costs for all cost reimbursable CLINS. | M.4.3.9 added | Complete |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .