USARCENT_DRAFT_Solicitation_Questions_and_USG_Response__6_DEC_19.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 48 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-20-R-0048
About this file
This is a solicitation for training support services for the U.S. Army Central Command. The services include technical expertise, system operators, and maintenance and lifecycle support for training aids, devices, simulators and simulations in Kuwait and other locations within the area of operations. Support is required for live, virtual and constructive training ranges, equipment and facilities. The final solicitation includes exhibits, attachments and appendices and supersedes previous drafts. It provides for a two-phase process with responses to phase one questions due by a specified date. Services include sustainment, operations and support management of numerous training systems. The incumbent contractor currently provides these services.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
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
| ARCENT TSS RFP Question/Comment Form | |||||||
| Question # | RFP DOCUMENT REFERENCED | LOCATION OF VERBIAGE REFERENCED | INDUSTRY QUESTION(S)/COMMENTS | INSUSTRY CONCERN(S) | INDUSTRY | ||
| RECOMMENDATION(S) | US Government Response | ||||||
| Clearly list the name of the RFP specific document: e.g. ARCENT TSS PWS | List the page and paragraph: e.g. pg 59, paragraph 3.3.1.8 | Briefly describe Offeror's question or comment. | What is Offeror's concern? | Which statements or clarifications would Offeror prefer the Government provide, if any? | |||
| 1 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | pg 1, Phase II paragraph 1 | For Phase II, how much time is allotted between PCO notification of acceptable Phase I and the due date for Volumes II - IV proposals delivery? | Need to know how much time is available for Volume II - IV proposal response development. | Recommend a minimum of 45 days from PCO notification of acceptable Phase I to the due date for Volumes II - IV proposals. | The USG anticipates providing offerors that submitted an acceptable Phase I proposal with no less than 30 days to complete Phase 2 proposals. | |
| 2 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | ||||||
| and USARCENT_DRAFT_Price_Workbook_7_NOV_19 | Section L pg 11, L.4.2.6 | Section L.4.2.6 states "for all COST REIMBURSABLE CLINs, the proposal shall set forth a complete breakdown of the direct and indirect rates by category, and the rationale thereof." |
| Can the Government clarify what Offerors are expected to submit for COST REIMBURSABLE CLINs which have plug numbers in the pricing workbook and therefore are not to be populated? | For COST REIMBURSABLE CLINs that have plug numbers, no further pricing information is needed. | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | |||||
| 3 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | Section L pg 4, L.3.1 | Will font size smaller than the listed 12pts be allowed for proposal graphics, organizational charts and tables? | Recommend size 10pt font for tables and size 8pt font for graphics. | Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the criteria within the RFP | ||
| 4 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | Section L pg 5, L.3.1, L.3.2 | Government has referenced an attached Cross-Reference Matrix but there is no Cross-Reference Matrix attached to Nov 7 Draft RFP. Does the Government intend to provide Cross-Reference Matrix template to the Industry or Offerors are allowed to use their own format Cross-Reference Matrix? | Cross-Reference Matrix is requested in a format specific to an attachment not received by Industry. | Please include referenced Cross-Reference Matrix with subsequent Solicitation. | Cross-Reference Matrix is provided with final RFP posted on 2 DEC 19. | |
| 5 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | Section L pg 4, L.3.1 | Please confirm that format requirements provided in Section L.3.1, including TNR or Arial 12pt font and margins, do not apply to customer-provided documents such as SF forms, Section K, DD254, Pricing and Technical Experience workbooks, and any attachments, such as Teaming agreements, confirmation, verification documents for Vol I, etc., required to be provided with the proposal? | Format of Government-provided documents currently do not comply with L.3.1 formatting requirements. Altering format of existing or Government-provided documents to meet proposal format specifications may compromise content and authenticity of the required documentation. | Recommend Customer waives formatting requirements in Section L.3.1 for documentation listed: |
- RFP documents such as SF forms, Section K, DD254, Pricing and Technical Experience workbooks;
| - required attachments, such as Teaming agreements, LOCs, verification documents for Vol I Technical Experience, attachments for Vol III Cost/Price and Vol IV Administrative/ General Information | IAW final RFP section L.3.1, "Format requirements ... do not apply to Government provided documents... Additionally, attachments to the proposal… are not required to be compliant with the format requirements." | ||||||
| 6 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Section_B_7_NOV_19 and USARCENT_DRAFT_Price_Workbook_7_NOV_19 | Section B | CLINs x006, x008, x009, x010, x011, x012 & x013 do not match between the Section B CLINs and Price_Workbook. Please clarify which CLIN structure is correct | Misnumbered CLIN structure could cause pricing to be incorrect. | CLIN structure clarification | CLINS updated in Final RFP Price Workbook posted on 2 DEC 19. | |
| 7 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Price_Workbook_7_NOV_19 | In the Price_Workbook the Option Year 2 and Optional 6 Month Extension CLIN series have the same numbering (i.e. Program Management is CLIN 2002 under both years). Suggest updating the Optional 6 Month Extension Series changed to begin with "3", i.e. CLIN 3002 - Program Management. | Using the same number for 2 different CLINs | Customer updates Option to Extend Services CLINs to begin with "3". | CLINS updated in Final RFP Price Workbook posted on 2 DEC 19. | ||
| 8 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | L.4.2 & L.4.2.5 | DRFP Section L.4.2.5 states 'The ARCENT Price Workbook shall not be changed, reformatted, or otherwise altered, except as noted in the “Instructions” contained in the Price Workbook, to allow for data input by the Offeror'. |
However Section L.4.2 states 'The numbers of hours, personnel and labor categories proposed in Volume III must match the numbers proposed in the Offeror’s Technical Factor (L.4.1.1.3 Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS)).'
| Instructions state not to alter the Price Workbook. Is the Offeror allowed to add additional tabs to this workbook to comply with Section L.4.2 requirement to provide detailed labor categories and hours by PWS? | Unclear direction on where to provide pricing details | Clarification on Price Workbook requirements | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | ||||
| 9 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Price_Workbook_7_NOV_19 | CLIN(s) X009 | CLINs X009 (Defense Base Act/Insurance/Housing) shows that the Govt will provide a Plug number with the release of the RFP. If an Offeror's indirect rate structure includes DBA Insurance, including an additional dictated plug number would effectively be double-counting DBA Insurance, thus making an Offeror's proposed price higher than any Offeror that classifies DBA Insurance as a direct cost. Suggest moving DBA insurance to it's own cost CLIN and have Offeror's propose either direct or indirect, depending on each Offeror's Accounting System. If proposed indirect, require Offeror's to include policy stating coverage limits. | Offerors could have accounting systems that differ on pricing DBA insurance | Suggest moving DBA insurance to it's own cost CLIN and have Offeror's propose either direct or indirect, depending on each Offeror's Accounting System. If proposed indirect, require Offeror's to include policy stating coverage limits. | Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 19 addressed this issue. DBA Insurance shall be proposed on a FFP basis. | |
| 10 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | L.4.2.6 | Section L.4.2.6 states "The specific direct labor rates utilized to price the proposal must be identified in the cost and pricing proposal only'. |
| Is L4.2.6 applicable to only Cost Reimbursable CLINs? | Clarification on what information is needed on FFP vs Cost CLINs. | Instructions updated in Final RFP. | ||
| 11 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Section_B_7_NOV_19 and USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | B & L.4.2.6 | Section L.4.2.6 states "The specific direct labor rates utilized to price the proposal must be identified in the cost and pricing proposal only. For all COST REIMBURSABLE CLINs, the proposal shall set forth a complete breakdown of the direct and indirect rates by category, and the rationale thereof. " |
"For COST REIMBURSABLE CLINs, A separate rate build-up shall be included for each labor category provided for the base and each out year. Provisions for overtime and shift differential charges shall be clearly addressed on a per-hour basis"
| All labor CLINs stipulated in Section B are FFP. Does the above requirement in L.4.2.6 apply to FFP CLINs? | Clarification on what information is needed on FFP vs Cost CLINs. | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | ||
| 12 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Section_B_7_NOV_19 and USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | B & L.4.2.6 | Section L.4.2.6 states "The specific direct labor rates utilized to price the proposal must be identified in the cost and pricing proposal only. For all COST REIMBURSABLE CLINs, the proposal shall set forth a complete breakdown of the direct and indirect rates by category, and the rationale thereof. The Offeror, all proposed Major Subcontractors*, and any Subcontractor providing support under a COST REIMBURSABLE CLIN shall provide the hours and the burdened rate build-up for each labor category, including Fringe, Overhead, Other Indirect(s), General & Administrative (G&A) and Profit. " |
| If any subcontractor (major or otherwise) is contracted on other than a Cost Reimbursable type subcontract (i.e. T&M, FFPLOE) are they required to provide detailed burdened build-up for each labor category? | Clarification on subcontractor requirements | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | ||
| 13 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | L.4.2.6 | Section L.4.2.6 states "For COST REIMBURSABLE CLINs, A separate rate build-up shall be included for each labor category provided for the base and each out year. Provisions for overtime and shift differential charges shall be clearly addressed on a per-hour basis. Bid codes (applicable codes used to identify a labor category in the Offerors accounting system), |
employee names and/or other documentation (such as assigned letter of commitment for key personnel not currently employed by the Offeror) to support the rates proposed shall be provided."
| If proposing actual employee salaries are Offeror's required to submit paystubs with their Cost Proposal? | Clarification on support data required | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | ||
| 14 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | L.4.2.7 | DRFP Section L.4.2.7 states 'The Offeror and its major subcontractors shall provide the following information according to the following order of preference as supporting information to enable the Government’s evaluation. Current Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) or Current Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) provided by the cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer(s) (ACO). Forward Pricing Rate Proposals and provisional billing rates are not acceptable.' |
| If an Offeror does not have either an FPRA or FPRR may the Offeror submit other data that will enable the Government's evaluation? | Offerors may not have a current FPRA or FPRR at the time of proposal submission due to the time DCAA requires to review FPRP. | Allow for alternative support data such as previous FPRAs/FPRRs or historical actuals | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | ||||
| 15 | USARCENT_DRAFT_PWS_7_NOV_19 | 3.3.8.1/p. 73 | Contractor provided “capable generator repair person” onsite for 30 minute response; obviously, this implies that this person(s) is on Camp Buehring 24/7, but in many cases, the generators themselves are up to 30 minutes from contractor living quarters on Buehring proper; is it the USG intent that a 30 minute response means in order to get the repair person to the actual generator proper, or does 30 minutes include an actual problem analysis and assessment? Furthermore, “any damages caused by generator malfunctions, power surges, to non-military training devices will require replacement at Contractor’s expense.” Will the USG clarify why the Contractor would be responsible for damages beyond the Contractor's control, such as power surges? | These types of stipulations hold Contractors responsible for damages beyond the Contractor's control | Recommend deleting "Any damages caused by generator malfunctions, power surges, to non-military training devices will require replacement at Contractor’s expense" from PWS | Aggree to Recommendation, USG will delete: "Any damages caused by generator malfunctions, power surges, to non-military training devices will require replacement at Contractor’s expense" from PWS. Updated PWS will be provided no later than the date the PCO requests Phase II proposals from offerors with an acceptable Phase I proposal. | |
| 16 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | L.4.06 | |||||
| Section L.4.0.1e) | Section L.4.0.1e) requires Offerors to submit a contract reference to demonstrate its "experience complying with and implementing Kuwaiti Labor laws - regulations." and references PWS sections 2.2.2 (Hours of Work) and 4.4 (Applicable Directives - Kuwait and other Country's laws). |
| Section L.4.06 allows Offerors to submit contract references as part of its Technical Experience volume that are from major subcontractors on its ARCENT proposal. | Compliance with Kuwait Labor Law is a complex action that necessitates experience and oversight on any contract being performed in Kuwait at the prime contractor level. Allowing for the possibility that the Kuwait Labor law experience and oversight exists on a contractor team solely at the subcontractor level introduces programmatic risk, not only during transition but throughout contract performance. | Recommend that the Government require the experience necessary to comply with and implement Kuwait Labor law to reside with the Prime Offeror, and revise L.4.06 to stipulate that contract reference submitted to meet the requirement of L.4.0.1e) can only be from a contract executed by the Prime Offeror. | No change. Offerors may meet this Technical Experience requirement with the experience of their proposed major subcontractors. |
| 17 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | L.4.06 | |
| Section L.4.0.1f) | Section L.4.0.1f) requires Offerors to submit a contract reference to demonstrate its "Experience executing a contract in the CENTCOM area of responsibility, to include SPOT compliance, with a workforce in excess of 100 Full-Time Equivalent contractor personnel" and references PWS sections 1.3 (Scope), 2.2.1 (Location of Performance), 3.1.6.1 (SPOT Usage). |
| Section L.4.06 allows Offerors to submit contract references as part of its Technical Experience volume that are from major subcontractors on its ARCENT proposal. | Allowing for the possibility that experience executing a contract with over 100 personnel in SPOT exists on a contractor team solely at the subcontractor level introduces programmatic risk in terms of timely personnel deployment and access, not only during transition but throughout contract performance. | Recommend that the Government require the experience executing a contract in the CENTCOM area of responsibility, to include SPOT compliance, with a workforce in excess of 100 Full-Time Equivalent contractor personnel, reside with the Prime Offeror, and revise L.4.06 to stipulate that contract reference submitted to meet the requirement of L.4.0.1f) can only be from a contract executed by the Prime Offeror. | No change. Offerors may meet this Technical Experience requirement with the experience of their proposed major subcontractors. | |
| 18 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | L.4.1.1.4 | ||
| M.4.1.1.4.d) | To ensure efficient and effective on-site management with the appropriate authority to resolve all performance-related issues, will the USG consider including requirement for Key Personnel such as Program Manager ? | Compliance with the Kuwaiti Labor Law, managing a workforce over 100 FTEs in CENTCOM AOR, and retaining an operational readiness rate required to meet the hours of availability in the PWS for both the virtual TADSS and Live training facilities requires a Program Manager with extensive experience in Training Support Services. | Include a requirement for a Key Personnel Program Manager with more than 5 years experience in Training Support Services, of which a minimum of three years as a Program Manager in Kuwait, and with demonstrated performance complying with the Kuwaiti Labor Law for a workforce greater than 100 FTEs. | No change. Key personnel is not a requirement for this solicitation. |
| 19 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | L.4.1.1.3 | The detailed information requested by Section L.4.1.1.3 seems to be requesting an organization breakdown structure (OBS) rather than a CWBS (e.g., "Each CWBS shall identify, for the proposed labor categories, clearly defined lines of responsibility, clearly defined levels of decision authority, location of personnel, and the communications/interfaces"). IAW DI-MGMT-81334D and MIL-STD-881, Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Items, a WBS is a product structure — not an organizational structure — which provides the complete definition of the work to be performed by all participants. |
| Can the Government clarify if an OBS identifying all of the requested data elements listed in Section L.4.1.1.3 is acceptable. | To meet the requirements of Section L.4.1.1.3 a detailed OBS with all requested data is needed, including rationale and calculations for the proposed LCATs, personnel and hours. Providing a CWBS IAW MIL-STD-881 would be in addition to this requested data and collectively could consume a large portion of the page allocation. | In Section L.4.1.1.3, replace the term CWBS with OBS. | Regardless of the title for RFP section L.4.1.1.3, Offerors shall provide the detailed information requested within L.4.1.1.3. The USG will evaluate IAW RFP section M.4.1.1.3. | ||||
| 20 | USARCENT_DRAFT_PWS_7_NOV_19 | 3.1.2, p.37 | PWS 3.1.2 requires initial submission of PMP at contract award. Please clarify if submission of Proposal Volume II Factor 2 Program Management constitutes the initial submission of PMP. | Submission requirement removed from PWS. Updated PWS shall be provided no later than the date the PCO requests Phase II proposals from offerors with an acceptable Phase I proposal. PMP delivery requirements are delineated in CDRL A008 | |||
| 21 | USARCENT_DRAFT_PWS_7_NOV_19 | PWS 2.5.11.1, pg.25, | |||||
| PWS 3.1.2, pgs. 36, 37 | PWS states that "The Government will incorporate the staffing plan into the contract." The Government mentions Staffing Plan in other sections of PWS but there is not requirement to submit Staffing Plan in Section L. Please clarify. | Offeror's proposed CWBS is equivlent to the Staffing Plan outlined in PWS para. 3.1.2 | |||||
| 22 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | L.4.1.3.1 | L.4.1.3.1 - Phase In, states: "k) Capability and approach to support a shortened phase-in period (less than 90 days), and identification of total calendar days needed to fully meet a phase-in requirements at no additional cost to the Government." Is the Government asking that - if upon award - the Government requests to shorten the phase-in period, can we perform the same phase-in with no change in price? | IAW RFP section L.4.1.3.1, the USG is requesting the Offeror to address their capability and approach to support a shortened phase-in period and identify total calendar days needed to fully meet the phase-in requirements at no additional cost to the Government. | |||
| 23 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | L.4.2.9 | L.4.2.9 states "Initiation of contract performance is 01 July 2019." Is this date intended to be the start of transition/phase-in (CLIN 0001), or full contract performance (CLINs 0002-0012)? | ||||
| Insufficient information as to what part of the contract start the 1 July 2019 date applies. | Recommend addition of clarifying language to this statement. | Section F of the Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 19 addresses this. | |||||
| 24 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | L.4.3.6 | L.4.3.6 requires Offerors to provide a 'Small Business Participation Commitment Document". L.4.3.6 later refers to a "Small Business Subcontracting Plan". Should Offerors assume that the Participation Commitment Document and Subcontracting Plan are the same document? If not, please clarify. | Potential conflict or confusion between two document references within requirement. | Recommend clarification of requirement through consistent naming convention of required document, or further specification of difference between the two required documents. | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | |
| 25 | USARCENT_DRAFT_PWS_7_NOV_19 | 2.5.7.1 | 2.5.7.1 states: "The Contractor shall create, maintain, and update an SOP for each section listed in the PWS. The SOP shall be reviewed annually for completeness and relevantly by both the Contractor and the COR. The SOP will cover the processes required to complete all tasks contained in the PWS. The Contractor is the approval authority of the SOP. The SOP will be initially submitted as a draft to the Government NLT 30 days after the start of Phase-in and a final submission at the conclusion of the Phase-in transition milestone. The Contractor can work directly with the onsite ARCENT staff to ensure all items are identified and the operations do not violate Army rules or regulations. The SOP shall NOT be marked “Proprietary” by the Contractor. The Government can release the SOP to solicit future acquisitions IAW Government Purpose Rights. The Contractor shall provide a digital copy to the Government and the Government will have Government Purpose Rights to the data." | Contractor processes to complete PWS tasks can be or are proprietary in how work is performed and completed. These Contractor-developed SOPs have been required on other contracts, but Government Purpose Rights are not required or requested. | |||
| Recommend removal of Government Purpose Rights requirement. | The USG will update PWS para. 2.5.7.1 to remove GPR requirement. |
Updated PWS will be provided no later than the date the PCO requests Phase II proposals from offerors with an acceptable Phase I proposal.
| 26 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Technical_Experience_Ref_Workbook_7_NOV_19 | Brief Narrative of Technical Experience Reference | The space allocated to add narrative in the “ Brief Narrative of Technical Experience Reference” field allows for a very minimal content which is not sufficient to "clearly describe how this Technical Experience Reference meets the above requirements in which the Offeror responded 'Yes'". An error messages are generated. Will the Government allow Offerors to add additional fields/rows for each question? | Recommend Government allows Offerors to add additional rows in "Brief Narrative of Technical Experience Reference" field for each question the Offeror responded "Yes" | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | |
| 27 | USARCENT_DRAFT_Sections_L-M_7_NOV_19 | L.4.1.1 | L.4.1.1 states that "Subfactor 2.1 Program Management Approach The Program Management Approach shall be submitted as a standalone document", neither L.4.1.2 nor L.4.1.3 specify whether SF 2.2 and SF 2.3 have to be "standalone document". Please clarify whether cross-reference between Sub-factors in Factor 2 Vol II is allowed. | Given page limitations there may be a need to refer to other subfactors within the volume. | Recommend Government allows for cross-reference between SubFactors within Factor 2 Volume II | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. Requirement for Subfactor 2.1 to be a standalone document has been removed. Offerors may cross-reference between SubFactors within Factor 2 Volume II. |
| 28 | ARCENT TSS PWS | 1.5 Definitions (ARTC TADSS), page 7 | The PWS states, "…constructive training exercises executed by another contract supporting ARCENT." | The contract or contractor is not defined in the PWS, which makes it difficult for a bidder to determine who specifically they would be coordinating with to provide required support. | Would the Government identify the contract and supporting contractor supporting the constructive training exercises? And would the Government operationally define what is meant by constructive training exercises? | Aegis is the contractor under a seprate contract with ARCENT which is providing constructive training. |
The constructive training environment uses computer models, tools, and interfaces to exercise mission command functions.
| 29 | ARCENT TSS PWS | 1.5 Definitions (Training Support Center), page 8 | The PWS states there are three main facilities, one inside the ARTC at Camp Buehring, and Camp Arifjan. | The PWS states three main facilities, but only two are listed. | Would the Government identify the location of the third TSC facility? | No third location: Qatar was left out intentionally. Updated in PWS that released on 2 DEC w/Final RFP |
| 30 | ARCENT TSS PWS | a. Letter of Authorization, page 10 | The PWS states that the Government shall provide an LOA for contractors to process through an approved CRC to travel to and from those countries within the AOR. | Do all personnel assigned to this contract need to process through and attend CRC? | Would the Government clarify what personnel must attend CRC prior to their arrival within the AOR? | There are currently no requirements for personnel to travel through a CRC for the ARCENT AOR. PWS will not be modified due to the fact that the threat environment could change. |
| 31 | ARCENT TSS PWS | 2.2.2 Hours of Work, page 13 | This paragraph states that a normal workweek is based on an 8-hour workday over 6 days per week. The paragraph also states it is normal to work in excess of 48 hours per week but that compensation exceeding 48 weekly hours will not be paid at a premium rate. | It is unclear what the Government means by saying compensation exceeding 48 hours will not be paid at a premium rate. Are contractors to understand that hours in excess of 48 hours will be paid at the normal hourly rate as long as they don't exceed 54 hours in accordance with Kuwait labor law? | We request the Government be more specific by what they mean when they say, "This is the normal work week and for which compensation exceeding 48 weekly hours is not paid at a premium rate." | "This is the “normal work week” and for which compensation exceeding 48 weekly hours is not paid at a premium rate" from the PWS paragraph 2.2.2. This “normal work week” does not exceed the norm for the area, as determined by local custom, tradition or law. |
Unscheduled events may require the Contractor to flex additional hours outside the normal work week to meet Government requirements. Will be at FFP contracted rate
| 32 | ARCENT TSS PWS | 3.1.12, page 44 | The PWS states that potential ACAs are with the ARCENT Exercise/Simulation Support Contractor located at Shaw AFB, the Kuwait Base Operations and Security Support Services Contractor, and other Contractors as necessary. | For coordination purposes, will the Government provide the names of the contractors where the ACAs are recommended? | We recommend the Government identify the contractors currently with ACAs supporting the ARCENT TSS contract. | Current ACA's in support of ARCENT TSS requirements are only established with Theissen and Riptide. These ACAs are concerning target upgrades currently being conducted. |
| 33 | ARCENT TSS PWS | 3.7 Kuwaiti Multipurpose Range Complex, page 106 | 3.7.1 and 3.7.1.1 are silent with respect to Range Security. | Is there an expectation by the Government that the successful contractor provide security monitors to provide 24/7 situational awareness with respect to unauthorized range activity? | The Government's intent is to prevent theft of property within the URC with industry developing a solution to meet this performance-based task. | |
| 34 | ARCENT TSS RFP | L.4.0.1; L.4.0.2, pages 5 and 6 | According to the RFP, L.4.0.2, "The Offeror shall provide up to five Technical Experience references for evaluation. Offerors shall submit Technical Experience References using the attached Technical Experience Reference Workbook. At least one of the up to five Technical Experience references shall provide verifiable experience for Section L4.0.1 paragraphs (a) thorough (f). These requirements may be met separately, in the up to five Technical Experience references submitted. Each Technical Experience reference submitted shall fully comply with Section L.4.0.1 paragraphs (g), (h) and (i)." | Would the Government please identify the reference to (i)? | Item (i) seems to be omitted from the list in L.4.0.1 (a thru h). | Final RFP removes reference to (i). |
| 35 | ARCENT TSS RFP | L.4.1.1.3, pages 7 and 8 | According to the RFP, L.4.1.1.3 Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS), "Offeror shall provide a CWBS with all proposed labor categories executing performance-based requirements within the PWS. Each CWBS shall identify, for the proposed labor categories, clearly defined lines of responsibility, clearly defined levels of decision authority, location of personnel, and the communications/interfaces (e.g., Contractor/Subcontractor to Government, Prime to Subcontractor, Prime to Site/Site Manager, and Subcontractor to Site/Site Manager). CWBS shall identify: a) Labor categories, broken out by PWS section b) Position Descriptions for each labor category c) Qualifications (experience, specialized education, and certification(s)) for each labor category d) Number of personnel for each labor category, broken out by PWS section e) Number of hours proposed for each category, broken out by PWS section f) Identify if the position is CONUS or OCONUS g) For CONUS positions, identify if position is Exempt or Non Exempt from the Service Contract Act h) Identify if the position will be filled by Expat (US Citizen) or Foreign National (FN) CWBS rationale and assumptions: The Offeror must provide its overarching methodology for determining its proposed Qualifications by Labor Category and assumptions supporting staffing decisions or explanations needed to clarify staffing decisions made in order to ensure proper execution of the effort. The numbers of hours, personnel and labor categories must match the numbers in the Offeror’s Cost/Price Workbook. The Offeror shall provide rationale and calculations that clearly identify the methodology used to arrive at the labor categories, number of personnel, and/or proposed hours for each labor category listed in the PWS." | Is it the Government's intent to include the CWBS as part of the page-count limitations within Volume II, Factor 2 (75 pages)? | The Government provided very clear requirements for the CWBS; we recommend Offerors provide their responses in accordance with the requirements as an attachment. | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. The CWBS shall be provided as an attachment. The CWBS rationale and assumptions shall be included within the volume and included in the page count. |
| 36 | Technical Experience Reference Workbook | Cell D8 | Would the Government please clarify what the "US Government Requiring Activity" refers to? | Please clarify if the "requiring activity" is the customer agency for whom the contracting agency acquired the program. | IAW DoD Instruction 5000.74 - Defense Acquisition of Services - Requiring Activity is defined as: |
"The organization charged with meeting a mission and delivering requirements. The requiring activity is responsible for obtaining funding or developing the program objective memorandum. The requiring activity is also the organizational unit that submits a written requirement or statement of need for services required by a contract award. The requiring activity is responsible for delivering the services to meet the mission. Finally, the requiring activity provides trained and qualified contracted officers capable of determining whether service contract requirements are being performed in accordance with the contract terms.
| 37 | Section L RFP | L.4.0.1; L.4.0.2; pages 5 and 6 | Would the Government please clarify if the PWS references/PWS paragraph are individual (for example, 3.5.1), or inclusive of the subset (for example, 3.5.1, inclusive of 3.5.1.1 thru 3.5.1.36)? | Please clarify for evaluation uniformity of Offeror's responses. | If PWS references are to include subset references, please state so. | PWS references updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 19. |
| 38 | Section L RFP | L.4.2.6; page 11 | In L.4.2.6, instructions on CR CLINs are given for rate buildups, backup data, labor costs, etc. |
For all COST REIMBURSABLE CLINs, the proposal shall set forth a complete breakdown of the direct and indirect rates by category, and the rationale thereof.
However, in the cost workbook, the only CR CLINs are reserved for TBD plug numbers for materials and ODC, travel, and DBA. The other CLINs are FFP. This is further confirmed in section M.4.2.1 “The COST CLINs will have Government provided values and will be included in the TEP.” The FFP CLINs are mentioned as evaluated for reasonableness and balance.
| Will the Government confirm the correct instructions for the FFP CLINs and if the Government intends on requiring that level of detail in the rates? | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | |||||
| 39 | Section L RFP | L.4.2.5; page 11 | In L.4.2.5, instructions are that the price workbook is not to be changed, reformatted, or otherwise altered, except as noted in the instructions. L.4.2.11 requires the cost volume include supporting formulas and calculations. The workbook instructions do not mention including the formulas and calculations used to populate it. | Is the price workbook to be submitted separately from the model used to populate it, or can we append the price workbook to include the model necessary to populate it? | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | |
| 40 | ARCENT- PWS 01-VO3 (7 Nov 2019) | Is Qatar part of ARCENT TSS? | Is Qatar part of the ARCENT TSS an intentional omission or oversight? | Qatar was left out intentionally | ||
| 41 | Section L RFP | L.1.5; page 2 | According to RFP Section L.1.5, Instructions to Offerors, at Section L.1.5, requires that offerors identify proprietary information. With respect, this is an unusual requirement and potentially very burdensome. | Will the Government delete Section L.1.5 given its apparent conflict and inconsistency with this DFARS clause? | DFARS 252.227-7016(b) and (c) limits the Government's use of proposal information. | No change. The Government, to the extent permitted by law and regulation, will safeguard and treat information obtained pursuant to the Contractor’s disclosure as confidential where the information has been marked “confidential” or “proprietary” by the company. To the extent permitted by law and regulation, such information will not be released by the Government to the public pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request, 5 U.S.C. Section 552, without prior notification to the Contractor. The Government may transfer documents provided by the Contractor to any department or agency within the Executive Branch if the information relates to matters within the organization’s jurisdiction. |
| 42 | Section L RFP | L.1.5; page 2 | According to RFP Section L.1.5, Instructions to Offerors, at Section L.1.5, requires that offerors identify proprietary information. With respect, this is an unusual requirement and potentially very burdensome. | Can Offerors make a statement on the cover page that all contents of a particular volume or file are Exempt? | DFARS 252.227-7016(b) and (c) limits the Government's use of proposal information. | For each standalone Volume/Factor, the Offeror may make an all inclusive statement regarding proprietary information, as applicable. |
| 43 | Section L&M | L.4.1.1.3; page 7 | Is it the Government's intent to provide a worksheet for the CWBS? Or would the Government prefer the contractor provide the format of the CWBS? If so, does the Government have a file format preference for the submission of the CWBS? | Please provide a template worksheet if it is your intent. If not, please mandate this content be provided in Excel format, separate from the 75-page restriction for this Factor. | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | |
| 44 | Section L&M | L.4.1.3.1 & L.4.1.3.2; pages 9 and 10 | Will the Government allow the Phase-in and Phase-out schedules to be combined? Will the Government allow for the schedules to be provided in Microsoft Project separate from page count? | Potential bidders would be limited to include the content expected for Factor 2.4. This would alleviate the concern to provide a viable and complete solution. | Please remove the page restrictions from L.4.1.3.1 & L.4.1.3.2 (Subfactor 2.4 Phase-in/Phase-out). | Phase-in and Phase-out schedules shall be proposed separately. The USG will update the instructions to direct the schedule to be provided as an attachment in Microsoft Project. |
| 45 | PWS | 3.2.1.1 & 3.3.1.26 | The table in paragraph 3.2.1.1 indicates there are 4 engagement skill trainers. The table in paragraph 3.3.1.26 indicates there are 9 ESTs. | There is a discrepancy between the two tables that will have a direct impact on the number of FTEs required as well as the pricing. | Will the Government clarify the total number of ESTs by type and location in order to rectify this discrepancy? | 1 EST II = 5 Lanes. The 45 lanes in table 1 total 9 EST IIs. This is consistent with 9 EST IIs as listed in 3.3.1.26. |
| 46 | USARCENT_DRAFT_PWS_7_NOV_19 | 1.3 (also 4.1.1) | This implies any country within the USCENTCOM AOR, different than 2.2.1. | Some of these countries, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, would require special considerations and costs. | Will the Government confirm the desired locations and clarify the apparent conflicting sections? | Currently, there are no ARCENT TSS requirements in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Current ARCENT TSS requirement locations are delineated in PWS Table 1 and PWS para. 3.4 and 3.5. |
Other locations within the USCENTCOM AOR are within Scope of this effort; however, not current requirements.
47 USARCENT_DRAFT_PWS_7_NOV_19 3.3.1.11 Does the Government intend to provide an updated Appendix A delineating the level of maintenance for each system? During the site visit, the Government stated that some systems are under warranty or have other programed support. This information is known by the incumbent and, if not shared with all bidders, would limit competition. Confirm this information as part of a revised Appendix A, or make a statement in the PWS to clarify. Each system requires up to, and including, depot level maintenance support. Appendix A will not be updated.
No systems in Appendix A are currently under Warranty or have other programed support.
| 48 | Sections L, M; | ||||||
| USARCENT_Draft_Technical_Experience | L.4.0.1 (Page 5), M.4.0.1 (Page 17); | ||||||
| TE Reference Tabs | f) requires more than 100 FTEs in the CENTCOM AOR, while h) requires an Annual contract value in excess of $10M. The Experience worksheet requests a total contract value in excess of $10M. | Relevant programs in the CENTCOM AOR may use Local Nationals (LN) and have relevant complexity, SPOT requirements, and FTE count, but may not have the annual contract value due to employment of LNs at the in-country market. Also, the experience reference tabs request the total contract value, including options rather than an annual contract value. The totality of these requirements may be met, but over several contracts. | We suggest the evaluation criteria be EITHER $10M annual contract value or 100 or more FTEs, and that the total contract value, including options, be considered when evaluating technical experience. | Instructions and eval criteria updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | |||
| 49 | PWS | 3.2.1.1; page 45 | Most of the instruction is identified as "Unit Led," but some is not. | For the devices/sites that instruction is not "Unit Led," will the Government provide programs of instruction or other training materials for use by contractor instructors? | Government-provided POIs will ensure uniform instruction by contractor personnel across training sites. | The Government will provide required Training Support Packages for instruction which is not unit led. The USG will provide the POIs no later than the date the PCO requests Phase II proposals from offerors with an acceptable Phase I proposal. | |
| 50 | PWS | 3.2.1.1; page 45 | Staffing hours/day is identified in the table, and some, but not all, entries identify class duration. There is no mention of multiple units training simultaneously, which may demand more than one I/O per device. | Simultaneous classes/lessons and durations have a direct impact on staffing levels. | We recommend the Government provide a training schedule for each device in the table, or provide other information to enable the contractor to ensure staffing is adequate to meet peak and nominal demands. | The Government intent is to provide TADSS availability as stated within the PWS by numbers of hours per week. Unit training schedules are develop and are aligned with the number of hours of availability as stated in the PWS | |
| 51 | PWS | 3.3 (page 53), 3.3.1.26 (page 62) | No information is provided on GFE spares to meet the specified turnaround time. | If adequate initial spares are not provided at startup, turnaround times will not be achieved due to parts delays or requirements to ship items to the OEM for warranty or other repair actions. | Please provide the inventory of spares the contractor can expect to receive at start of work. | Spares are contained in the GFP listing | |
| 52 | PWS | 3.3.1.26 (page 62) | The table in paragraph 3.2.1.1 indicates there are 5 CFFT's however, it shows only 4 by country (2 in Kuwait, 1 in Jordan, and 1 in the UAE). | There is a discrepancy within the table that will have a direct impact on the number of FTEs required as well as the pricing. | Will the Government clarify the total number of CFFTs and verify their locations in order to rectify this discrepancy? | 1 CFFT in Kuwait is in Storage, so 3 in Kuwait | |
| 53 | PWS | 3.3.1.26 (page 62) | The table in paragraph 3.2.1.1 indicates there are 2 GFT VBS3's however, the table indicates there is only one and that is located in Kuwait. | There is a discrepancy within the table that will have a direct impact on the number of FTEs required as well as the pricing. | Will the Government clarify the total number of GFT VBS3's and verify their locations in order to rectify this discrepancy? | 1 GFT VBS3 in Kuwait is in Storage, so 2 in Kuwait | |
| 54 | USARCENT_DRAFT_PWS_7_NOV_19 | 1.3 Scope (page 5) | Can the Govt provide the number of unscheduled training events that occurred over the pervious three years (2016-2019) with DoD units, U.S. Agencies, Foreign Military Units and/or Other Organizations? | Only the incumbent would have the knowledge that may require special consideration and pricing | Provide the number of unscheduled training events in PWS to allow non-incumbents knowledge on future requirements on staffing and pricing | See paragraph / 2.2.2 Hours of Work |
The Contractor shall, at all times, maintain an adequate workforce for the uninterrupted performance of all tasks defined within this PWS. A break in services due to a late shift change that is not directly or indirectly caused by the Government shall be at the expense of the Contractor. A normal work week is based on an 8-hour work day over 6 days per week. It is routine for Contractor personnel to perform a “normal work week” in excess of 48 hours a week. This “normal work week” does not exceed the norm for the area, as determined by local custom, tradition or law.
Unscheduled events may require the Contractor to flex additional hours outside the normal work week to meet Government requirements.
The USG will update the PWS to clearly define unscheduled training requirement. Updated PWS will be provided no later than the date the PCO requests Phase II proposals from offerors with an acceptable Phase I proposal.
55 Section M M.4.1.1.7, Page 19 The Section M enumeration may be missing a section, or inadvertently misnumbered.
Section M steps from M.4.1.1.5 to M.4.1.1.7
| Will the Government clarify is this is a typographical omission? | Eval criteria updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | ||||||
| 56 | ARCENT TSS PWS | 3.1.6 (pg. 39) | Would the Government clarify the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) proficiency skill level required for the Arabic/English Linguists supporting the spoken (interpretation) and written (translation) requirements of this program? Are there other qualifications required for these linguists? | From experience, this offeror has seen widely varying degrees of professional standards submitted and indirectly costed between bidders when the Government does not specify the proficiency level required of linguists (interpreters and translators). We feel it's in the best interest of the Government to make this clarification. | This offer suggests the Government required linguists who support this program be tested and achieve a level no lower than 3/3/3/3 on the ILR scale. These scales can be reviewed at www.govtilr.org | PWS will be updated to reflect the required proficiency skill level required for the Arabic/English Linguists supporting the spoken (interpretation) and written (translation) requirements of this program. IAW RFP section L.4.1.1.3, the offeror shall propose the qualifications required for the position. |
Updated PWS will be provided no later than the date the PCO requests Phase II proposals from offerors with an acceptable phase I proposal.
| 57 | ARCENT TSS PWS | 3.1.9.3 (pg. 42) | Can the Government estimate, based on historical usage, how much course material and course instruction is required to be translated into Arabic on a yearly basis? | Historically, none. There is no requirement for course material and course instruction to be translated into Arabic on a yearly basis |
| 58 | ARCENT TSS PWS | 3.1.9.3 (pg. 42) | As this program supports scheduled and unscheduled training events with Foreign Military Units in a number of countries, some of which do not speak Arabic (i.e. Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.) is there a requirement for the contractor to provide qualified Linguists who can support interpretation and translation in other languages? | No requirement |
| 59 | ARCENT TSS PWS | 3.3.1.27 (pg. 64) | How many Civilian on the Battlefield (COB) figures are required for each location? Are there any additional requirements of these figures? | Requirement is for up to 25 COB figures at each location. |
There are no additional requirements for thses figures.
PWSwith quantity update will be provided no later than the date the PCO requests Phase II proposals from offerors with an acceptable Phase I proposal.
| 60 | ARCENT TSS PWS | 2.2.1 (pg. 12) | Will Role Players of any kind be required for temporary training exercises? If so, what are the qualification requirements? | No requirement | ||
| 61 | ARCENT TSS PWS, 7 Nov 19 | PWS page 10 para 2. b. Billeting 1 & 2 | The PWS does not address contractor billeting at the Jordanian and Emirate permanent sites. Will the USG provide housing for personnel at those locations? | Better description of billeting requirements at all permanent sites is needed to support development of pricing. | Provide statements to address billeting at these sites. | TDY ands Return. The government will provide housing based upon availability. If unavailable, contractors will stay in the local area hotels as approved in accordance with the PWS and CLIN X010, Travel. |
| 62 | ARCENT TSS PWS, 7 Nov 19 | PWS page 12, para 2.2.1 - Location of Performance and PWS table page 46, para 3.2.1 I/O Services | In 2.2.1 - Kuwait and Jordan are listed as primary places of performance. In the table in 3.2.1 - it shows EST II and CFFT facilities in the UAE at CPF level 1. Is the UAE a primary location, or a secondary TDY location? Is CPF 1 the actual CPF level? | Clarification of location type and CPF level is needed to determine resources for the UAE location. | Provide clarification regarding the UAE and simulator CPF status at these sites. | 1. UAE and Jordan are primary locations. |
2. For UAE and Jordan, CPF 1 is the actual CPF level
Currently facilities are not complete at UAE and Jordan, however, they are anticpated to be complete prior to start of performance for this contract. Once complete, the devices will be installed and sustained at CPF level 1.
| 63 | ARCENT TSS, Draft Sections L&M, 7 Nov 19 | L.4.0.1.a; PWS page 52 para 3.2.2.2 and PWS pages 92-104 para 3.5 and subparagraphs. | Section L.4.0.1.a states: "Experience executing a service contract with range "control" operations. " The references in the PWS and Tech Experience workbook call for experience in Range Operations, not Range Control Operations. Please confirm if the language in section L.4.0.1.a is for range operations rather than range control. | Range control operations differ from range operations and we want to be certain of the requirement. | Provide clarification regarding the term range "control" operations or change the language in L.4.0.1.a to range operations. | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | |
| 64 | Sections L-M | pg1, para1.0 | Will the government provide a draft proposal schedule so offerors can plan and assign resources for the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday, the annual industry/government I/ITSEC conference and Christmas holiday. | Our concern is having to work our employees over the holiday and following weekend and many of our proposal team (us and our teammates) will have people attending I/ITSEC. We need to know the schedule (at least a best guess) so we can give adequate notice to employees | Request the government provide a tentative schedule before the Thanksgiving holiday. | The USG anticipates providing offerors that submitted an acceptable Phase I proposal with no less than 30 days to complete Phase 2 proposals. | |
| 65 | Sections L-M | pg 4, para L.3.1 | The paragraph states that The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled, including the attached Cross-Reference Matrix within Volume I – Factor 1 and Volume II – Factor 2 proposal | No Cross-Reference Matrix attachment was provided in the DRFP | Please provide Cross-Reference Matrix attachment | Cross-Reference Matrix is provided with final RFP posted on 2 DEC 19. | |
| 66 | Sections L-M | pg 6, para L.4.0.2 | Reference Matrix within Volume I – Factor 1 and Volume II – Factor 2 proposal. | Possible missing requirement | State missing requirement or eliminate reference | Instructions updated in Final RFP posted on 2 DEC 2019. | |
| 67 | Sections L-M | pg 6, para L.4.0.1 (g) | The requirement to cite performance within the past 3 years is restrictive. | Limits Competition | Suggest changing the requirement to five years to enhance competition | No change. Market research shows that there are numerous contractors with the technical experience in the past three years. |
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 .