MTCCS II Solicitation QandA.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 66 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
| Question # | Document Reference | ||||||
| (Section Number) | Paragraph Number | Page Number | Other | Question | Answer | ||
| 1 | L | L.1.1 | 48 | This paragraph states that the successful bidder will be given 30 days transition, but the start date for transition only gives 25 days. The correct start date to allow for a 30 day transition is 21 Feb. | Request the Government change the start date of the transition period to 21 Feb. | The dates were provided as a guide for the proposals, are flexible, and will be firmed up upon contract award. | |
| 2 | L | L.4 | 54 | Section L.5.5, L.5.5.1 and L.5.5.2 of the Proposal Format Table require the submission of Cost/Price Rationale and the Professional Employee Compensation Plan under one file. These are two separate requirements that in past bid were two separate files. We recommend that this requirement be separated into two separate files, one for the Cost/Price Rationale and one for the Professional Employee Compensation Plan | Will the Government create separate files for the Cost/Price Rationale and for the Professional Employee Compensation Plan? | Updated on Chart in Section L | |
| 3 | M | M.4.5.4 | 78 | This paragraph states that bidders' indirect rates will be used by the Government to assess rate build up. However, there is no requirement to provide this information, and the Pricing Worksheets for III Corps and Leesville do not require this information for our FFP rates. | Recommend the Government delete this requirement. | Government will remove this paragraph from section M | |
| 4 | Attachment 13 | X003 | 10 | This CDRL requires the implementation of a Property Management System. Block 12 states that the initial submission is due 30 days after contract award, which is basically the contract start date. In Block 16 in the text, it states that the contractor will have 45 days after contract award to submit the PMS to the Contracting Officer for review. There is a disconnect in dates when the initial submission is due. | Recommend the date be changed to 45 days after full performance on the Task Order begins to allow for sufficient time to assess the actual requirements and then submit a proposed Property Management System based on having some operational experience. | The PMS is a FAR Requirement, will change to 45 | |
| 5 | J | Attachments 20 and 21 | N/A | Section J refers to Attachments 20 and 21 Task Order 0001 and 0002. There is no reference in Solicitation to these attachments | Are there proposal requirements related to these two documents? | Will remove reference to Attachment 20 and 21 | |
| 6 | L; Q&A of 10/25/2022 | L.4; Q# 104 | 52 | PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE. No exemptions to page limits or limits of "limited to the information required" instructions are given. Question 104 responds, "added to L.4" but the solicitation (issued 10/21/2022) does not contain this instruction in L.4 and there was no conformed solicitation published with the Q&A of 10/25/2022. | Will the Government confirm that a title/cover page may be permitted to be included for each file and exempted from page limits to enable offerors to correctly mark company sensitive and/or proprietary content being submitted? | Per Paragraph L.4 Additionally, the Offeror may provide a Table of Contents that serves as an overall guide to what files are included, where they are located and brief descriptions of what the documents are. Inclusion of a Table of Contents is optional. | |
| 7 | L | L.4 | 52 | PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE. No exemptions to page limits or limits of "limited to the information required" instructions are given. | Will the Government permit that tabs and indexing to complex documents be permitted to be included for each file and exempted from page limits to make it easier for evaluators to process the documents? | Per Paragraph L.4 Additionally, the Offeror may provide a Table of Contents that serves as an overall guide to what files are included, where they are located and brief descriptions of what the documents are. Inclusion of a Table of Contents is optional. | |
| 8 | L; Q&A of 10/25/2022 | L.4: Q# 72 | 54-55 | Item #72 from round 2 of the Q&A published on 25 October recommended that a section/file for “all information related to cost and pricing (to include indirect rates, etc.)” be added to the L.4 Proposal Format Table and the Government’s response indicated that the Cost/Price section had been updated. However, the L.4 Proposal Format table in the solicitation was not modified to allow an additional file. | Will the Government please add a section/file for "all information related to cost and price (to include indirect rates, direct labor, etc.)" in the L.4 Proposal Format Table for Volume 5 with a format and file name? | All references to indirect rates have been removed from the solicitation | |
| 9 | L | L.5.1.4; L.5.3.4 | 57; 61 | L.5.1.4 provides guidance on requirements for Meaningful Commitment Relationship Letters in Volume 1, when applicable. Per L.5.3.4, offerors will submit at least Three (3) distinct Past Performance projects where they served as the Prime contractor and two additional Past Performance projects where one or more of their teamed subcontractors has relevant past performance. Past Performances may be submitted by a subcontractor as part of a bidder's offer that has been acquired or merged with another company. | Will the Government please confirm that Prime offerors should provide a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter from a subcontractor, when applicable, in Volume 1 to substantiate their past performance project submission in Volume 3? | The Prime should provide meaningful relationship commitment letters when using the subs past performance as part of the past performance requirement | |
| 10 | L | L.4 | 52 | PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE. Additionally, the Offeror may provide a Table of Contents that serves as an overall guide to what files are included, where they are located and brief descriptions of what the documents are. Inclusion of a Table of Contents is optional. | Will the Government please confirm that the optional Table of Contents is excluded from the page limits for each volume? Also, for ease of evaluation and locating aspects of our response, will the Government permit Offerors to include additional front materials, such as a Glossary and Compliance Matrix (for staffing volume), excluded from the page limits for each volume? | Per Paragraph L.4 Additionally, the Offeror may provide a Table of Contents that serves as an overall guide to what files are included, where they are located and brief descriptions of what the documents are. Inclusion of a Table of Contents is optional. | |
| 11 | L; Q&A of 10/25/2022 | L.5.3.5; Q# 74 | 62 | Section L guidance requires the submission of CPARS for all Past Performance Requirements. It also requires Unrestricted primes to submit two past performances from subcontractors. Some subcontractors will not release CPARS to their prime contractors as they may contain proprietary information. Item #74 from round 2 of the Q&A published on 25 October indicated that if a subcontractor wants to submit information directly to the Government the Prime must make the Government aware, and the Government will allow the information to be submitted directly from the subcontractor to the Government. | Will the Government provide guidance on how subcontractors can submit CPARs for Past Performances referenced in the Past Performance Volume? | The Offeror shall provide written consent from their major subcontractors that will allow the Government to coordinate their Past Performance issue(s) with the Offeror. If the Offeror does not submit such written consent, then the Government will address any past performance issues directly with the major subcontractor and the Offeror will forfeit the opportunity to participate in any related discussions. Consequently, for any major subcontractors that do not provide such written consent, provide a point of contact (name, address, phone number, and email address) with which the Government may coordinate these issues and obtain any responses as needed. | |
| 12 | Attachment 1 Master MTCC II LCATsv3 | Row 22 | NA | The Individual Training Manager qualifications states: have completed the Army Command & General Staff College (CGSC) or Intermediate Level Education or equivalent level military schooling; Have had experience in operations and training requirements at Brigade or higher level (required); Graduate of the Army Battle Staff Course and/or served as a Digital Master Gunner with ASI 5C identifier; Served as an Operations Sergeant Major or Operations Sergeant in a Battalion, Brigade, Division or Corps command post (preferred) | This is confusing as it reads like the requirement is for a former Officer and Non-Commissioned Officer at the same time. The words "required" and "preferred" appear to be out of place: Have had experience in operations and training requirements at Brigade or higher level (required); and Served as an Operations Sergeant Major or Operations Sergeant in a Battalion, Brigade, Division or Corps command post (preferred). Recommend revising the placement of preferred and required to clear up whether a CGSC graduate or Army Battle Staff Course graduate is acceptable. | Requirement re-written to make sense | |
| 13 | Attachment 5 | 2.5 | 20 | PWS 2.5 states “Key personnel must be onsite on Day 1 of the transition period (30 days prior to full performance).” The PWS also states “Resumes will be reviewed by the COR and MTC Chiefs within seven days of task order award and subject to approval by the PCO. “ | Will the government revise the requirement to allow key personnel onsite at a later day of the transition period to allow the awardee time for incumbent capture of key personnel and resume review by the government as well as allowing incumbents to provide two weeks’ notice with their employer? It is recommended that the contractor be provided three weeks from award date to transition start or three weeks after transition start to have key personnel on site. | This has always been a requirement with the MTCCS Program | |
| 14 | L | L.5.2.4 | 61 | Section L.5.2.4 states “For Unrestricted pool offerors, the Offeror will provide a Phase-In plan the Offeror will use to transition the workforce at six (6) MTCs to achieve full performance within a thirty (30) day period ...” | Because JBSA is not priced, should the Phase-In plan exclude JBSA and only include five (5) MTCs? | Yes, JBSA to be incorporated at a later date as per instructions | |
| 15 | L | L.3.5. | |||||
| L.4 | 51 | ||||||
| 52 | Section L.3.5 (under Proposal Submission Requirements) 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”." |
Section L.4 Proposal Format Table, page 52 states ". . . Offerors must adhere to the Volume Numbers, Format and/or Templates, and Page Limitations (if any, Proposal pages that exceed the specified maximum page limitations will not be evaluated by the Government) provided in the Proposal Format Table, any unallowable deviation will result in proposal rejection."
Line 12 of the Proposal Format Table reflects that pages of 11 x 17 is acceptable for the response to Section L.5.2.1 Staffing Organization Table. Will the Government please clarify/confirm that 11x17 pages are also acceptable to use for table and graphics in Sections L.5.2.2, L.5.2.3, and L.5.2.4 of the Staffing Approach Volume?
Please confirm that each 11x17 page will only count as one page, no matter what section they are utilized in for tables and graphics. 11x17 Pages are allowed for all tables and graphics
Each 11x17 page will count as one page
| 16 | N/A | N/A | Solicitation, Offer And Award Attachments | What is the difference between Attachment #20 – MTCCS II Sample Task Order 0001.docx, and Attachment #21 – MTCCS II Sample Task Order 0002.docx? | References to Attachment 20 and 21 will be removed |
| 17 | L.5.5.2.3 |
L.5.5.3.2 L.5.5.5 68 69 Unbalanced Pricing Accounting System Disclosure Regarding Cost/Price Volume, are the offers able to add a Cost Summary to detail out the cited paragraphs?
| If so, what naming convention will be required for this .pdf file? | ABC.VOL5.DISCLOSURE.pdf | ||||
| 18 | Attachment (15) Leesville MTCCS II Sample TE CUI | 2 | Reference Technical Exhibit 1 - Organizational Chart Estimated Manning Requirements and Technical Exhibit 2 Historical Workload Data | 1a) Is the Government’s 17 FTE manning estimate derived from Attachment 12 Leesville Sample PWS requirements and mapped to the historical workload data shown in the Attachment 15 Technical Exhibit, Technical Exhibit 2? |
1b) In providing the estimated manning requirements in Technical Exhibit 1 Organizational Chart, is it the Government's intent to suggest that 17 FTE is the appropriate headcount and skill mix to fulfill the Leesville Sample PWS requirements? 1a No, it is not mapped nor is it a current reflection of the manning at any site at this time.
1b No, the Government does not suggest using the numbers and with Amendment 0001 all numbers will be removed from the manning chart 19 MTCCS_II_Solicitation_W900KK23R0006_21_Oct_22
| Section M.4 | M.4.5.4 | 78 | Reference: M.4.5.4 Indirect Rates: The Government will assess the Offerors rate build up, to include all associated base labor, indirect rates and profit utilized, and the proposed escalation for all out-year rates. The Government will utilize this information to validate that the proposed rates are consistent and calculated correctly in accordance with the Offerors provided historical financial data as instructed under Section L.5.5.3. and associated subsections. | Question: The provided pricing template does not allow for rate build ups and there is nothing in Section L requiring rate build-ups or indirect rate information. Will the Government remove M.4.5.4 from Section M? | Government will remove this paragraph from section M |
| 20 | MTCCS_II_Solicitation_W900KK23R0006_21_Oct_22 |
| Section M.4 | M.4.5.4 | 78 | Reference: To the extent that the Offeror complies with the SCA wage determination rates for each location specified in the RFP, the Government will evaluate labor rates subject to the SCA by comparing the proposed base reflected in the Offeror's workbook to the SCA WD schedule. The location specific SCA WD rate schedules are provided in Attachments 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d, 9e and 9f (Unrestricted) and Attachment 12 (Restricted).Reference: To the extent that the Offeror complies with the SCA wage determination rates for each location specified in the RFP, the Government will evaluate labor rates subject to the SCA by comparing the proposed base reflected in the Offeror's workbook to the SCA WD schedule. The location specific SCA WD rate schedules are provided in Attachments 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d, 9e and 9f (Unrestricted) and Attachment 12 (Restricted). | Question: The provided pricing template only requires offerors to submit fully burdened hourly labor rates that shall be inclusive of all direct and indirect costs to include escalation and profit. The labor rates included in the provided SCA WD schedules are direct labor rates that are not inclusive of indirect rates or profit. Will the Government explain and clarify how the comparison of proposed rates in the Offerors workbook to the SCA WD schedule will be performed? | Government will remove this paragraph from section M | ||
| 21 | Attachment (10) III Corps MTCCS II_Price_Worksheetv3 CUI | 'Instructions & Total Evaluated Price tabs | Reference: 5. The offerors total price for the Phase In, Base Year, Option Year 1, Option Year 2, Option Year 3, Option Year 4, and Option 6 MO Ext will be the Total Evaluated Price. The Total Evaluated Price is EXCLUSIVE of Travel, Material/ODC, and Surge. | Question: The 'Instructions' tab and 'Total Evaluated Price' tab are not in alignment. The 'Total Evaluated Price' tab includes Travel, Material, and Surge in its calculation of Total Evaluated Price. Will the Government please clarify if the Total Evaluated Price is inclusive or exclusive of the Government provided plug values for Travel, Material, and Surge? | Attachment 10 Block 5. THE OFFERORS TOTAL PRICE FOR THE Phase In, BASE YEAR, OPTION YEAR 1, OPTION YEAR 2, OPTION YEAR 3, OPTION YEAR 4, and OPTION 6 MO EXT WILL BE THE TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE. THE TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE IS EXCLUSIVE OF TRAVEL, MATERIAL/ODC, and Surge. |
RFP Section M.4.5.2.4 The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the sum of all FFP Contract Line Items, to include the base plus all option periods.
22 MTCCS_II_Solicitation_W900KK23R0006_21_Oct_22
| Section L.4 | L.4 | 54 | Reference: In the Page Limit column of the Proposal Format Table for Volume 5 'Cost/Price Rationale (only if necessary) and Professional Employee Compensation Plan' there is a reference that states "NTE 1 page per labor category disputed." | Question: As sections L.5.5, L.5.5.1, and L.5.5.2 (referenced in the Proposal Format table) does not directly relate to the labor categories, would the Government please update and remove these references? If not, would the Government further clarify. | Chart updated in Section L to address the PECP |
| 23 | MTCCS_II_Solicitation_W900KK23R0006_21_Oct_22 |
| Section L.4 | L.4 | 54 | Reference: In the Page Limit column of the Proposal Format Table for Volume 5 'Cost/Price Rationale (only if necessary) and Professional Employee Compensation Plan.' | Question: Will the Government confirm the Government would like the PECP in a separate file under Volume 5, titled ABC.VOL5.PECP.pdf? | Confirmed |
| 24 | MTCCS_II_Solicitation_W900KK23R0006_21_Oct_22 |
Section L.5 L.5.3.4 61-62 Recommend the L.5.3.4. be changed to:
| “Unrestricted pool offerors will submit at least Three (3) distinct Past Performance projects where they served as the Prime contractor and may submit up to two additional Past Performance projects where one or more of their teamed subcontractors has relevant past performance. In total, Past Performance projects will not exceed five (5).” | Will change the verbiage to the recommendation | |
| 25 | MTCCS_II_Solicitation_W900KK23R0006_21_Oct_22 |
| Section L.5 | L.5.3.4 | 61-62 | If the Government retains the requirement of two additional subcontractor Past Performance projects, would the Government update instructions to clarify that subcontractor past performance projects, when provided by small businesses, may meet the restricted pool qualifications of $1M per year and no multiple location requirements? | The dollar value for the past performance for the small business sub contractors used by the large business for the past performance examples will be set at the same value for the small business |
| 26 | MTCCS_II_Solicitation_W900KK23R0006_21_Oct_22 |
Section L.5 L.5.3.4 61-62 Contradiction in L.5.3.4.1 statement: “The MTCCS Core Task Areas are described in the PWS and include Training Support in the Integrated Training Environment, Simulation Support, Communications, Network and System Administration, and Cybersecurity and Risk Management Framework.” PWS attached lists different core task areas of: Training, Tech & Comm., Plans & Operations, and Logistics.
| Recommend the Government updates all documents to align with the MTCCS Core Task Areas identified in L.5.3.4.1. | Corrected | ||||||
| 27 | Section H | Section H | 22 | In the Final RFP document, Section H - Special Contract Requirements is a heading with no content | Will the Government be providing a Section H for the Final RFP? | Section H has been removed, all applicable requirements have been moved to Section C | |
| 28 | Will the Government be providing answers to the last round of questions on the revised Final RFP that had a due date of 05 October 2022? | Q&A Provided | |||||
| 29 | RFP | L.5.3.4 | |||||
| M.4.3 | 61-62 | ||||||
| 74 | L.5.3.4. Unrestricted pool offerors will submit at least Three (3) distinct Past Performance projects where they served as the Prime contractor and two additional Past Performance projects where one or more of their teamed subcontractors has relevant past performance. In total, Past Performance projects will not exceed five (5). Restricted pool offerors will submit at least Two (2) distinct Past Performance projects and no more than Four (4). Each project shall meet the following minimum conditions: Sub Section 3. The combined annual value of the projects must be equal to or greater than $20 Million per year for Unrestricted pool or $2M for the SB set-aside pool. No Individual Annual Project Value shall be less than $10 Million per year for the Unrestricted pool or $1M per year for the SB set-aside pool . | Unrestricted Pool offerors mainly subcontract with Small Business, and with other large businesses who cannot prime this contract on very special occasions. The conditions imposed on Past Performance for the unrestricted pool is good for the Prime Past Performance, however it is far too restrictive for the teamed subcontractor past performance requirements. Conditions 3 and 4 for the unrestricted pool are far too restrictive for subcontractor past performance. Examples The dollar threshold for the unrestricted Past Performance Projects s appropriate, however imposing the annual value restriction (No Individual Annual Project Value shall be less than $10 Million per year for the Unrestricted pool ) on Past Performance from teamed subcontractors is too restrictive since the majority are small business. Condition 4 would be too restrictive, requiring the teamed subcontractor Past Performance continuous simultaneous performance in at least Two (2) separate locations. (Places of performance separated by more than 150 miles). Additionally, if a large business used a Past Performance from a teamed small business, they would not be rated highly on the table due to these restrictions. |
Q1: Would the Government clarify if the minimum conditions (1-5) must be met for teamed subcontractor Past Performance requirement?
| Suggestion: Recommend the Government require Subcontractor PP within the unrestricted pool to meet the conditions of the restricted pool. | Subcontractor past performance to be used by the Prime, must meet the small business requirements for the restricted lot, not the dollar value of the Unrestricted Lot | ||
| 30 | RFP | L.4 Table |
Volume 3
| L.5.3. - L.5.3.6 | 54 | 5th Column: Past Performance Summary, CPARS report, Past Performance Rating Form and or Award Fee Determination report. Page Limit: Not to exceed 15 pages (CPARS Will not count towards page limit) 6th Column: ABC.VOL3.TE.PP.P1.pdf (Company Name, Volume, Past Performance, Project 1) Repeat as follows: ABC.VOL4.TE.PP.P2.pdf etc. | The 5th column in the table states that the Past Performance Volume has a page limit not to exceed 15 pages (CPARS Will not count towards page limit) and the 6th column indicates that each past performance citation is to be submitted as individual files. This is confusing because offerors could interpret that each citation is authorized 15 pages per individual file or they could interpret that all files (e.g., Citations) combined, cannot exceed 15 pages. Would the Government please clarify if the “not to exceed 15 pages” is per each past performance citation submitted, or in total for all citations combined? | Not to Exceed 15 pages TOTAL (CPARS Will not count towards page limit |
| 31 | RFP | L.5.3.5 | ||
| L.5.4.6 | 62 | |||
| 66 | RFP L.5.3.5: If an interim or final CPARS report is not available, and an Award Fee Determination is not available or not applicable, the Offeror must submit a Past Performance Rating Form in accordance with Section L.5.4.6. The Rating Form will be used as the basis for the past performance evaluation for that project. | |||
| RFP L.5.4.6: L.5.4.6. Role of Small Business Firms and Processes: The Offeror shall provide an explanation of their process for identifying, competing, and selecting small business firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, for subcontracted work in order to meet or exceed the Small Business Participation requirements. | Would the Government please provide the correct reference that section L.5.3.5 is referring to? | Correct reference M.4.3.3. | ||
| 32 | RFP | |||
| Attachment 19 PWS | L.5.3.4 (RFP) | |||
| C.1 (MTCCS PWS) | 61 | |||
| 2 | RFP: Involve the performance of at least One (1) out of the Four (4) MTCCS Core Task Areas outlined in the PWS. The MTCCS Core Task Areas are described in the PWS and include Training Support in the Integrated Training Environment, Simulation Support, Communications, Network and System Administration, and Cybersecurity and Risk Management Framework. PWS: MTCCS contractor(s) will provide support in the following four task areas: |
Primary Task Areas Task 1: Training Task 2: Technical and Communications Supporting and Supplemental Task Areas Task 3: Plans and Operations
| Task 4: Logistics | Attachment 19 (PWS) provides for four (4) Task Areas in Section C.1, yet the Task areas listed in Section L.5.3.4 are different. Would the Government please clarify which four (4) Task Areas to use and please define these Task Areas? | Corrected | |
| 33 | RFP | L.4 Table | |
| Volume 3 | 54 | ABC.VOL3.TE.PP.P1.pdf |
(Company Name, Volume, Past Performance, Project 1)
| Repeat as follows: ABC.VOL4.TE.PP.P2.pdf etc. | The 6th column in the Table provides file naming requirements and conventions for both the “Past Performance” and the “Subcontractor Consent”. Since the term “Technical Experience” is no longer used nor applicable, is it the Government’s intent to leave the initials “TE” as part of the file naming convention? Recommend “TE” be dropped from the file names for Volume 3 files. | Government will remove the TE from the naming convention | |
| 33 | RFP | L.4 Table | |
| Volume 3 | 55 | ABC.VOL3.TE.PP.P1.pdf |
(Company Name, Volume, Past Performance, Project 1)
Repeat as follows: ABC.VOL4.TE.PP.P2.pdf etc. Is it the Government's intent that each file submitted in Volume 3 for each PP citation contains:
1) the necessary past performance citation information IAW Section L.5.3.4 (RFP) (i.e., a PP citation template that is Offeror derived)?
2) evidence/artifact of performance (either CPARS, Award Fee Determination Report, or a Past Performance Rating Form)? 1) Yes
2) Yes 34 RFP L.4 Table Volume 3 L.5.3-L.5.3.6 55 ABC.VOL3.TE.PP.P1.pdf (Company Name, Volume, Past Performance, Project 1)
Repeat as follows: ABC.VOL4.TE.PP.P2.pdf etc. Within the Round+2 Q&A, the Government states that CPARS will not count towards page limit and within the answer to question number 144, the Government indicates that Attachment 2 (Past Performance Rating Form) will count against the 15 page limit. Would the Government please clarify:
1) If the award Fee Determination Report will count towards page count limitations?
2) If so, we request the Government raise the page count limit to 10 pages for each citation submitted or have the Award Fee Determination Report not count towards page limitations. CPARS report, Past Performance Rating Form and or Award Fee Determination report (Will not count towards page limit).
| 35 | RFP | L.4 Table | |
| Volume 3 | 56 | 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 that the Past Performance Subcontractor Consent Project Letters that are limited to 1-page per Consent Letter IAW the 5th column of the Table in Section L.4 are not part of the 15-page limitation for the Past Performance citation/summary described in the row above in the Table in Section L.4? | Correct | |||||
| 36 | RFP | SF 33 | 1 | We are not able to insert our company information into the Standard Form 33 it is locked due to the signature from the Government. Can the Government provide a SF 33 that we can edit? | Government will provide | ||
| 37 | RFP | L.4 Table | |||||
| L.5.5.3.1. | 54 | Pricing Template | Section L states (.5.5.2.1 Pricing Template and L.5.5.3.1 Pricing Worksheet. Recommend the Government to change the table to reflect L.5.5.2.1 Pricing Templates. | Changed | |||
| 38 | RFP | L.4. Table | |||||
| L.5.5.3.2 | 55 | Disclosure Letter | The Disclosure Letters is section L.5.5.5 yet the table on page 55 states the Disclosure Letters as L.5.5.3.2. Can the Government change the table to reflect Section L.5.5.5? | Changed | |||
| 39 | RFP | L.4. Table | |||||
| Volume | 55 | Accounting System | Section L.5.5.3.2 Accounting Systems is required by Section L but is not listed in the table on page 55 of the RFP. Can the Government add this into the table and provide the submission instructions? | Changed to if requested | |||
| 40 | Attachment + (5)+ III+Corps+MTCCS+II+PWSv5 | 3.6.1 | 43 | 3.6.1 "Personnel Surge Support. For surge support requests that the Contractor is unable to accomplish under the fixed price structure, the Contractor shall use a detailed OAWR process to determine costs." | Paragraph 3.6.1 is ambiguous and does not align with standard practices of FFP contracting. Under what exact conditions will the US Government grant an OAWR? That is, what inability to flex and how much OT must be deployed for the USG to grant OAWR. If deployment of OT is a possibility and 3.6.1 does not clearly state when an OAWR will be granted, but that OT may be used, how can the contractor possibly know how much OT to assume? | Surge support is used for unforeseen requirements outside of the scope of normal operations and planned exercises. To remove the ambiguity the Government has provided a plug number for the cost of the Surge support required. | |
| 41 | Attachment + (5)+ III+Corps+MTCCS+II+PWSv5 | 3.6.1 | 43 | 3.6.1 "Personnel Surge Support. For surge support requests that the Contractor is unable to accomplish under the fixed price structure, the Contractor shall use a detailed OAWR process to determine costs." | What is the government's definition of “unable to accomplish under the fixed price structure”? | Requirements that are promulgated after Task Order award that had not previously been known before the Task Order award, and must now be accounted for. | |
| 42 | RFP | L.3.5 | |||||
| L.4 | 51 | ||||||
| 52 | Section L.3.5 (under Proposal Submission Requirements) 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”." |
Section L.4 Proposal Format Table, page 52 states ". . . Offerors must adhere to the Volume Numbers, Format and/or Templates, and Page Limitations (if any, Proposal pages that exceed the specified maximum page limitations will not be evaluated by the Government) provided in the Proposal Format Table, any unallowable deviation will result in proposal rejection."
Line 12 of the Proposal Format Table reflects that pages of 11 x 17 is acceptable for the response to Section L.5.2.1 Staffing Organization Table. Will the Government please clarify/confirm that 11x17 pages are also acceptable to use for table and graphics in Sections L.5.2.2, L.5.2.3, and L.5.2.4 of the Staffing Approach Volume?
Please confirm that each 11x17 page will only count as one page, no matter what section they are utilized in for tables and graphics. 11x17 Pages are allowed for all tables and graphics
Each 11x17 page will count as one page
| 43 | Attachment + (1) + MASTER+MTCCS+II+LCATsv3 | TAB A III Corps LCATS | N/A | Multiple Labor Category, Definition and Qualifications. | Are Labor Categories as described in some cases intended to be a composite of multiple individuals? For example, the Network Engineer /Network Engineer Lead/Network Engineer III describes qualifications that would be relevant to the "Network Engineer Lead", but might be more restrictive than necessary for a straight "Network Engineer". If Labor Categories like this are intended to be a composite, shall the contractor map multiple corporate LCATs to the composite Government LCAT, regardless of whether individual corporate LCATs meet the full composite Government LCAT? | The contractor has the ability to map multiple LCATs to the ones listed in Attachment 1 MASTER MTCCS II LCATS |
| 44 | Attachment + (1) + MASTER+MTCCS+II+LCATsv3 | TAB A III Corps LCATs | NA | Multiple Labor Category, Definition and Qualifications. | Is the contractor's staffing solution required to use only the labor categories provided in the unrestricted III Corps LCATs contained within attachment (10)? | The contractor has the ability to map multiple LCATs to the ones listed in Attachment 1 MASTER MTCCS II LCATS |
| 45 | Attachment + (5)+ III+Corps+MTCCS+II+PWSv5 | 3.1.6.1.6 | 30-31 of 76 | 3.1.6.1.6 COMSEC Handling. The Contractor shall pick up, handle, transport, install, inventory, store, and destroy COMSEC equipment, devices, and keying material IAW all DA and National Security Agency (NSA) procedures and regulations, when and as required. The Contractor shall maintain COMSEC safes for the Government as needed at each installation. | Does contractor hold the COMSEC account? | No the Government holds the COMSEC account |
| 46 | Attachment + (5)+ III+Corps+MTCCS+II+PWSv5 | 2.2.4.7 | 11 of 76 | 2.2.4.7. Additional Training. Other mandatory Government training is required to meet local, Department of the Army, and DoD mandatory training directives. This includes but is not limited to the following on-line requirements: Anti-Terrorism Awareness, Phishing, Safe Home Computing, Removable Media and PED, Personal Identifiable Information (PII), Social Networking, CTIP, Threat Awareness and Reporting Program (TARP) … | When is the training required to be completed? | Post award |
| 47 | Attachment + (10)+ III+Corps+MTCCS+II+Price_Worksheet3+CUI | Column F – Pricing Spreadsheet | All pricing Tabs Phase In 001, Base through Option Years | III Corps Pricing Worksheet | What does the US Government expect to see in Column F on pricing spreadsheet? Is the requirement to identify each labor category by prime or subcontractor company names? Recommend clarifying in pricing Instructions on the INSTRUCTIONS Tab. | The Government expects to see the Company Name that the employee is working for in Column F |
| 48 | Attachment + (5)+ III+Corps+MTCCS+II+PWSv5 | 2.5 | 20 of 76 | "Key personnel must be onsite on Day 1 of the transition period (30 days prior to full performance). Resumes are not required with proposal for Key Personnel. Resumes will be reviewed by the COR and MTC Chiefs within seven days of task order award and subject to approval by the PCO." | How can key personnel resume be approved by PCO within 7 days of task order award if key personnel are to be on site “on Day 1 of the transition period (30 days prior to full performance)”? It’s impossible to have them on staff day 1 if PCO gets 7 days to approve resumes? Please clarify the key personnel approval requirement. | The Key personnel have to be there at the start of the transition period, because they are key personnel. The Government gets 7 days to review the resumes to make sure that the Key personnel have the required qualifications for the positions that they are filling. |
| 49 | Attachment + (5)+ III+Corps+MTCCS+II+PWSv5 | 3.1.1.6 | 26 of 76 | PWS 3.1.1.6 "The Contractor shall receive, consolidate, and analyze all MTC virtual system usage data on monthly basis and provide an assessment report as needed, but at least quarterly to the COR (CDRL A014)." | Receive from whom? | The data comes from each system that is operated by the Contractor |
| 50 | Attachment + (5)+ III+Corps+MTCCS+II+PWSv5 | 3.1.3.4.1.8 | 28 of 76 | PWS 3.1.3.4.1.8 - The trend report shall be submitted to the COR within 5 days following completion of exercise or event | IS THIS A CDRL? Or supposed to be a CDRL? | This is not a CDRL |
| 51 | Attachment + (5)+ III+Corps+MTCCS+II+PWSv5 | 3.3.4 | 35 of 76 | PW 3.3.4 "System Administration. The Contractor shall provide virtual system core network/system administration-management and maintain currency of Government virtual systems software. Contractor operated and maintained training enablers, simulations, and mission command systems must be operational 98% of their available time." | Can the US Government provide a listing of the III Corps Hub and Spoke devices that are “contractor operated and maintained” so the contractor can properly develop staffing requirements. | The government has provided workload data to develop staffing requirements |
| 52 | Attachment + (5)+ III+Corps+MTCCS+II+PWSv5 | 3.1.1.5 | 25 of 76 | CDRL A001 in accordance with PWS 3.1.1.5 (Monthly Report). 3.1.1.5 22) indicates 22) “Cost incurred for the reporting period and cumulative contractual expenditures as of report date.” | Discussion and Question – it is not customary to require period and cumulative cost reporting on a fixed price project. Suggest the US Government consider another alternative to capture any necessary financial metrics? For example, contractor will report 75% CLIN expenditure or other areas of financial risks. | Requirement will not change |
| 53 | Attachment + (5)+ III+Corps+MTCCS+II+PWSv5 | 3.1.2.1 | 26 of 76 | KM 3.1.2.1 – “shall create a site that provides a capabilities overview, exercise development products and tips, scheduling, contact information lists, and any other information the Government deems necessary” | Request US Government clarify or strike “and any other information the Government deems necessary” so that the contractor can make reasonable fixed price assumptions. We recommend, “and other relevant information within the MTC training domain and not to exceed contractor’s regularly assigned work scope.” | No change |
| 54 | MTCCS II Solicitation | L.4 and L.5.1.9. | 53, 59 | L.5.1.9 requests the offeror to provide a Property Management Plan. The Proposal Format Table says to provide, "Copy of Vendors Property Management Plan" | Can you please clarify if a copy of an existing Property Management Plan unrelated to MTCCS II will satisfy this requirement? | Yes, the vendors current Property Management Plan can be used |
| 55 | MTCCS II Solicitation | L.4 and L.5.5.2.2. | 54, 68 | L.5.5.2.2. states that the Offeror shall submit a Professional Employee Compensation Plan. The Proposal Format Table puts the Professional Employee Compensation Plan in Volume 5, Cost/Price Rationale. | If the Offeror is not going to submit a Cost/Price Rationale, is the filename format for the Professional Employee Compensation Plan "ABC.VOL5.RAT1.pdf", or will the Government provided a different filename for the plan (such as "ABC.VOL5.PECP.pdf")? | Updated |
| 56 | Solicitation; RTOP W900KK23R0006 | L.5.1.4 | 57 | Within a corporate structure, an Offeror may utilize resources from a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, and/or Subsidiary. The Government will allow an Offeror to take credit for any evaluation element, including past performance project(s), system(s), or certification(s) from a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, and/or Subsidiary so long as there is a meaningful relationship to the Offeror and commitment letters are provided to the Government. | If an Offeror (prime contractor) is submitting a past performance project from a subcontractor who has a Meaningful Relationship Commitment with a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, and/or Subsidiary as defined in L.5.1.4, is it the Government's intent that the prime submit an MRCL on the subcontractor with the proposal? Or is the Meaningful Relationship requirement intended only for Offeror (prime contractors)? | If the Prime is using the Subs Past performance they need to submit a MRCL |
| 57 | Solicitation; RTOP W900KK23R0006 and Response to Questions document: MTCCS II Q and As Round 2 Complete. | L.5.2.2; SF2, Staffing Plan | 60 | L.5.2.2 reads “The Offeror shall also describe their approach to managing multiple, simultaneous events at different locations that provide cost-effective solutions that directly benefit the Government. The Offeror shall 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”. |
| Reference Question numbers 7 and 25 | Given the Government’s response to questions, will the Government specify that the requirement in Section L “to manage multiple simultaneous events at different locations” and/or “surge employees to different MTC’s” only applies to the Unrestricted Pool? | That requirement is for the Unrestricted Lot only | |||
| 58 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Reference: MTCCS II Q and As Round 2 Complete, question 3 states: "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?" | |
| Answer: the "Leesville PWS takes precedence over LCAT TAB B." | For clarification, when a PWS Task does not have an applicable LCAT in Tab B from the Master LCAT List, can the Offeror instead map to an LCAT from Tab A? | For Leesville only, the Offeror can map to a LCAT from Tab A. | |||
| 59 | Solicitation; RTOP W900KK23R0006 | L.5.3.5 | 62 | If an interim or final CPARS report is not available, and an Award Fee Determination is not available or not applicable, the Offeror must submit a Past Performance Rating Form in accordance with Section L.5.4.6. The Rating Form will be used as the basis for the past performance evaluation for that project. |
| Section L.5.4.6 pertains to the Role of Small Business Firms and Processes | Will the Government provide the correct reference for submitting a Past Performance Rating Form? | Corrected | |||
| 60 | Solicitation; RTOP W900KK23R0006 and Response to Questions document: MTCCS II Q and As Round 2 Complete. | L.5.3.5 | 62 | If an interim or final CPARS report is not available, and an Award Fee Determination is not available or not applicable, the Offeror must submit a Past Performance Rating Form in accordance with Section L.5.4.6. The Rating Form will be used as the basis for the past performance evaluation for that project. |
Question #144 in Round 2 Complete: The Governments answer to question 283 tells offerors to see attachment 2 Past Performance Rating Form for instructions for the submission of Past Performance Survey. However, attachment 2 Past Performance Rating form only provides instructions on how to complete the form and instructions for the Rater to submit. Q1: Would the Government please provide instructions regarding the submission of the form for offerors, meaning should offerors copy Phil Davis and Dan Steinhauer when submitting the form to the Rater for completion? Q2: Would the Government also clarify if these forms need to be returned from the Rater to Mr. Davis and Mr. Steinhauer before the proposal submission date? Q3: Would the Government please clarify how offerors should annotate within their proposal Past Performance Volume if a form was submitted and will this entry go against the 15 page limit?
| Answer: Attachment 2 is the form, when complete it goes into the Past Performance Volume and will count against the page limit | The Past Performance Rating Form instructs the "RATER" to submit the completed form to usarmy.orlando.peo-stri.mbx.mtccs@mail.mil since, like CPARS, the Past Performance Rating Form contains proprietary information. In cases where an Offeror is submitting a subcontractor past performance project, will the Government allow/provide instructions for a past performance rater to submit the Past Performance Rating Form directly to the Government the same as the CPARS? | Wrong reference, past performance is included in the Past Performance Volume | |||
| 61 | Solicitation; RTOP W900KK23R0006 and Response to Questions document: MTCCS II Q and As Round 2 Complete. | L.5.3.5 | 62 | If an interim or final CPARS report is not available, and an Award Fee Determination is not available or not applicable, the Offeror must submit a Past Performance Rating Form in accordance with Section L.5.4.6. The Rating Form will be used as the basis for the past performance evaluation for that project. |
Question #144 in Round 2 Complete: The Governments answer to question 283 tells offerors to see attachment 2 Past Performance Rating Form for instructions for the submission of Past Performance Survey. However, attachment 2 Past Performance Rating form only provides instructions on how to complete the form and instructions for the Rater to submit. Q1: Would the Government please provide instructions regarding the submission of the form for offerors, meaning should offerors copy Phil Davis and Dan Steinhauer when submitting the form to the Rater for completion? Q2: Would the Government also clarify if these forms need to be returned from the Rater to Mr. Davis and Mr. Steinhauer before the proposal submission date? Q3: Would the Government please clarify how offerors should annotate within their proposal Past Performance Volume if a form was submitted and will this entry go against the 15 page limit?
Answer: Attachment 2 is the form, when complete it goes into the Past Performance Volume and will count against the page limit
| Answer to Question #145: CPARS will not count towards page limit | Excluding the CPARS from the 15 page past performance narrative, but not the Past Performance Rating Form gives an advantage to any Offeror who has CPARS for all Past Performance Projects. Will the Government exclude the Past Performance Rating Form from the 15 page past performance narrative? | past performance forms will not count towards the page limit |
| 62 | 2023-O0001 - DOD Class Deviation Memo, dated 26 October 2022 – |
Subject: Class Deviation—Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures
| MTCCS_II_Solicitation_W900KK23R0006_21_Oct_22 | Section K |
| L.1; L.5.1.6 | 42-46 |
| 49; 58 | Per the DoD Standard Deviation Memorandum dated 26 Oct. 2022: |
“Effective October 28, 2022, contracting officers shall use the alternate procedures in this deviation to verify small business joint venture offeror eligibility in lieu of using the System for Award Management (SAM). Accordingly, in lieu of using the System for Award Management (SAM), contracting officers shall include the following statement in solicitations: “A small business joint venture offeror must submit, with its offer, the representation required in paragraph (c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and paragraph (c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, in accordance with 52.204-8(d) and 52.212-3(b) for the following categories:
(A) Small business;
(B) Service-disabled veteran-owned small business;
(C) Women-owned small business (WOSB) under the WOSB Program;
(D) Economically disadvantaged women-owned small business under the WOSB Program; or
| (E) Historically underutilized business zone small business.” | Per DOD Class Deviation Memo 2023-O0001, will the Government incorporate this in the solicitation? If so, will the Government please update Section K -Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors - to include the additional solicitation representations required to be completed and summitted per the memorandum? | Added in Section L.5.1.5 | |||||
| 63 | MTCCS_II_Solicitation_W900KK23R0006_21_Oct_22 | L.5.5.3.1 | |||||
| M.4.5.4 | 68 | ||||||
| 78 | Does the Government require unit price only or are offerors required to submit rate buildups? If yes, can offerors supplement price worksheet with additional tabs for labor buildup? | Unit Price, no rate build ups required | |||||
| 64 | Attachment (11) III Corps MTCCS II Draft DD Form 254v2.pdf | Block 10g | Can the Government please confirm that NATO briefs will be conducted by the Government and not the Contractor? | Confirmed | |||
| 65 | Attachment (11) III Corps MTCCS II Draft DD Form 254v2.pdf | Block 8a | It appears Block 8a is missing additional places of performance for spoke sites. Only Ft Hood is listed. Please confirm if this is correct? | The final DD254 will be completed upon TO award by the Government and will be updated at that time to include all III Corps MTC sites | |||
| 66 | Attachment (11) III Corps MTCCS II Draft DD Form 254v2.pdf | Block 10k and 11m | Will the Government please confirm that “See Continuation Sheet” us referring solely to the information listed in Block 13 and not a separate document? | Confirmed | |||
| 67 | Attachment (11) III Corps MTCCS II Draft DD Form 254v2.pdf | Block 13 10h | Foreign Government Information continuation guidance is provided but block 10h is not checked as a requirement. Is Foreign Government Information (block 10h) required? | No | |||
| 68 | Attachment (11) III Corps MTCCS II Draft DD Form 254v2.pdf | Block 14/15 | Would the Government please provide the referenced SCI Addendum(s) | Upon Contract award the Government will provide to the winning vendor | |||
| 69 | Attachment + (5)+ III+Corps+MTCCS+II+PWSv5 | 3.1.6.1.2.1 | 30 of 76 | PWS 3.1.6.1.2.1. Network Accreditation. The Contractor shall provide all required functions, documents and reports required by RMF to certify and accredit networks to include a Systems Security Authorization (SSA) for each permanent simulation training network, Authority to Operate (ATO) for permanent networks are completed on time and to standard. | Will the US government please provide the current SSA status and renewal dates for each MTC (Hub and Spokes) so we can accommodate the annual Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMAs) and triennial ATO process efforts within our response? | No, not necessary | |
| 70 | Attachment + (5)+ III+Corps+MTCCS+II+PWSv5 | 3.1.6.1.2.1 | 30 of 76 | PWS 3.1.6.1.2.1. Network Accreditation. The Contractor shall provide all required functions, documents and reports required by RMF to certify and accredit networks to include a Systems Security Authorization (SSA) for each permanent simulation training network, Authority to Operate (ATO) for permanent networks are completed on time and to standard. | Will the US government please confirm/clarify that all the MTC resident, PM managed system ATO accreditations (like JLCCTC) are a responsibility of the PM program, and not a responsibility of the MTC staff? | They are not the responsibility of the contractor | |
| 71 | RFP | L.5.1.7 | 59 | L.5.1.7. Small Business Subcontracting Plan "The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be provided as part of Volume 7." | Would the government please confirm that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be included in Volume 1 per section L.5.1.7? | Yes, the Sub-Contracting Plan should be included as part of Volume 1, reference will be corrected |
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 .