Final_Solicitation_Questions_(Updated)_28Nov2018.pdf

Final Solicitation Questions dated 21 Oct 2018

1 Will the Government list the specific elements to be included in the RMT packet? No.

2 Please provide a specific definition of what the Government means by “organic?” Submit a RMT packet and an AAR from a CRF, UW, or SA exercise that your company produced and submitted to the Government for approval.

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. Offeror will not be given credit for work (RMT/AAR) produced by the Government. The

RMT packet and AAR must be in an original format, unedited from time of original submission, and be from the same exercise. The RMT packet and AAR must be complete (un-redacted) and unclassified.

3 Do you expect the Government to provide the GFI to the contractor to complete the RMT packet and what steps are you willing to take to help facilitate the collection of this GFI?

No. Submit an RMT / AAR from a completed event. No GFI required.

4 Is it possible to eliminate this requirement (RMT packet/AAR) entirely? No.

5 Will the Government remove the “organic” requirement and allow the submittal of RMT artifacts that have been developed by the contractor in conjunction with the Government?

No. Offeror will not be given credit for work (RMT/AAR) produced by the Government.

6 Section M.4.1.1.1 provides that Offerors will only receive credit for RMT/AAR produced organically.

The STOs provided with this solicitation do not support the emphasis placed on RMT but rather, the sample STOs focus on the contractor’s ability to develop a full spectrum operational scenario. As such, the Government’s limitation on requiring submitted information to focus on RMT experience is unwarranted as not directly linked to the sample STOs.

Therefore, we would request the Government to remove the RMT requirement as a submittal requirement and allow the submittal of artifacts from any recent and relevant SOF training exercise which demonstrates the contractor’s ability to execute complex pre-exercise coordination and post-exercise activities.

RMT will not be removed. SOF full spectrum operational exercises are not conducted solely on military installations and require an RMT.

7 Section M.4.1.1.1 provides that Offerors will only receive credit for RMT/AAR produced organically.

RMTs are a Government artifact and not generally in the possession of the contractor who only supported the

Government with the RMT development. Further, it is anticipated based on the sample STO information and TOs issued under SOF RAPTOR III that the preponderance of TOs issued under SOF RAPTOR IV will not fulfill the requirements of an RMT.

This further strengthens our request for the removal of the requirement for RMT artifacts in lieu of SOF or SOF like training packages. Therefore, we request the removal of the requirement to provide RMT artifacts because this requirement is overly burdensome and restrictive to competition.

RMT will not be removed. SOF full spectrum operational exercises are not conducted solely on military installations and require an RMT.

8 Section L.4.1 paragraph 3 provides that, “the Program Manager’s (PM) resume shall not exceed two (2) pages and shall demonstrate SOF specific education, experience, and other skillsets the Offeror deems necessary.”

The Government’s solicitation is a performance-based acquisition and not a personal service contract. Normally, the

Government only requests resumes for specifically identified Key Personnel. Requesting resumes for other than key personnel implies that this is a personal services contract.

Therefore, we request that the Government identify the PM as key personnel and provide a CLIN for the monthly invoice of their services or remove the requirement of providing the PM’s resume.

Program Manager has been identified as a Key Person for this effort. Therefore a resume is requested to verify labor requirement credentials.

No PMO CLIN to be provided. Program Manager (PM) is required. Program Management efforts are paid against individual Task Orders and not as a static/standing monthly rates if no work is being performed.

9 Some of our RMTs and AARs are classified and difficult to redact as they are Government products. Will the

Government allow the submission of classified RMT and/or AAR packets with our proposal?

No classified submissions authorized. The RMT packet and AAR must be in an original format, unedited from time of original submission, and be from the same exercise. The RMT packet and

AAR must be complete (un-redacted) and unclassified.

10 Some of our RMT and AARs contain personnel names, which require redaction. Will the Government allow the submission of redacted RMT and/or AAR packets with our proposal?

Government team has a need to know. Safeguards are in place to protect personnel information.

The RMT packet and AAR must be in an original format, unedited from time of original submission, and be from the same exercise. The RMT packet and AAR must be complete (un-redacted) and unclassified.

11 In accordance with (IAW) DoD Directive and DoD Guidance regarding RMT (DoD Directive (DoDD) 5124.02, and DoD

Guidance Number 1322.28, March 18, 2013 and Incorporating Change 2, Effective May 13, 2014); RMT coordination is an inherently governmental function. As such, contracting firms may assist and participate in, but not control, approve or store the RMT coordination documentation. The DOD guidance describes which Commands and

Organizations are responsible for the documentation, how it is to be handled, stored and transmitted; how long it is to be stored; and the procedures by which RMT documentation may be requested by other Offices and Agencies.

Attaching an improperly handled and stored original RMT document to a proposal is not prescribed in the DoD

Guidance and thus presents industry offerors with a conflict.

Accordingly, will the Government remove or amend its requirement to attach an original RMT packet. If amended, will the Government consider requiring offerors to provide the following?

An unclassified Exercise Support Package conducted in a RMT environment including scenario, schedule, MESL, logistics support package, land use plan, MOU/MOA, exercise infrastructure, expected interaction with civilian populace, emergency medical procedures, communications plan, and risk mitigation table.

Submit an RMT packet and an AAR from a CRF, UW, or SA exercise that your company produced and submitted to the Government for approval. 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. Offeror will not be given credit for work (RMT/AAR) produced by the Government.

The RMT packet and AAR must be in an original format, unedited from time of original submission, and be from the same exercise. The RMT packet and AAR must be complete (un-redacted) and unclassified.

12 IAW DoD Directive and DoD Guidance regarding RMT (DoD Directive (DoDD) 5124.02, and DoD Guidance Number

1322.28, March 18, 2013 and Incorporating Change 2, Effective May 13, 2014), Offices and Agencies that require information notifications regarding Cat III RMT are directed to contact OUSD:

“(3) Offices requiring access to the notification archive should submit requests to OUSD(P&R)/FR&T via e-mail at the addresses in paragraph 8a of this enclosure.”

Accordingly, will the Government consider removing the requirement to attach an original RMT packet, or consider alternate methodology to determine RMT past performance and capability?

Solicitation is requesting an RMT packet directly from the contractor. Submit an RMT packet and an AAR from a CRF, UW, or SA exercise that your company produced and submitted to the

Government for approval.

13 The solicitation does not specify if Cat I, Cat II, or Cat III RMT past performance or references should be handled, cited, and ultimately evaluated differently. Accordingly will the Government consider one or more of the following?

- Remove the requirement to provide documents related to Cat III RMT, as well as those Cat I and Category II RMT documents that are classified or have OPSEC release restrictions.

- Consider compliance with the DoD Directive Guidance and Instructions for requesting data related to Cat II RMT, as well as those Cat I and Cat II RMT documents that are classified or have OPSEC release restrictions.

No. Solicitation is requesting an RMT packet directly from the contractor. Submit an RMT packet and an AAR from a CRF, UW, or SA exercise that your company produced and submitted to the

Government for approval.

RMT /AAR Questions

14 How flexible is the prerequisite outlined in 4.1. Subfactor 1. concerning the Prime’s requirement to provide a

Realistic Military Training (RMT) packet and an After-Action Review (AAR) for a previously executed CRF, UW, or SA exercise?

We believe there are multiple ways to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the complex pre-exercise coordination and post-exercise activities necessary to be successful in the execution of this contract. We believe that by emphasizing this very specific restriction, one of which only a very small handful of vendors possess, you are unnecessarily and unduly reducing the competitive intent of the process, eliminating many qualified and capable small businesses and ultimately not allowing for the selection of the most capable, experienced vendor.

No flexibility. Submit an RMT packet and an AAR from a CRF, UW, or SA exercise that your company produced and submitted to the Government for approval. 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. Offeror will not be given credit for work (RMT/AAR) produced by the Government.

The RMT packet and AAR must be in an original format, unedited from time of original submission, and be from the same exercise. The RMT packet and AAR must be complete (un-redacted) and unclassified.

15 Sub Factor 1.1 Program Management Exercise Management. The Offeror must demonstrate a thorough understanding of complex pre-exercise coordination and post-exercise activities. Offeror must, at a minimum, provide a RMT packet and an AAR for a previously executed CRF, UW, or SA exercise. The RMT packet and AAR must be in an original format, unedited from time of original submission, and be from the same exercise.

How would a company have a previously RMT packet / AAR if they have not been the prime or worked on another contract requiring exercise development and after action operations?

This experience must be demonstrated in order to satisfy the requirement under Sub Factor 1.1.

Exercise Management, The deliverables requested are to demonstrate relevant subject matter expertise.

16 Some of our RMTs and AARs are classified and difficult to redact as they are Government products. Will the

Government allow the submission of classified RMT and/or AAR packets with our proposal?

Submit a RMT packet and an AAR from a CRF, UW, or SA exercise that your company did. 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.

Offeror will not be given credit for work (RMT/AAR) produced by the Government.

The RMT packet and AAR must be in an original format, unedited from time of original submission, and be from the same exercise. The RMT packet and AAR must be complete (un-redacted) and unclassified. Only one RMT packet and AAR is required that meets these requirements.

17 Request that you clarify “produced organically” to include RMT/AARs produced by either of the joint venture members. We believe this meets the intent of this language to ensure that the prime contractor has this experience without relying on subcontractors.

Work completed organically by any member of a team can be brought into any new team arrangement.

Program Management Questions

18 Section L.4.1 paragraph 3 provides that “the Program Manager (PM) resume shall not exceed two (2) pages and shall demonstrate SOF specific education, experience, and other skillsets the Offeror deems necessary.”

Attachment 4 to the solicitation provides position descriptions of each position on the contract. There is no requirement within Attachment 4 of the solicitation requiring SOF specific education and experience for the PM position, rather the PM position focuses on Program and Project Management experience.

Therefore, we request the language requiring the PM to have SOF specific education, and experience be removed from the requirement as, by the Government’s own position descriptions, this experience is not relevant or aligned to the functions of a Program Manager, but rather are aligned to an exercise design/developer/controller position.

Program Manager labor category in Attachment 4 has been updated to include “demonstrate SOF specific education”.

19 Section M4.1.1.1, paragraph 2 provides that “the Government’s assessment of the Program Manager’s resume will be based on specific SOF training and exercise management experience related to the sample task orders provided.”

SOF training and exercise management are not Program Management skillsets as defined by Attachment 4, of this solicitation. Per Attachment 4, the Government has defined the skills required of the PM position, specifically, “the

PM is responsible for assigning contractor schedules, reviewing work discrepancies, supervising contractor personnel and communicating policies, purposes, and goals of the organization to subordinates. Shall be responsible for the overall contract performance.”

As there is an ambiguity in the standard being applied to the stated requirements of the PM position, between those stated in Attachment 4 and those stated in Section M, we request the Government remove the language stated in

Section M and replace it with more specific language found in the PM position description as contained in

Attachment 4 which is representative language for a PM.

No change to Section M. Attachment 4 Labor category updated in solicitation.

20 Section M4.1.1.1, paragraph 2 provides that “the Government’s assessment of the program manager’s resume will be based on specific SOF training and exercise management experience related to the sample task orders provided.”

Attachment 4 of the Governments solicitation defines the PM as “responsible for assigning contractor schedules, reviewing work discrepancies, supervising contractor personnel and communicating policies, purposes, and goals of the organization to subordinates. Shall be responsible for the overall contract performance.”

Section M4.1.1.1 provides that the “program manager’s resume will be based on specific SOF training and exercise management experience related to the sample task orders provided.”

The language used in Section M4.1.1.1 describes the position of an exercise controller which is annotated in Section

5 of STOs 1a, b, and c indicating the Government will be providing an exercise controller.

Will the Government clarify if the PM is required to also be an exercise controller, and if the PM is not required to be an exercise controller, then the Government should remove the requirement from Section M4.1.1.1.

M4.1.1.1 sub bullets have been renumbered / updated to match Section L. Program Manager is not required to be an exercise controller. Program Manager is responsible for the overall management of the SOF RAPTOR IV efforts IAW Att4 Labor category.

21 Section M4.1.1.1, paragraph 2 provides that “the Government’s assessment of the program manager’s resume will be based on specific SOF training and exercise management experience related to the sample task orders provided.”

Section M4.1.1.1 describes the position of an exercise controller which is described in Section 5 of STOs 1a, b, and c which indicates that the Government will be providing an exercise controller. Based on this language, it is perceived that exercise management is an inherently Government function and that the PM will not be participating in this activity.

If the Government will be providing the exercise controller, then the Government should remove the requirement for the PM to have specific SOF training and exercise management experience.

see updated PWS numbering sub-bullets sequence in Section M.4.1

22 Section L.5 provides that five (5) of the nine past performance submissions shall be for the Prime Offeror, with the additional submissions, up to four (4) additional, being provided by any subcontractor(s) that the bidder deems necessary to demonstrate their team approach to substantiate this solicitation’s requirements.

Further, Section L.1.6 provides that files shall not contain classified data.

Due to the restriction on the submittal of classified information we respectfully request the total number of past performances from the Prime be limited to three (3). This is a reasonable number of past performance citations without the ability to submit classified data which many of the citations would be restricted by.

There is no minimum number of Past Performance submissions for either prime or sub, only a maximum (5 for the prime and 4 for subcontractor(s)). The Prime may submit any number from 0 to 5, and may submit any number for subcontractor(s), from 0 to 4.

23 The Governments contracting strategy provides for a SDVOSB set aside. The Past Performance requirements require the Prime Contractor to submit no less than five (5) Past Performance Citations and then allows up to four (4) additional Past Performance citations for Subcontractors.

Based on the SDVOSB set aside requirements, it is highly unlikely that a representative number of SDVOSBs can meet this high bar for past performance which constitutes an unreasonable restriction on SDVOSB competition and restricts the pool of potential offerors to the Government.

Will the Government consider allowing SDVOSB prime contractors to limit the past performance citations to three

(3), and/or the SDVOSB contractor to utilize the sub-contractor’s past performance citations for major sub-contractor’s performing at least 20% of the work?

There is no minimum number of Past Performance submissions for either prime or sub, only a maximum (5 for the prime and 4 for subcontractor(s)). The Prime may submit any number from 0 to 5, and may submit any number for subcontractor(s), from 0 to 4.

In order to provide the Prime contractor maximum flexibility WRT teaming, the Government will not identify a “major subcontractor percentage”.

24 If offerors submit recent CPARS as attachments in their past performance volume, will they be page exempt? CPARS submissions are unnecessary. The Government will access CPARS as part of past performance evaluations. Any CPARS submitted with proposal will be included with total page count.

25 Prior to issuing the final solicitation, there was considerable discussion about past performance requirements. The intent seemed to focus on creating a more flexible scenario in order to broaden competition. The initial concern revolved around requiring too many past performances from the prime, since the scope of the effort is so broad, this would make it difficult for an SDVOSB to respond alone. At the Pre-Solicitation Conference, the solution put forth by the Government was to allow up to seven past performances, including citations from major subcontractors, with no specified minimum from the prime. Now the requirement is for up to nine past performances with five having to be from the prime, along with an emphasis the prime performances being from prior and very specific exercise experience in the SOF community. This is a significant change, which will dramatically limit competition, and significantly favors the existing prime contractor. Would the government please consider changing the past performance language back to what was specified at the Pre-Solicitation Conference? What drove the change since the Pre-solicitation Conference?

No change to Past Performance. Government refined the solicitation between draft and final based on input/feedback.

26 Given the possible combinations of past performances, will five past performances, each hypothetically receiving the highest possible score, be equivalent in the overall grading to a submission of nine past performances that also each receive the highest possible rating?

Yes.

27 This is a broad and undefined requirement. In order for Offerors to submit compliant proposals, would the

Government specify what "data on prior contracts" it requires for work involving its officers and employees?

The Government seeks past performance data.

28 If subcontractors are planned to perform cost reimbursable work on a task order and do not have an approved accounting system, can they submit a pre-award survey prior to TO award?

The prime contractor and all subcontractors for whom cost reimbursable work is planned need to have approved systems to perform cost reimbursable work. Pre-award surveys will be executed at the time of base IDIQ award and not at the TO level.

Subcontractors who do not have an approved accounting system can only execute work on a FFP basis.

29 How will the government evaluate competing bids referencing the same past performance citations because they reference to a previously shared JV, but now competing against each other?

Past Performance evaluation will assess work executed (i.e. executed the event, vice belonging to the JV team that was tasked to oversee the entire JV portfolio).

30 Please clarify that teaming arrangements cited in Past Performance Volume, are only required when they relate to current teaming arrangements and joint venture documentation related to this offeror's current arrangements for this offer.

The Government wants to know what the vendor proposes as the team arrangement for this solicitation. Past Performance citations require distinction for those relevant to Prime/JV and those relevant to a sub-contractor.

31 Can you please advise how we can ensure that our Subcontractor PPQs can be traced to our proposal? The data required on the Questionnaire provides for traceability.

The Prime Offeror will send the questionnaires for the subcontractors utilized as part of the

Prime Offeror proposal. Part I, Section A of the Questionnaire provides the information about the subcontractor's effort. The Prime Offeror will complete and sign Part III, which will link to trace back to the Prime Offeror's proposal.

32 Under the current guidance, we are also unclear, whether the breakdown of up to nine, with five from the prime and four from subcontractors means the team could submit a total number of past performances to just one from the prime and four from subcontractors. Please clarify what combination of submissions is permissible?

There is no minimum number of Past Performance submissions for either prime or sub, only a maximum (5 for the prime and 4 for sub(s)). The Prime may submit any number from 0 to 5, and may submit any number for subcontractor(s), from 0 to 4

33 1. If the maximum number of submissions from the prime is five (5) is there a minimum number of submissions required from the prime?

2. If the prime provides less than five past performance submissions, will the proposal still be considered compliant?

3. Are four (4) past performance submissions allowed from subcontractors regardless of the number submitted for the Prime Offeror?

1. If the maximum number of submissions from the prime is five (5) is there a minimum number of submissions required from the prime? No minimum requirement.

2. If the prime provides less than five past performance submissions, will the proposal still be considered compliant? Yes

3. Are four (4) past performance submissions allowed from subcontractors regardless of the number submitted for the Prime Offeror? Yes

34 Will the Government please confirm that the Cost Breakdown Excel Workbook (L.6.1) should contain the Cost

Realism Analysis data elements specified in Section L.6.7? If this is the case, will the Government confirm that only

CPFF CLINs need be included in the Cost Breakdown Excel Workbook?

Yes. CPFF CLINS will be assessed for cost realism

35 The RFP states that “format and content will be in accordance with the instructions in FAR Table 15-2 (located at the end of FAR 15.408)” – this applies to Cost Breakdown Workbook, not Pricing Workbook, correct? Pricing Workbook structure and data requirements have already been set by the Government.

Yes.

36 The solicitation states that “proposed TO CLIN prices in Pricing workbook are binding and will be utilized for the life of the contract” – does the Government mean labor rates?

Yes; proposed labor rates are to be utilized for the life of the contract, with set increases established for the length of the contract Period of Performance. STO CLIN costs submissions are not locked, the labor rates proposed are locked.

37 Please clarify the note on L.6.0 page 51. What is Factor IV (Cost)? Does the Government mean Administrative Cost? Corrected admin error to reflect Factor III (Cost)

38 Attachment 7, Pricing Workbook, Total Proposed Price tab – The formula for Total Proposed Price in cell B6 does not include the price for TO 1.d. Please revise the formula to include all priced task orders

Revised in workbook and amended solicitation.

39 Section L.6.2, Pricing Workbook Format includes instructions for formatting the “Pricing Workbook.” The Pricing

Workbook (Attachment 7) was provided by the Government. Does the Government intend for offerors to modify the format of Attachment 7 in accordance with Section L.6.2, or was Section L.6.2 intended to be the instructions for the Cost Breakdown Workbook referenced in Section L.6.1?

Do not modify Attachment 7 other than to add clarifying comments.

Past Performance/Subcontractor Questions

Cost/Price

40 Attachment 7, Pricing Workbook, Instructions – The last paragraph under “3. Task Order Specific Rates” states, “Offeror shall provide a Cost Breakdown Excel Workbook describing the cost elements of each CLIN delineated as

CPFF IAW L.8.1 of the solicitation.” The solicitation does not have a section L.8.1. Section L.6.1 mentions a Cost

Breakdown Excel Workbook, and states “the Offeror shall provide a separate Cost Breakdown Excel Workbook that contains all elements of cost by CLIN for each Sample Task Order, with all burdens identified for all CLINs for the prime and all proposed subcontractors as Appendix B to the Cost/Price Volume of the offeror’s proposal.” Are offerors required to provide details by cost element for all CLINs, or only for the CPFF CLINs?

CPFF CLINs

41 Proposed Rates: “all direct and indirect ceilings shall be proposed and binding for the length of the SOF RAPTOR IV effective period…”

Please confirm these ceilings will be used for bidding purposes only and CPFF task orders will be invoiced at actual cost.

Rates will be binding and cost will be actual.

42 Proposed Rates Supporting Data indicates if an offeror who does not have a FPRA or FPRR agreement shall provide historical actual average rates for direct labor and base application and actual sales for indirect rates for the last two completed fiscal years. If an offeror has a submitted Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP) for direct and indirect rates may they indicate so and provide this data to support its proposed rates, in lieu of detailed data described in

L.6.5 (1) and (2)?

No.

43 We have received clarification from our DCMA ACO that FPRAs and FPRRs are only provided for contractors whose sales to the Government are expected to exceed $200M in the contractor’s next fiscal year, a threshold that is unreasonable for a small business operating at and below the $38.5M size standard of this solicitation. In addition, DCMA does not issues interim letters.

Therefore, we recommend that the Government accept DCAA approved provisional rates, which achieve the same purpose as the other options identified in L.6.5. DCAA-approved provisional rates provide the Government assurances that an Offeror routinely undergoes (or has completed) an audit from a Government agency

(DCAA/DCMA/ACO) that certifies indirect costs/ provisional rates that are then applied in a realistic and reasonable manner for the duration of the certification.

Recommendations for Provisional rates are noted, but it is still the Governments requirement to have FPRA, FPRR or recent history.

M.4.3.8 states "If none of the above are available (or if the agreement/recommendation does not include direct labor rates), the direct labor rates, indirect labor rates, and sales data will be evaluated as specified in the two bullets below:

The Government will perform a comparative analysis of the historical actual average direct labor rates submitted for the Offeror’s last two completed fiscal years for each and every proposed labor category’s direct labor rate. If the Offeror does not possess any historical information for a proposed rate, the Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the supporting evidence

(methodology and source references) the Offeror utilized to develop the proposed rate.

The Government will perform a comparative analysis of the historical actual indirect rates (to include the base, pool, and calculated actual rate) submitted for the Offeror’s last two completed fiscal years to assist in determining the reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed indirect rates.

The Government will utilize the Offeror’s supporting evidence (allocations, applications, calculations, and methodologies) used to develop the rate to assist in determining the reasonableness of the proposed indirect rates. If the Offeror does not possess any historical actuals for a proposed rate, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s supporting documentation (allocations, applications, calculations, and methodologies) associated with the proposed rate to ensure reasonableness. The Government may evaluate the Offeror’s estimation methodologies (to include, but not limited to, future projected sales data) utilized to develop the indirect rates. The Government may compare the Offeror’s proposed rates and supporting evidence to the Offeror’s Disclosure Statement or Established Practices Documentation to ensure consistency."

44 Will the Government please allow tables to exceed 1 page in length; we often have tables for staffing/ LCATs/ material requirements that cannot be addressed in single page.

Yes. Tables exceeding 1 page in length may be used but will be counted as actual number of pages. See IAW Section L.3.2. 11x17 pages option (nothing larger) may be used, but are counted as two pages.

45 Under Section L, Subfactor 1.1 appears to have to have four areas (Exercise Management, Management Structure, Personnel Management, and Program Management Setup Plan), but under Section M, there appears to be only one area (Exercise Management) with the other three topics included under Exercise Management. Will the

Government please clarify whether Management Structure, Personnel Management, and Program Management

Setup Plan should be written about in the context of Exercise Management, or if all four are distinct topics that offerors should cover as part of Subfactor 1.1?

Solicitation updated to reflect revised paragraph numbering in Section M to match Section L

46 Does the Government want the Offeror to include the Proposal Adequacy Checklist (Attachment 5) in the proposal?

If so, where?

Submit in admin section. Does not count towards page count.

47 Can you reference subfactors and factors within the same volume? Each factor/subfactor is standalone. No additional pages will be added.

48 The AMRDEC SAFE website states that the site has been disabled (checked on 11/13/18) and may not be reinstated.

Requesting the Government revise proposal submission procedures.

IF AMRDEC SAFE remains unavailable, further guidance will be issued on how to submit proposals. Deadline remains 14 Dec. No extensions will be granted.

49 RFP Section L, paragraphs L.2.1 and L.2.6 state proposals are to be submitted via AMRDEC. It has been reported that the AMRDEC site was disabled as a preventative measure against potential security risks and it is uncertain when and if the site will be reinstated. Can the government please clarify how proposals are to be submitted if the issues with AMRDEC are not resolved?

IF AMRDEC SAFE remains unavailable, further guidance will be issued on how to submit proposals. Deadline remains 14 Dec. No extensions will be granted.

50 Will all current Configuration Management documentation be made available from the incumbent? No. Documentation is unique to each Task Order and dependent upon unique requirements provided, on a TO by TO basis.

51 Since the Program Management Setup Plan will be awarded as Task Order 0001 following contract award, would the

Government direct that the plan be an attachment to the offeror's Volume 1 and not count towards the overall

Volume 1 page count?

No. Included in Page count

52 Sections L.5.4, New Corporate Entities and L.5.5 Joint Venture Specific Information are defined as parts of Section 1 or 3, However, details required may be significant. Please confirm that these sections are not within the 25 page limit defined in Table L-1.

Information requested counts towards page count limit.

53 VOLUME II – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

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.

Would Government consider providing page limit for each reference verses a total number of pages?

No, 25 pages total.

54 Is the Program Management Setup Plan for Task Order 0001, IAW the Attachment 9 (Task Order 0001 Statement of

Objectives) excluded from the 75 page count for Volume I?

No. Included in Page count.

55 The questionnaire states: “Please complete the enclosure and return no later than 15 days after receipt of request or 1 December 2018, whichever occurs first.”

• Section L.5.3 states: “The POC shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and email the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date.

• Will the Government consider changing the receipt date on the Questionnaire form to make it consistent with

Section L.5.3, with PPQs being due on the proposal due date?

Yes. Solicitation will be updated to reflect date of PPQ will be accepted up until 14 Dec.

56 Would the Government extend the deadline for the Past Performance Questionnaire due to December 1 being a

Saturday.

Yes. Amendment changed to Dec 14 in solicitation.

57 Can the Government confirm that the Special Activities Task Order is in support of SOCSOUTH? The RFP mentions

SOCAF as well.

Update STO Special Activities to reflect SOCSOUTH

58 Will travel cost be Cost Reimbursable? Travel is normally a separate CLIN IAW JTR. For the purpose of solicitation, use travel under ODC and apply ODC rates.

59 Pricing – What is the difference between ODC and Materials? Is travel included in ODCs or should this be priced separately?

ODC/ materials are proposed by each vendor’s accounting method. Bid travel in ODC for each

STO. Do not bid a new CLIN.

Administrative

Sample Task Orders (STO's)

60 The Sample TO 004 STS PWS states “Commercial air, rail, ground, or sea transportation fares shall be procured using commercial travel agents.”

• No other TOs require use of a commercial travel agent. For example the Sample TO 001 (CRF/EDRE/FMP) PWS states in para.4.2.8 “Contractor is responsible for lodging, per-diem, flight reservations, and travel to and from the training sites, and any other costs pertaining to this exercise.”

Will the Government consider changing the Travel paragraph in TO 004 to align with that in the other TOs, eliminating required use of commercial travel agents?

Yes. STO-4 updated to align with other STO's

61 Period of Performance (POP) is 12 months with an anticipated exercise duration of 7 days, POP includes pre-exercise coordination/preparation, exercise execution, and post-exercise activities.

During 12 month POP, How many SA events (Sensitive Activity/scenario building activities) leading to 7-day culminating exercise will be required? I think this could be IDIQ depending on various scenario builds.

One SA exercise is required.

62 Contractor shall be responsible for replicating multiple low visibility role players enabling Partner Nation (PN) and hostile force action to facilitate the targeting cycle and full scope validation.

To fully develop these scenarios, and to the scope of capability of forces to be trained – this could potentially task multiple Joint forces to conduct reconnaissance and surveillance / SA in various environments to fully exercise the

JSOC staff and SA forces. What is the desired number of scenarios, periodicity, and length of events to produce the targeting cycle? My concern is, as a planning team, we can get too elaborate in scenario building that will drive cost and will adversely affect proposal.

No further clarification on STOs to be provided. Government is looking for the vendor's best COA within budget provided.

63 These operations shall traverse multiple locations with applicable RMT coordination

Will the contractor have direct access to the SOCOM RMT planning team/ legal team and supported operational unit

RMT / legal team regarding RMT coordination? Will all legal obligation agreements for civilian or civilian facilities be government owned, although coordinated by the contractor? Or will the contractor own the RMT legal agreements of civilian facilities

Exercise is hypothetical, NO contact with units is required or authorized.

64 The contractor shall facilitate FMP locations for full spectrum advanced skills operations

While facilitating training sites and venues off of government owned installations, will the contractor have access to

(RMT- Realistic Military Training) coordinators through the military sponsor? SOCOM or JSOC? Or will the contractor be given the ability to coordinate directly with civilian property owners and municipalities?

Exercise is hypothetical, NO contact with units is required or authorized.

65 The RFP requires pricing of 4 Sample Task Orders. Are these Task Order awardable with the initial award? No, Exercise is hypothetical and not to be awarded.

66 Special Activities (SA) Exercise The Offeror shall demonstrate their approach for supporting an SA Exercise for a U.S.

Army Special Forces unit geographically based in Florida.

Where will the exercise be held and when? This is needed to calculate correct pricing based on per diem rates by locality.

See updated STO for guidelines. Date, time are not specified.

67 “Contractor shall provide adequate materiel necessary to support the requirements specified and implied in this

PWS”

What equipment and materials are required to support this effort on the student side?

Contractor will determine the support requirements.

68 Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE)

“Contractor shall provide adequate facilities necessary to support the requirements specified and implied in this

PWS”

Specifically, what facilities are required?

Contractor will determine the support requirements.

69 SOF RAPTOR IV PWS – STO – SA - final How many students will be in each exercise? See number of participants in STO.

70 Special Activities Exercise Support – Sample Task Order 003 – Organizational Requirements

Contractor is responsible for lodging, per-diem, flight reservations, and travel to and from the training sites, and any other costs pertaining to this exercise.

Will student travel be included in the travel costs or will the government be responsible for all student travel costs?

No, service member (student) travel covered by unit.

71 Special Activities Exercise Support – Sample Task Order 003 - Requirements - Operational Requirements

Will the Contractor provide training courses/classes to the students prior to the exercise?

If not what type of training courses will the students take prior to the exercise? (Examples of Training: Surveillance

Training (Physical and/or Technical), Surveillance Detection Training, Advanced Surveillance Detection Training to include Tradecraft, Signature Reduction Training, CTR Training)

No, assume students are trained. This is a hypothetical validation exercise.

72 Att1c-SOFRAPTORIV-PWS-STO-SA-(Amend-1_31Oct2018)

Special Activities Exercise Support – Sample Task Order 003 – Specific Requirement for the Exercise

Provide for Surveillance Detection Routes. Provide one (1) 6-8 man team capable of providing surveillance on a multimode Surveillance Detection Route.

Will the students operate as singletons or in teams when executing the Surveillance Detection Routes? If in teams can you specify the number of students per team? Of the 7 days of training how many days do the students execute

Surveillance Detection routes? If multiple days do the students have surveillance coverage on each of those days?

Government is looking for the best exercise within budget provided.

73 Paragraph 2.4 Soldier Worn Device (SWD) states “The SWD consist of a radio with GPS that is carried by each

Soldier. The SWD is small rugged radio with built-in GPS receiver, emergency alerts, no-motion alerts, and man down alerts that reports Time Space Position Information (TSPI) to the MS”.

Does the SWD have to be a two-way voice communication device, or simply a satellite/GPS device that allows for tracking, manual SOS alerting, along with the ability to set off automated alerts preset on the monitoring platform?

No two way voice.

74 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”. Will the Government provide a list of consumables and expendables utilized under the current SOF RAPTOR contract?

No. Consumables and expendables are at Task Order level and dependent upon unique requirements provided.

75 There appears to be a discrepancy between paragraph 5.3 and 5.4. Paragraph 5.3 states, “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”. PWS paragraph 5.4 states that “the

Contractor employees supporting cybersecurity/IT functions will be appropriately certified upon contract award”.

Can the government clarify?

No change. Contract employees supporting cybersecurity/IT functions must be appropriately certified upon contract award.

76 In view of requirement to address Joint Ventures separately, are Joint Ventures required to respond to instructions for Section L.5.4, New Corporate Entities?

Joint Ventures should also comply with Section L.5.4.

77 Partnerships/Teaming/Joint Venture “note is provided to reiterate that companies are not locked into any teaming arrangements or subcontractors for future work”.

Please confirm if the Government prohibits defined workshare agreements in Teaming Agreements with their teammates/subcontractors.

Not prohibited

78 Request the ability to reference our approach across subfactors, or if not, request additional pages be added to allow for our exercise management approach to be described in a standalone manner in each subfactor.

Each factor/subfactor is standalone. No additional pages will be added

79 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.

Not enough information to answer question from 10.7. Work is currently CONUS

Not Questions/Unanswerable/Opinions

Miscellaneous Questions

80 IAW with DoD Directive and DoD Guidance regarding RMT (DoD Directive (DoDD) 5124.02, and DoD Guidance

Number 1322.28, March 18, 2013 and Incorporating Change 2, Effective May 13, 2014), there are three categories of RMT (Cat I, Cat II, Cat III), based on the OPSEC sensitivity and level of risk involved. The lower levels of risk are

Category I, while higher levels of risk are Category III. For those offerors that have past performance conducting

Category III RMT exercise events, their ability to provide RMT documentation is further restricted by Security

Classification Guidance and coordination restrictions described in the RMT DoD Directive and Guidance.

This is not a question.

81 Will the Government, in an effort to ensure fair evaluations among all offerors, regardless of whether they have provided past exercise support to Cat I, Cat II or Cat III RMT events, will the Government consider removing the requirement to attach an original RMT packet?

IAW with DoD Directive and DoD Guidance regarding RMT (DoD Directive (DoDD) 5124.02, and DoD Guidance

Number 1322.28, March 18, 2013 and Incorporating Change 2, Effective May 13, 2014), there are three categories of RMT (Cat I, Cat II, Cat III), based on the OPSEC sensitivity and level of risk involved. The lower levels of risk are Cat

I, while higher levels of risk are Cat III. For those offerors that have past performance conducting Cat III RMT exercise events, their ability to provide RMT documentation is further restricted by Security Classification Guidance and coordination restrictions described in the RMT DoD Directive and Guidance.

Accordingly, will the Government, in an effort to ensure fair evaluations among all offerors, regardless of whether they have provided past exercise support to Cat I, Cat II or Cat III.

Submit a RMT packet and an AAR from a CRF, UW, or SA exercise that your company produced and submitted to the Government for approval.

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. Offeror will not be given credit for work (RMT/AAR) produced by the Government. The

RMT packet and AAR must be in an original format, unedited from time of original submission, and be from the same exercise. The RMT packet and AAR must be complete (un-redacted) and unclassified.

Final Solicitation Questions Dated 28Nov2018

82 Paragraph one clearly states the AO is Bolivia, yet paragraph 4.1.2 states we need to follow SOCAF guidance. Please clarify either the country that exercise is supposed to replicate or which SOC guidance should be followed.

STO-3 has been updated

83 Section L.3.2 states that the proposal “shall use no smaller than 12-point Arial font for all proposal text” and then states that tables and figures “shall be no smaller than an 8-point text-based font, with no restriction on the font style selected”

Please clarify if proposal body text is limited to Arial font, or if the font can be changed as long as it is no smaller than the size of 12-point Arial.

Proposal body text is limited to Arial font no smaller than the size of 12-point

84 The above Sec L excerpt appears to limit the response to L.4.3.4 to PWS Para 3.0 requirements, but also includes the additional phrase ‘full scope of SOF RAPTOR IV‘. Please confirm that the above Section L excerpt requires that offerors only address Base PWS Para 3.0 requirements in the Volume I response and not the Overarching

Requirements in PWS Para 4.0. If the 12 Overarching Requirements are to be addressed, please consider additional pages for Volume I.

After reviewing the information, paragraph L.4.3.4 and M.4.1.3.4 have been deleted and marked as reserved.

85 Para 1.1 of Setup PWS (Att 9) indicates award in Spring 2019 and requires Phase-in to be complete within one month after award. Para 1.2 requires that Phase-in be complete by 12 Aug 2019. Please confirm/clarify the duration of the

Phase-in period and its desired/required completion date.

If this date is not known is it acceptable to provide a one-month (30 day) notional phase-in timeline with no specific completion date?

Contract award +30 days

86 Please confirm that “produced organically” means 100% produced by any Prime (i.e., all JV partners) or any of the offeror’s formal team members (i.e., all entities with signed Teaming Agreements).

Submit a RMT packet and an AAR from a CRF, UW, or SA exercise that the Prime produced and submitted to the Government for approval. 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. Offeror will not be given credit for work

(RMT/AAR) produced by the Government. The RMT packet and AAR must be in an original format, unedited from time of original submission, and be from the same exercise. The RMT packet and AAR must be complete (un-redacted) and unclassified.

87 Can the Government provide more details for sample task orders 001, 002 and 003 in order to ensure all vendors propose similar solutions?

No, it is not the governments goal for all contractors to necessarily propose similar solutions.

88 Can the Government provide the quantity of subject matter experts (SME’s) for sample task orders 001, 002 and 003 per labor categories?

o Training SME o Observer/Controller o Role Players o Intel SME

Offeror shall provide their best concept to meet the STO requirements. Government is looking for the best exercise/solution within budget provided.

89 Can the Government provide the quantity and types of weapons and ammunition for sample task orders 001, 002 and 003?

Offeror shall provide their best concept to meet the STO requirements. Government is looking for the best exercise/solution within budget provided.

90 Can the Government provide the quantity and types of training vehicles for sample task orders 001, 002 and 003? Offeror shall provide their best concept to meet the STO requirements. Government is looking for the best exercise/solution within budget provided.

91 The Government states the contractor shall provide all lodging, meals and transportation…