MTCCS II Q and As Round 2 Complete.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 63 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Mission Training Complex Capabilities Support (MTCCS) II Solicitation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W900KK23R0006
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Mission Training Complex Capabilities Support (MTCCS) II Solicitation has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Q# | Doc | Para # | Page # | Reference | Question | Government Response | |
| 1 | Attachment 12 | Leesville PWS | 1 | For accuracy, would the Government please correct the spelling of Leesville to be Leesville on the first page of the PWS? | Corrected | ||
| 2 | Attachment 12 - Leesville PWS | C.2.1.1.1 | 5 | C.2.1.1.1 states that "Each training and technical personnel must be cross-trained on at least two different systems or task areas." | Can the Government please confirm whether all Leesville TO LCATs are considered either training or technical personnel? | Leesville has both Training and Technical personnel | |
| 3 | Attachment 12 - Leesville PWS; Attachment 1 MASTER MTCCS II LCATsv3 | PWS: C.2.6.4; | |||||
| Mater LCATs: TAB B | 12 | Leesville PWS C.2.6.4 describes the duties and qualifications of the Technical Integration Leadership, however there is no apparent corresponding position in the MASTER LCATs TAB B spreadsheet. | Can you please clarify whether this position corresponds with one of the positions in the MASTER LCATs TAB B spreadsheet or if this is an additional position? | Leesville PWS takes precedence over LCAT TAB B. | |||
| 4 | Attachment 12 - Leesville PWS; Attachment 1 MASTER MTCCS II LCATsv3 | PWS: C.2.6.5; | |||||
| Master LCATs: TAB B, row 7 | PWS 12 | Leesville PWS C.2.6.5 describes the duties and qualifications of the Network Engineer/Information Assurance Lead, however there is no corresponding position in the MASTER LCATs TAB B spreadsheet with the same name. | Can you confirm whether this position aligns with the Engineer Tech V in the MASTER LCATs TAB B spreadsheet or if it is an additional position? | Leesville PWS takes precedence over LCAT TAB B. | |||
| 5 | Attachment 12 - Leesville PWS; Attachment 1 MASTER MTCCS II LCATsv3 | C.2.6. Key Personnel; | |||||
| Master LCATs: TAB B, Rows 2-11 | PWS 12 | PWS C.2.6 Lists seven (7) Key Personnel positions, while the Master LCATs TAB B table for Leesville on denotes five (5) Key positions. | Will the Government please clarify the key LCAT positions required for the Leesville TO? | Leesville PWS takes precedence over LCAT TAB B. | |||
| 6 | Attachment 12 - Leesville PWS; Attachment 1 MASTER MTCCS II LCATsv3 | C.2.6. Key Personnel; | |||||
| Master LCATs: TAB B, Rows 2-11 | PWS 12 | PWS C.2.6 states all Key Personnel positions require a Secret clearance, while the Master LCAT table for Leesville on TAB B list some positions (Site Lead and Network Manager - ISSO ) require a Top Secret clearance. | |||||
| Will the Government please clarify and restate the required security clearance levels for al of the key LCATs for the Leesville TO? | See C.2.4 Security Requirements | ||||||
| 7 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.5.2.2 | 89 | RTOP states “Discuss how to accommodate daily and fluctuating workloads, and the approach to “surge” employees both to different MTC’s and within an MTC to meet training requirements. | Is it the Government’s intent that the Leesville MTC operate as a “hub and spoke” or otherwise support different MTCs? | Leesville MTC is a standalone MTC. It does not operate as a hub or a spoke | |
| 8 | Attachment 12, Small Leesville PWS | C.2.4.6 | 8 | Physical Security. PWS reads “The contractor shall provide physical security and access control to all MTC facilities and campuses located at the MTC.” | Will the Government provide details on how many different access points are to be manned by the contractor at the Leesville MTC? | There are 2 access points. | |
| 9 | Attachment 12 - Leesville PWS | C.3.3.5.3. | 21 | In the previous Draft RFP dated 23 Aug 2022 paragraph C.3.3.5.3. states "Provide Company Intelligence Support Team (CoIST) training using TIGR and DCGS-A link diagram analyst tools (AXIS PRO)." |
| This Task has been removed from the Revised Draft RFP 092622. | With the removal of this requirement, does this relieve the Contractor from providing any Intelligence or CoIST Training utilizing IEWTPT, DCGS-A, or IEWTPT? | IEWTPT is still utilized at Leesville MTC | |||
| 10 | DRAFT_W900KK-23-R-0035_26SEP2022; Attachment (12) Small Leesville PWS_CUI; Attachment (5) MTCCS II_III Corps PWS v2 | Section H1.1; L5.3.4. Condition #1 | 21 | In the DRFP, section H.1.1. The Army Contracting Command – Orlando (ACC-Orlando) teamed with the Combined Arms Center – Training (CAC-T) to identify task areas that satisfy requirements under the MTCCS contract. The task areas of support include: |
Task Areas Task 1: Training Support in the Integrated Training Environment Task 2: Simulations Support Task 3: Communications, Network and System Administration Task 4: Cybersecurity and Risk Management Framework The DRFP does not provide a standardize definition for these terms yet it is part of proposal requirements. Neither the Unrestricted PWS ( Attachment (5) MTCCS II_III Corps PWS v2 ) or the restricted PWS ( Attachment (12) Small Leesville PWS_CUI ) uses these terms within the PWS so there is not a consistent definition for industry to construct its past performance, and therefore opens up a potential disagreement with the Government. Q1: Will the Government provide the resource these terms/concepts are derived from? Q2: Will the Government provide Industry the definition it is using for these terms/concepts?
| The four task areas delineated in H.1.1 are overarching tasks required to execute work in a Mission Training Complex, TRADOC Center of Excellence, and/or Global Simulation Capability (GSC). The definition of these terms, although not spelled out specifically in the RFP, are defined in the specific tasks associated with each task order PWS, Section C. The Government will not specifically define these four task areas separately in any of the published documents. Specific tasks in each task order PWS are nested within these four task areas. | ||||||
| 11 | Attachment 12 Small Leesville PWS | C.2.6.2.1. | 11 | The Attachment (1) Master MTCCS II LCATs TAB B spreadsheet states that the Training Support Lead will "have completed the Army Command & General Staff College (CGSC) or Intermediate Level Education or equivalent level military schooling", but the minimum qualifications in C.2.6.2.1. of the PWS still only states "CGSC". Recommend that the PWS is updated to mirror the requirements in the Master LCATs spreadsheet. | Leesville PWS takes precedence over LCAT TAB B. | |
| 12 | Attachment 12 Small Leesville PWS | C.3.3.1. | 17 | C.3.3.1. of the PWS states "The MTC possess the capability to conduct stimulated training events and exercises (Brigade, Battalion), at least 36 times annually…", but the table above this paragraph only totals to 34 battalion and brigade training events. Suggest correcting 36 to 34 to correctly correlate with the table. | Corrected | |
| 13 | Attachment 12 Small Leesville PWS | C.3.3.1. | 17 | C.3.3.1. of the PWS states that CPXs "...usually occur over a 2 to 5 day period with the ability for all to be 5 days in length 24hrs per day." and "Most events are either 12hr or 24hr requests,". But under the table above this paragraph is states "Typical training day duration is 8 hours a day." Please clarify the correct length of CPXs in order to provide a better understanding of the requirement. | Lengths of CPXs are 8 hours a day. | |
| 14 | Attachment 12 Small Leesville PWS | C.3.3.4.8. | 21 | C.3.3.4.8. of the PWS states "The contractor must be prepared to do one or more of these once every two (2) years, TEWT, STX, FTX, CALFEX, FCX training Events (Brigade/ Battalion/Company) via Live, Virtual, Constructive and Gaming (LVCG) event support." Nowhere in the PWS are these training events defined (training audience, units, duration, length, and frequency) like the other training events defined in the table in C.3.3. Please define these training events in order to provide a better understanding of the requirement. | See Section 6 Acronyms | |
| 15 | Attachment 12 Small Leesville PWS and Attachment (1) MASTER MTCCS II LCATsv3 | C.2.6. and TAB B | 11 and 12 | There is inconsistency in job titles between these documents for the Site Manager or Site Lead, and the Security Manager or Security Specialist. Please correct to ensure consistency between these documents and provide clarity on the Government's desired job title. | Leesville PWS takes precedence over LCAT TAB B. | |
| 16 | Attachment 12 Small Leesville PWS and Attachment (1) MASTER MTCCS II LCATsv3 | C.2.6. and TAB B | 11, 12, 13 | The key personnel qualifications are not the same for these positions in the two documents. Please correct the documents for consistency and clarity of key personnel qualification requirements. | Leesville PWS takes precedence over LCAT TAB B. | |
| 23 | Attachment 15 - Leesville Technical Exhibit | Exhibit 2 | 3 | Will the Government provide updated historical data from FY19-FY22, as the exhibit is from FY 15-17? | Updated | |
| 24 | Attachment 15, Leesville Technical Exhibit | LCAT - Supply Specialist | 1 | Qualifications. First sentence reads “BS/BA degree in an associated discipline or high school and three years general work experience…” | Will the Government please clarify/confirm this sentence draws equivalency between a BS/BA college degree with a high school diploma + 3 years experience? | BS/BA degree in an associated discipline or High School and three (3) year |
This sentence is correct 25 Attachment 15, Leesville Technical Exhibit LCAT – Program Analyst / Knowledge Manager 1 Definition. First sentence reads “Supports the Hub and Spoke Knowledge Management Program.” Does the Government expect the Leesville MTC to operate as Hub and Spoke for KM or any other requirement? Leesvile PWS takes precedence over LCAT Leesville MTC is a standalone MTC. It does not operate as a hub or a spoke
| 26 | Attachment (15) Leesville Technical Exhibits | Technical Exhibit 2 Historical Workload Data | 7 | Please define what a MCx training event is. Nowhere in the PWS or Technical Exhibits is the MCx defined (explanation, resources, length, duration, training echelon, and frequency). | Corrected |
| 27 | Attachment 15 - Leesville Technical Exhibit | Exhibit 2 | 3 | Will the Government provide updated historical data as the exhibit is from FY 15-17? | Updated |
| 28 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 |
Attachment+(18)+Leesville_Price_Worksheetv2+CUI L.5.5.2.1 95 L.5.5.2.1 Pricing Template states “The Pricing Template is a spreadsheet with the following tabs: Instructions, Total Evaluated Price (TEP), Phase-In, Base Year, Option Years two, three, and four, and Option for the 6-month option to extend”
| In spreadsheet, there are the following tabs: Instructions, TEP, Phase in, Base year, and Option years 1-4 | Will the Government confirm the updated spreadsheet tabs are correct and that the discrepancy between the instructions and template will be resolved in the final RFP? | The descrepancy will be resloved in the RFP, the 6 month extension will be the price of Option Year 4 divided by 2, the spreadsheet will be set up to do this automatically for the RFP, just like it says on the instructions | |||||
| 29 | Attachment 12 Small Leesville PWS | N/A | N/A | Govt repeatedly refers to Attachment 8 Leesville PWS throughout the Q&A response; the Leesville PWS is Attachment 12. Please correct. | Corrected | ||
| 31 | RFP | M.2 | 99 | The Government states, "The relative order of importance of non-cost/price factors for the Unrestricted competition are as follows: Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors are equal. Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan Factors are equal. Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors individually are significantly more important than the Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan Factors individually. Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan Factors individually are more important than the Price Factor. The Technical Experience Factor is further divided into subfactors; subfactor 2, Supplemental Questions is more important than subfactor 1, Primary Questions. The Staffing Approach Factor is further divided into subfactors; all subfactors are of equal importance. | The Government is referring t "Technical Experience" as an Evaluation Factor, yet this Factor does not exist. Could the Government please update the Basis for Awards criteria and relative importance? | All references to "Technical Experience" have been removed from the DRAFT RFP, and it will not be in the RFP | |
| 32 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.5.3.4 paragraph 5 | 90 | The section states that "the Offeror will be rated more favorably for demonstrating experience in a greater number of the following categories..." | Can you please clarify whether this means the Offeror will be rated more favorably for achieving greater values/metrics in every one of the categories listed, or for covering more of the listed categories in a single reference? | The offeror will be rated more favorably for having more experience | |
| 33 | DRAFT_PWS_16SEP2022 | Section 3.7 Technical Support | p.43 through 53 | 3.7.1. | The following tasks relate to both major functional technical areas of support: |
| 3.7.1.1. The Contractor shall conduct studies, systems analysis, concept definitions, system definitions, field testing, and capability assessment. The Contractor shall analyze, critique, and asses the adequacy, timeliness, and effectiveness of these emerging technologies to support distributed MC training and exercises. The Contractor shall be required to project how these emerging technologies impact the battlefield of the future etc. | In various areas throughout Section 3.7 there are references to "installation, support, and configuration." Nowhere in the narrative does it specifically state updating or creating installation, interconnect, networking, wiring, or facility diagrams; are these types of drawings/documents to be considered as a task associated with these requirements? | yes | |||||
| 34 | RFP | L.1.1, L.5.2.4 | 78, 89 | Will the USG provide all operational requirements/event calendar at the MTCs from February 2023 thru July 2023? | The Government has provided anticipated workload in technical exhibits | ||
| 35 | RFP Section M | M.2 | 99-100 | This paragraph provides relative order of importance of non-cost/price factors that includes Technical Experience. This factor has been deleted from the Section L requirements. | Will the Government update this paragraph to remove any references to the Technical Experience requirement? | Done | |
| 36 | RFP Section M | M.2 | 100 | This paragraph states that awards will be made to 3 unrestricted businesses and 3 small businesses. This is inconsistent with guidance provide in Section L where it is anticipated that awards will be made to five unrestricted businesses and 3 or 5 small businesses. | Will the Government please update Section M to match Section L? | Updated | |
| 37 | RFP Section M | M.4.2.1 | 101 | The last part of this evaluation criteria states that "contains flexibility to adapt to local and geographic requirements." In Section L, this is requirement under Subfactor 2, Staffing Plan. | Recommend this requirement be deleted, as it is already covered in paragraph M.4.2.2. | Updated | |
| 38 | RFP Section L | L.5.3.4 | 90 | This paragraph states that a Unrestricted Pool bidder must submit 3 projects as a prime. | Can an unrestricted bidder submit a collection of projects where the bidder serves as a prime on one task order and a sub on a second contract supporting the same customer? | As long as three projects of the projects are as prime | |
| 39 | RFP Section J | Section J | 72 | The responses to the Q&As indicated that a base MTCCS II PWS was released to for the small business set aside lot. Section J does not list an attachment for the base MTCCS II PWS, nor was a copy provided. | Will the Government provide a copy of the base MTCCS II PWS and add it as an attachment to Section J? Will the new PWS be organized along the new Task areas defined in paragraph H.1.1? | The PWS for the Restricted Lot (Small Business Set Aside) Is the Leesville PWS. Refer to second paragraph under Section L.1.1. | |
| 40 | Attachment (13) Leesville CDRLs | CDRLs | CDRL A007, Small Business Utilization Report, is not applicable to the Leesville MTC procurement as it is a small business set aside. | Recommend the Government delete this CDRL. | CDRL A007 will be removed from the Leesville CDRL Document | ||
| 41 | Attachment (13) Leesville CDRLs | CDRLs | CDRL Unnumbered, Property Management System, does not align with PWS requirements, as there is no requirement to develop and implement a Property Management System. | Recommend this CDRL be deleted. | The CDRL is a FAR requirement and cannot be removed, even if there is no GFP anticipated, because this also references Contractor Acquired Property (CAP). Refer to FAR 52.245-1 | ||
| 42 | Attachment (14) Leesville QASP | QASP | 1 | Cover page reflects that QASP is the FT Polk QASP. | Recommend that all references to Ft Polk be retitled Leesville MTC. | Corrected | |
| 43 | Attachment (17) Leesville DD Form 254 | DD Form 254 | 1 | The DD Form 254 requires a secret clearance. A couple positions require a TS clearance. | Recommend the DD Form 254 be updated to reflect the requirement for a TS clearance. | Please Refer to Attachment (12) Leesburg PWS and FAR 52.204-2 Security Requirements | |
| 44 | Solicitation, Section L.5 | L.5.4.4 | 92 | Does "the table below" refer to the table in L5.4.4.3 or the table ABOVE in L5.4.3 | The table below referenced in Section L.5.4.4 referes to the table at the end of that Section below section L.5.4.4.3 | ||
| 45 | Solicitation, Section L.5 | L.5.4.4.1.f | 92 | There is a subparagraph f. listed and the paragraph after is exactly the same as L.5.4.4 | Will remove Section L.5.4.4.1.f | ||
| 46 | Typically, bidders would have a separate volume to address the sample task order and write to that RFP to demonstrate their competencies. The number of FTEs associated with the effort, as well as how we would complete the specified and general tasks, would be included. | Will the final RFP include instructions on how we are to communicate our capabilities to the small Leesville program for the small SB lot? | Please read Section L.5.2. VOLUME 2 Staffing Approach of the RFP | ||||
| 47 | Typically, bidders would have a separate volume to address the sample task order and write to that RFP to demonstrate their competencies. The number of FTEs associated with the effort, as well as how we would complete the specified and general tasks, would be included. | How many volumes will be required and volume page limit? | Please read Section L.2 Proposal Format and Section L.4 Proposal Format Table | ||||
| 48 | For clarity, can you please explain how SB should write to the base order and Leesville in the format provided? | All instruction are in Section L of the RFP | |||||
| 49 | L.1.4. | Please explain how the structure under Section L allows SB to write to specific questions and requirements, while remaining focused on addressing specific questions and/or areas? | Section L provides the offeror with the general guidelines for the submission of the proposal documents, it is up to each offeror as to how they fill the requirement, using the provided documents for either III Corps or Leesville (depending on the size of the offeror) | ||||
| 50 | What is expected as a final product to the government? | An actionable proposal from the offeror, that meets or exceeds the requirements listed in the documents in the RFP at a competitive price | |||||
| 51 | While the requirements appear to be clear, the instructions on how to write to the solicitation appear to be ambiguous. | Could you please explain how to write to the solicitation for the Small Leesville, restricted Lot? | The writing of the proposal is up to each individual offeror, the Government has written the solicitation, upon RFP release it is up to the offeror to submit their proposals to the Government's solictation. | ||||
| 52 | page 12 of 36 | C.2.8. The Leesville PWS | How frequently are contractor personnel required to trave on official business in support of Government exercises, training, and planning events? | Travel is dependent on the schedule of the Site | |||
| 53 | Do contractor personnel have a requirement to travel outside of the United States? If so, can you provide locations and average lengths of stay? | The Government does not anticipate OCONUS travel in support of III Corps MTCCS II. | |||||
| 54 | What does section H.3.7.2 of the master contract say about contractor travel? | H.3.7.2 is outlined in the Draft RFP (W900KK23R0006) on page 22 | |||||
| 55 | How many contractor personnel were hired in the previous solicitation to perform the required scope? | The Government will not provide this data | |||||
| 57 | Is there a requirement for role players for the Small Leesville restricted Lot? | No | |||||
| 58 | RFP | Section M.4.5.1 | 105 | The Offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis regarding whether the requested proposal submission information meets the criteria for the information requested in Section L.5.5.3. and is current, accurate, and complete. | What methodology will the government be using to evaluate realism of an offerors Professional Employee Compensation Plan? |
| What evaluation is being performed to the Professional Employee Compensation Plan to ensure offerors do not use unrealistic salary or compensation in developing their proposed Labor Category LCAT pricing? | All Pass/Fail Criteria have been removed | ||||
| 59 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.2.1 | 80 | L.2.1 The Offeror’s proposal shall be formatted into Five (5) separate electronic folders by Volume Number and |
Title as follows:
Volume 1 – General Volume 2 – Staffing Approach Volume 3 – Past Performance Volume 4 – Small Business Participation (Unrestricted - Full and Open Only) Volume 5 – Cost/Price Volume 6 – Property Management Plan L.2.1 states there are Five volumes, but then shows a list of six volumes. Will the Government correct this discrepancy by indicating six (6) Volume for Unrestricted Pool submissions and five (5) Volumes for the Restricted Pool submissions?
For Restricted Pool Submissions, can offerors update the Volume numbering to the following to reflect the lack of a SB Participation Volume:
Volume 1 – General Volume 2 – Staffing Approach Volume 3 – Past Performance Volume 4 – Cost/Price
| Volume 5 – Property Management Plan | The Government will correct for the RFP | ||||||
| 60 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | M.2 | 99-100 | M.2 Basis for Awards states "“The relative order of importance of non-cost/price factors for the Unrestricted competition are as follows: Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors are equal. Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan Factors are equal. Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors individually are significantly more important than the Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan Factors individually. Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan Factors individually are more important than the Price Factor. The Technical Experience Factor is further divided into subfactors; subfactor 2, Supplemental Questions is more important than subfactor 1, Primary Questions.” | |||
| And “The relative order of importance of non-cost/price factors for the SB set-aside, as follows: Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors are equal. Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors individually are significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor. Past Performance is more important than the Price Factor. The Technical Experience Factor is further divided into subfactors; subfactor 2, Supplemental Questions is more important than subfactor 1, Primary Questions. The Staffing Approach Factor is further divided into subfactors; all subfactors are of equal importance. | Technical Experience has been removed from the proposal instructions. Answers to questions received 26 September 2022 indicate the Technical Experience volume has been removed from the solicitation. Will the Government be removing references to Technical Experience from the RFP? | All Technical Experience has been removed see the updated DRAFT RFP on 03OCT22 | |||||
| 61 | DRAFT_W900KK-23-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.4 PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE (L.5.5.3.3) | 84 | This table indicates copies of FPRA/FPRR/ABR Audit report documents/letters are required by L.5.5.3.3, but all those requirements were deleted from section L.5.5 Cost/Price. Are offeror's required to provide indirect rate documentation used in development of fully burdened labor rates? If so, can the requirements be added to Section L.5.5 to provide details? | Removed | ||
| 62 | DRAFT_W900KK-23-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.4 PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE (L.5.5.3.4) | 84 | This table indicates pricing rate agreements are required in L.5.5.3.4, but all those requirements were deleted from section L.5.5 Cost/Price. Are offeror's required to provide this documentation ? If so, can the requirements be added to Section L.5.5 to provide the details required? | Removed | ||
| 63 | DRAFT_W900KK-23-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.4 PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE (L.5.5.3.6) | 84 | This table indicates pricing rate agreements are required in L.5.5.3.6, but all those requirements were deleted from section L.5.5 Cost/Price. Are offeror's required to provide this documentation? If so, can the requirements be added to Section L.5.5 to provide the details required? | Removed | ||
| 64 | DRFP | M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD | 99-100 | The relative order of importance of non-cost/price factors for the Unrestricted competition are as follows: Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors are equal. Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan Factors are equal. Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors individually are significantly more important than the Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan Factors individually. Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan Factors individually are more important than the Price Factor. The Technical Experience Factor is further divided into subfactors; subfactor 2, Supplemental Questions is more important than subfactor 1, Primary Questions. The Staffing Approach Factor is further divided into subfactors; all subfactors are of equal importance. |
All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.
The relative order of importance of non-cost/price factors for the SB set-aside, as follows: Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors are equal. Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors individually are significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor. Past Performance is more important than the Price Factor. The Technical Experience Factor is further divided into subfactors; subfactor 2, Supplemental Questions is more important than subfactor 1, Primary Questions. The Staffing Approach Factor is further divided into subfactors; all subfactors are of equal importance.
| All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. | The DRFP still refers to the Technical Experience Factor and Sub Factors within M.2, but this has been removed from the requirements. Q1: Would the Government clarify the relative order of importance of non-cost/price Factors? | Removed, see DRAFT RFP Dated 03OCT2022 | |||||
| 65 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.4 PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE (L.5.5.3.3) | 84 | This table indicates copies of FPRA/FPRR/ABR Audit report documents/letters are required by L.5.5.3.3, but all those requirements were deleted from section L.5.5 Cost/Price. Are offeror's required to provide indirect rate documentation used in development of fully burdened labor rates? If so, can the requirements be added to Section L.5.5 to provide details? | removed | ||
| 66 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2023 | L.4 PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE (L.5.5.3.4) | 84 | This table indicates pricing rate agreements are required in L.5.5.3.4, but all those requirements were deleted from section L.5.5 Cost/Price. Are offeror's required to provide this documentation ? If so, can the requirements be added to Section L.5.5 to provide the details required? | removed | ||
| 67 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2024 | L.4 PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE (L.5.5.3.6) | 84 | This table indicates pricing rate agreements are required in L.5.5.3.6, but all those requirements were deleted from section L.5.5 Cost/Price. Are offeror's required to provide this documentation? If so, can the requirements be added to Section L.5.5 to provide the details required? | removed | ||
| 68 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.4 | 83 | L.4 Proposal Format Table |
Cost/Price Rationale and Professional Employee Compensation Plan
| ABC.VOL5.RAT1.pdf (Company Name, Volume, Rationale 1) Repeat as follows, if necessary. | Does the Government intend the Professional Employee Compensation Plan be submitted with the Cost/Price Rationale or as a separate document with a unique file name? | With the Cost Price Volume | |||||
| 69 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.5.5.2.1 | 95 | L.5.5.2.1 states “The Offeror shall identify on the Cost-Pricing Workbook (Attachment 7 for Unrestricted Offerors and Attachment X for Restricted Offerors) if each labor category is subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards” | Will the Government please confirm the correct Attachment for the Cost-Pricing Workbook for the final RFP will be Attachment 10 for the Unrestricted Pool and Attachment 18 for the Restricted Pool in the Final RFP? | The Government will ensure that both workbooks are published with the RFP, the attachments numbers may change, but they will be there | |
| 70 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | M.2 (3rd and 4th para) | 99 | The relative order of importance of non-cost/price factors for the Unrestricted competition are as follows: Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors are equal. Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan Factors are equal. Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors individually are significantly more important than the Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan Factors individually. Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan Factors individually are more important than the Price Factor. The Technical Experience Factor is further divided into subfactors; subfactor 2, Supplemental Questions is more important than subfactor 1, Primary Questions. The Staffing Approach Factor is further divided into subfactors; all subfactors are of equal importance. |
All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.
| The relative order of importance of non-cost/price factors for the SB set-aside, as follows: Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors are equal. Technical Experience and Staffing Approach Factors individually are significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor. Past Performance is more important than the Price Factor. The Technical Experience Factor is further divided into subfactors; subfactor 2, Supplemental Questions is more important than subfactor 1, Primary Questions. The Staffing Approach Factor is further divided into subfactors; all subfactors are of equal importance." | Will the Government please clarify the relative order of importance of non-cost/price factors? "Technical Experience" and "Past Performance" are both referenced and appear to not have been updated to reflect the most recent changes that omitted the Technical Experience Projects requirements. | Technical experience removed, see DRAFT RFP dated 03 OCT 2022 | |||||
| 71 | RFP | Section H.3.7.2.4.1 | 23 | For travel costs other than described above, the contractor shall be paid on the basis of actual amount paid to the extent that such travel is necessary for the performance of services under the contract and is authorized by the COR in writing. | Will the contractor be allowed to apply and be reimbursed inclusive of its applicable burdens applied to the actual amount paid? | Section H has been removed | |
| 72 | RFP | L.5.5.1. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS | 95 | The Cost/Price Volume shall be submitted in a separate, detachable, and unclassified form for the purpose of evaluation independent of the other volumes. There is no page limit for this volume. All information relating to cost or pricing must be included in this section of the proposal and defined as cost data. This volume shall stand alone in supporting the offeror’s approach to reasonableness and completeness of this effort. The information submitted in |
response to this section shall be in a format compatible with Microsoft Office.
All information relating to pricing must be included in this Volume of the proposal and defined as pricing data. This Volume shall stand alone in supporting the Offeror’s approach to reasonableness and completeness of the overall pricing for the individual Sample Task Orders. Under no circumstances shall cost or pricing data be included elsewhere in the proposal. Only the cost or pricing data in Volume 5 Cost/Price, will be considered during evaluation, and any cost or price data found in other volumes will result in proposal rejection. These instructions seem to clearly indicate a Cost Volume with all information related to cost and pricing (to include indirect rates, etc). The table on Section L.4, page 84, limits this volume to only the following: Cost/Price Rationale for indirect rates not in line with CAS, THe employee compensation plan, the excel pricing template, FPRA as applicable, and Disclosure letters as appropriate.
| We believe the Government intends to also have a Price Volume with "all information relating to cost or pricing" - recommend adding this document to the table in Section L.4, page 84 in addition to the cost/price rationale, compensation plan, pricing template, FPRA, and Disclosure letters. | Cost/Price section updated | ||||||
| 73 | RFP Section L | L.4 | 84 | Section L.5.5, L.5.5.1 and L.5.5.2 of the Proposal Format Table talks to Cost/Price rationale, but appears to have included the Professional Employee Compensation Plan which previously had its own folder. Will the Government create a separate folder for the Professional Employee Compensation Plan as previously required in the draft Section L. This makes more sense as it is a separate requirement from the Cost/Price Rationale requirements. | L.5.5.2.2. PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN For the MTCCS MATOC, the Offeror shall submit a Professional Employee Compensation Plan that addresses the Offeror’s methodology for determining salaries and fringe benefits for their professional employees in preparation of future task order requirements under the MTCCS MATOC. Remains part of Cost/Price | ||
| 74 | FINAL_Master_RFP_QandAs_20220921 | Row 288, Question #287 | The response to Q# 287 allows for subcontractors to submit their own proprietary CPARS when used as a past performance reference. | Will you please provide instructions and guidelines for subcontractors to submit CPARS sealed packages? | If a sub wants to submit information directly to the Government the Prime must make the Government aware, and the Government will allow the submitted directly from the sub to the Government | ||
| 75 | Attachment (11) III Corps DRAFT DD Form 254.pdf | NA | NA | DD254 | Will the Government update from the 1999 DD254 Form to the 2019 DD254 Form? | Updated | |
| 76 | Attachment (17) DD254_Leesville_CUI.pdf | NA | NA | DD254 | Will the Government update the DD254 to adhere to instructions for the form due to these inconsistencies? |
Blocks 11c, 11e, and 11h requires Block 1b to require Safeguarding, which it does not.
| Block 11e should not be checked as this contract is NOT services only. | This is a service contract | |||||
| 79 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.3.6 | 81 | L.3.6 states “Proposals are to be submitted electronically via DoD SAFE. Details to be added later:” HOWEVER, on the DoD SAFE website, it has the following note: "DoD SAFE is NOT to be used for contract solicitation or proposal submission. Use the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) for time-sensitive submissions." | The DoD SAFE website states that it is not to be used for proposal submission and to instead use the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE). |
| Will the Government be changing the submission requirement from DoD SAFE to PIEE or some other alternative method of submission? | No, because the PIEE website is not functional yet, so the site will be DoD SAFE | ||||
| 80 | DRAFT_W900KK-23-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.4 | 83 | The Government states in the Proposal Format Table for Volume 3, "Past Performance Summary, CPARS report, Past Performance Rating Form and or Award Fee Determination report. | |
| Page Limit: Not to exceed 15 pages" | Is it the Government's intent to have a 15-page limitation for each file/project (ABC.VOL3.TE.PP.P1.pdf - Company Name, Volume, Past Performance, Project 1) in the Past Performance Volume or is it a 15-page limit for the entire Past Performance Volume? | A 15 page limit for the entire volume | |||
| 81 | DRAFT_W900KK-23-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.4 | 83 | For Subcontractor Consent, the Government states, "Page Limit: Not to exceed 1 page" |
The Government also states, "ABC.VOL3.TE.PPSC.P1.pdf (Company Name, Volume, Past Performance Subcontractor Consent Project 1) Repeat as follows:
ABC.VOL4.TE.PPSC.P2.pdf
| etc." | Is it the Government's intent to have a 1-page Consent Letter limitation for each Past Performance Subcontractor Consent Project (i.e., each file/project - ABC.VOL3.TE.PPSC.P1.pdf) in the Past Performance Volume? | Yes, the Government's intent is to have 1 page consent letter limitation for each past performance Subcontractor Consent Project. If therre is more than one follow the guidence for namng Page 2 (P2) and repeat as necessary | |||||
| 82 | DRAFT_W900KK-23-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.4 Table (volume 3) | 83 | The table within section L.4 under page limit for Volume 3 (L. 5.7) Subcontractor Consent Letters. Would the Government please confirm that each consent letter is allocated 1 page? | Yes, the Government's intent is to have 1 page consent letter limitation for each past performance Subcontractor Consent Project. If therre is more than one follow the guidence for namng Page 2 (P2) and repeat as necessary | ||
| 83 | RFP and Q&A | L.4; Q&A #238; and Q&A #242 | 83 | The Government states in the Proposal Format Table for Volume 3, "Past Performance Summary, CPARS report, Past Performance Rating Form and or Award Fee Determination report. |
Page Limit: Not to exceed 15 pages"
| The Government also states in its answer to Questions #238 and #242, "Yes. Section L will be revised, to allocate pages in the Past Performance Volume, to allow Offerors to summarize recency and relevancy of past performance, for programs put forth in response to the solicitation. | Does the Government intend to have the CPARS Report count towards page count as a typical CPARS Report is 5-6 pages in length and Offerors will be submitting as many as 4-5 Past Performance Summaries (depending upon Restricted vs Unrestricted) - this will quickly exceed the 15-page volume limitation. | CPARS will not count towards page limit | |||
| 84 | RFP | L.4 | 83 | The Government states in the Proposal Format Table for Volume 3, "Past Performance Summary, CPARS report, Past Performance Rating Form and or Award Fee Determination report. | |
| Page Limit: Not to exceed 15 pages" | Is it the Government's intent to have a 15-page limitation for each file/project (ABC.VOL3.TE.PP.P1.pdf - Company Name, Volume, Past Performance, Project 1) in the Past Performance Volume or is it a 15-page limit for the entire Past Performance Volume? | a 15 page limit for the entire volume | |||
| 85 | RFP | L.4 | 83 | For Subcontractor Consent, the Government states, "Page Limit: Not to exceed 1 page" |
The Government also states, "ABC.VOL3.TE.PPSC.P1.pdf (Company Name, Volume, Past Performance Subcontractor Consent Project 1) Repeat as follows:
ABC.VOL4.TE.PPSC.P2.pdf
| etc." | Is it the Government's intent to have a 1-page Consent Letter limitation for each Past Performance Subcontractor Consent Project (i.e., each file/project - ABC.VOL3.TE.PPSC.P1.pdf) in the Past Performance Volume? | Yes, the Government's intent is to have 1 page consent letter limitation for each past performance Subcontractor Consent Project. If therre is more than one follow the guidence for namng Page 2 (P2) and repeat as necessary | |||||
| 86 | RFP | L.4 Table (volume 3) | 83 | The table within section L.4 under page limit for Volume 3 (L. 5.7) Subcontractor Consent Letters. Would the Government please confirm that each consent letter is allocated 1 page? | Yes, the Government's intent is to have 1 page consent letter limitation for each past performance Subcontractor Consent Project. If therre is more than one follow the guidence for namng Page 2 (P2) and repeat as necessary | ||
| 87 | DRAFT_Solicitation | H.6.5.3 | 36 of 108 | H.6.5 Ethics and Conduct | Section H.4.2 is marked are RESERVED on page 24/98. Recommend removing the H4.2.3 and H4.2.4 references or updating to include them, whichever is necessary. | Will remove H4.2 References | |
| 88 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 |
FINAL_Master_RFP_QandAs_20220921 L.3.5 81 L.3.5 states “Type shall be no smaller than a font size of ten (10) for all documents and shall be at least single spaced. Page size shall not exceed 8.5x11, except table and graphs which may use a font size of eight (8) and a page size not to exceed 11” x 17”
| Questions #239 states "Will the Government please confirm if Arial Narrow" in 10 pt will be acceptable for any tables or figures?" and the Government response was "Arial Narrow is acceptable for ONLY tables and figures." | Will the Government add Arial Narrow as an acceptable font to the L.3.5 font requirements? | See answer to Question #239 |
| 89 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 |
FINAL_Master_RFP_QandAs_20220921 L.3.5, L.4 81 L.3.5 states “... Page size shall not exceed 8.5x11, except table and graphs which may use a font size of eight (8) and a page size not to exceed 11” x 17.”
L.4 Proposal Format Table lists only L.5.2.1, Staffing Organization Table as acceptable for 11x17 use. Will the Government please confirm that other volumes requiring a narrative (i.e.. Staffing Volume Subfactors 2-4, Property Management Plan, etc.) that might require large graphics or table could use 11x17 pages for this use as well? Page size shall not exceed 8.5x11, except table and graphs which may use a font size of eight (8) and a page size not to exceed 11” x 17”.
90 DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022
FINAL_Master_RFP_QandAs_20220921 L.4, L.5.3.5 83, 91 L.4 Proposal Format Table
“Past Performance Summary, CPARS report, Past Performance Rating Form and or Award Fee Determination report. Page Limit: Not to exceed 15 pages”
L.5.3.5 “Offerors may also submit a past performance summary.”
The response to question #324 states "The evaluation will be done using the submitted CPARS, Award Fee Determination or PPQ Survey. No narrative is required." Will the Government please confirm a 15 page summary is allowed for each individual Past Performance reference and clarify how it will be evaluated?
Additionally, will the Government please confirm the 15 page limit does NOT include the CPARS, Award Fee Determination, or Past Performance Rating Forms for each reference?
For each Past Performance Reference, shall the supporting documentation be attached to the Summaries and submitted as one document, or shall a corresponding Past Performance Summary document be submitted for each reference?
(i.e. ABC.VOL3.TE.PP.P1.pdf and
| ABC.VOL3.TE.PP SUM.P1.pdf) | CPARS will not count towards page limit | ||||
| 91 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.4 | 83 | L.4 Proposal Format Table |
Format/Template column in the table indicates the pricing template referenced to L.5.5.3.1 is Section J.3, Att. (3) & Att. (3SB).
| In the revised Draft RFP documents the attachments appear to be Att. 10 for Unrestricted and Att. 18 for Restricted Pool. | Will the Government please clarify this discrepancy in the final RFP? | Updated | |||||
| 92 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | M.2 | 100 | M.2 Basis for Awards describes the relative importance of the proposal factors or both the Unrestricted and Restricted Pools. These orders of importance still include Technical Experience as a highly important evaluation. | Will the Government please provide updated relative importance of evaluation factors since the Technical Experience volume has been removed from the proposal requirements? | Updated | |
| 93 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.3.5 | P.87 | L.3.5 Volumes and number of copies each are identified below. The evaluators will read only up to the maximum number of pages specified. Type shall be no smaller than a font size of ten (10) for all documents and shall be at least single spaced. Page size shall not exceed 8.5x11, except table and graphs which may use a font size of eight (8) and a page size not to exceed 11” x 17”. Font shall be Arial. Margins shall be at least 1” for all Volumes except Cost/Price which will be in Excel Format. | May the Offeror use 11x17 page format in all other Volumes besides the Staffing Organizational Subfactor in Volume 2? For the 11x17 pages allowed for the Staffing Organization Chart, will each side count as 1 (one) page? For all other Volumes, if we are permitted to use 11x17 pages, will one side of an 11x17 page count as 1 page or 2 pages? | table and graphs which may use a font size of eight (8) and a page size not to exceed 11” x 17”. |
Each side counts as one page
| 94 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | L.2.1 | 80 & 84 | |
| L.2.1 | The Offeror’s proposal shall be formatted into Five (5) separate electronic folders by Volume Number and Title as follows: |
Volume 1 – General Volume 2 – Staffing Approach Volume 3 – Past Performance Volume 4 – Small Business Participation (Unrestricted - Full and Open Only) Volume 5 – Cost/Price Volume 6 – Property Management Plan
| Will the Government please confirm that the Property Management Plan is Volume 6? In the Proposal Format Table there is no Volume Number listed next to L.6. | Updated 5 volumes | |||||
| 95 | DRAFT_W900KK-22-R-0035_26SEP2022 | H.3.7 Task Order Pricing | 22 | Task Order Pricing | Does the government expect sealed bids for submission of pricing data? | Pricing will be submitted through DoD SAFE, with the rest of the proposal |
| 96 | RFP | Section H.3.8 Threshold for Competition | 24 | The government will conduct additional market research periodically after award of MTCCS to determine if the vendor pool is adequate to maximize practicable competition and provide adequate opportunities for business. | Will Prime IDIQ Awardees be required to submit a proposal for all Task Order Proposals? |
| Will Prime IDIQ Awardees be allowed to cross team for Task Orders let under the IDIQ (e.g. IDIQ Prime A is bid as a Sub under IDIQ Prime B)? | Not Required, businees arrangements are up to the offferors | ||||||
| 97 | RFP | H.5.1.3. | 34 | Unless otherwise specified in a TO, the Contactor shall provide all office equipment and consumable supplies at the Contractor’s sole and exclusive expense, including computers/workstations used in daily operation in support of MTCCS. | We understand that the Government provides office equipment, computers, workstations for daily operation at all MTC's. Is this paragraph an error that should have been eliminated? | Section H has been removed | |
| 98 | RFP | Section M.1.8 Unrealistic Proposals | 99 | The Government reserves the right to reject any proposal that it evaluates to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. | What methodology is the government using to determine unrealistic risk proposals? |
| What realism evaluation is being performed or conducted by the government to ensure unrealistic price risk? | proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. | ||||||
| 99 | RFP Section L | L.4 | 82 | Section L.5.1.1 of the Proposal Format Table limits the page count to the SF 33 only. Recommend this be changed to include all amendments as well. | Will be limitied to the SF-33, each amendment (if necessary) will have another SF-33 | ||
| 100 | RFP Section L | L.4 | 83 | Section L.5.3 through L.5.3.6 of the Proposal Format Table requires that Past Performance Validation for each project be in Arial 10 point with 1 inch margins. CPARS forms are completed documents and may not be in compliance with this guidance, as they are a Government FOUO document. Request the requirement for Arial 10 point and 1 inch margins be deleted for this requirement. | CPARS will not count towards page limit | ||
| 101 | RFP Section L | L.5.3.5 | 91 | This section provides direction on what supporting documentation is required to document our past performance. This guidance is clear. At end of paragraph, government requires that we may also submit a past performance summary. Can the Government clarify what is expected and the page limit for each summary? | The summery is optional, and must not go over the page limit for the volume | ||
| 102 | RFP Section L | L.4 | 84 | L.5.5.3.4 of the Proposal Format Table requires us to submit supporting documentation as directed in paragraph L.5.5.3.4. However, this paragraph no longer exists. If this requirement is deleted, request that the requirement in the Proposal Format Table be deleted. | Updated | ||
| 103 | RFP Section L | L.5.5.3.2 | 96 | This paragraph requires the submission of Accounting System POCs. The Proposal Format table in L.4 does not provide guidance on which folder to submit this information. Request this requirement be included in the Proposal Format Table. | L.5.5.3.2 Updated | ||
| 104 | RFP Section L | L.4 | 81 | The Draft RFP does not mention a cover page or title page. | Will the Government permit a cover page or title page to be exempted from page limits and included with each file so that Source Selection and disclosure restriction markings (such as specified in FAR 52.215-1) can be applied to each volume and/or file? | Added language to permit cover pages to L.4 | |
| 105 | RFP Section L | L.4 | 81 | The Proposal Format Table specifies the file names, content, and page limits for each proposal file, but there are no instructions on page numbering. | Does the Government wish that each file should have pages numbering starting at page 1 for each file? | Page numbering should start at page 1 | |
| 106 | RFP Section L | L.4 | 82 | The instructions specify that a Table of Contents should be included in Volume I. | Will the Government permit that a Table of Contents be provided for each volume in its own file and to be exempted from page limits to assist the evaluator to find content? | Instruction provided in paragraph L.4 |
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 .