MTCCS II Solicitation QandA_Part2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 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 | Government Answer |
| 1 | Section L; | ||||
| Item #106 from MTCCS II Solicitation Q&A published on 8 November 2022 | L.5.3.2 and L.5.3.4, No.3 | RFP 63 & 64 | Section L.5.3.2 defines a past performance project "as a contract vehicle (contract or task order) or a collection of contract vehicles that were/are performed simultaneously by the offeror or committed members of the offeror’s Contract Team Arrangement." |
Q&A item #106 asked if multiple task orders under the same Contract/Subcontract will be evaluated as a single combined project for purposes of assessing Individual Annual Project Value thresholds, and the Government responded "The thresholds must be met for each individual task order included in the collective Past Performance citation."
| We believe this answer to be incorrect as it is in direct conflict with the definition of a past performance project, per L.5.3.2. This answer would also would severely limit fair and open competition in that successfully performing contractors would be unable to compete for subsequent task orders. | Will the government please confirm that the annual value threshold is based on the total value of a past performance project – meaning a "collection of contract vehicles" as defined by L.5.3.2? | Correct, the annual value threshold is based on the total value of a past performance project – meaning a "collection of contract vehicles" as defined by L.5.3.2 | |||||
| 2 | Section L; | ||||||
| Items #11 and #132 from MTCCS II Solicitation Q&A published on 8 November 2022 | L.3.6 | RFP 54 | L.3.6 provides instructions for Offerors who intend to submit a proposal. Q&A item #11 asked for guidance on how subcontractors are to submit their CPARS directly to the Government. Q&A #132 indicated for a Past Performance Rating Form "The Sub can provide directly to the Government if they do not want to go through the Prime." | Will the Government please provide guidance on how subcontractors should submit their CPARS or Past Performance Rating Forms directly to the Government? Should they follow the same instructions in L.3.6 to "contact Mr. Daniel Stinhauer at daniel.j.steinhauer.civ@army.mil, 5 business days prior to the proposal due date (15 November 2022), to coordinate proposal submission and receive the request code" ? | That is fine to have the subs submit names to the Government so that they can submit dicumentation straight to the Government | ||
| 3 | Section L; Amendment 1 Q&A | Clauses Incorporated by Reference; | |||||
| L.4, Table; Amendment 1 Q&A # 6, 134 | RFP 49, 54-57; 52.215-1 page 3 | Clause "52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition NOV 2021" paragraph "(e) Restriction on disclosure and use of data", sub-paragraph (1) specifies to "(2) Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:…." Question 134 did not address the inclusion of tabs and tables of contents in every file. | Will the Government please confirm that a title page or cover page may be included with each file and will be excluded from the page limits for each volume so that offerors can comply with FAR 52.215-1? | Section L.4 Last paragraph before the 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." | |||
| 4 | Section L; Amendment 1 Q&A | Clauses Incorporated by Reference; | |||||
| L.4, Table; Amendment 1 Q&A # 6, 134 | RFP 49, 54-57; 52.215-1 page 3 | Clause "52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition NOV 2021" paragraph "(e) Restriction on disclosure and use of data", sub-paragraph (1) specifies to "(2) Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:…." | If the Government does not permit a title page to be provided with each file and exempted from page limits, would you please confirm that a title page or cover page may be included in a separate file within Volume 1 General so that offerors can comply with FAR 52.215-1? | Section L.4 Last paragraph before the 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." | |||
| 5 | Section L; Amendment 1 Q&A | L.4, Table; Amendment 1 Q&A # 6, 7, 10, 134 | RFP 49, 54-57 | In the Proposal Format Table, specific files have the instruction, "Limited to the copies and information specifically requested." The answers to Questions 6, 7, 10, and 134 did not address the inclusion of tabs and tables of contents in every file. RFP Section L.4 is ambiguous as to whether these items may be included anywhere else other than the named file in Volume I. | Will the Government please confirm that a volume-specific Table of Contents and tabs may be included with each file and will be excluded from the page limits for each volume? | Section L.4 Last paragraph before the 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." | |
| 6 | Section L; Amendment 1 Q&A | L.5.5.2.2; Amendment 1 Q&A # 108 | RFP 70 | L.5.5.2.2 states that "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." |
| The answer to Question 108 states that if a subcontractor has a total compensation plan, that it needs to be submitted. | Will the Government please confirm that only the Offeror is required to submit the Professional Employee Compensation Plan as it relates to the requirement stated in L.5.5.2.2.? | Only the Offeror is required to submit | |
| 7 | MTCCS+II+Solicitation+QandA | For questions #120 and #121, the Answer given was: "The Government's intent is that surge requirements are resourced using full time employees on the task order." |
| This answer suggests that only FTEs already on the TO may be used to handle the surge requirement. This would require that a paid, full time labor pool over and above the staffing requirements needed to conduct normal (non-surge) operations be available on stand-by to support surge support. | Will the Government clarify whether answers to questions 120 and 121 mean that surge support can only be addressed using full time employees already working on the TO? | The government 's intent is that surge requirements are resourced using full time employees on the task order | ||
| 8 | MTCSS_II_Solicitation_W900KK23R0009_21_Oct_22.pdf | Government Q&A 8 Nov 22, Q#9 Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter. | The governments answer implies that all primes that use subcontractor past performance should provide a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter. However, RFP Section L.5.1.4 states that Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters are for Parent Company, Affiliate, Division and /or Subsidiary. Additionally, L.5.3.7 states that prime offers are to provide Subcontractor Consent Letter for past performance. | |
| Will the government please clarify if prime offerors are to provide both Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters and Subcontractor Consent Letters? | Seection L.5.1.4 Refers to the MCRL between the Prime and Sub for Volume 1 |
Section L.5.3.7 Speaks to sub-contractor consent in refernce to past performance, the sub doen not have to provide consent to the Prime and can submit documents straight to the Government.
| 9 | MTCSS_II_Solicitation_W900KK23R0009_21_Oct_22.pdf | Government Q&A 8 Nov 22, Q# 92 Classification | The government’s answers to Q#92 refers only to Volume 5. | |
| Does the government expect all other volume proposal submissions be marked CUI? If so, will the government please provide marking guidance? | That is because Question #92 asked about Volume 5 |
Q1. No
| 10 | Leesville Sample PWS | Since this is a non-awarded sample task order being used by the government to assist in building restricted pool of vendors, request the government confirm that no offeror can claim incumbent status for this effort. | Since Leesburg does not officially exist, no contractor can claim that they are the incumbent | ||
| 11 | Solicitation and additional documents | It appears that the documents loaded into SAM on 8 November 2022 are the same as previously released since we are not able to find the changes with the documents. Can the government please provide conformed/track change documents? | Will post a list of changes for Amendment 0001 | ||
| 12 | Can the government provide a track changed file for Amendment 0001? | Will post a list of changes for Amendment 0001 | |||
| 3 | Can the government provide SF 33 for Amendment 0001? | The SF33 the contractor is to fill out is the front page of Amendment 0001 | |||
| 14 | Section L.4, Page 54 of 83, Table | Would the Government allow us to provide a file for each volume that only has the Cover, Table of Contents, List of Figure and Compliance matric like the requirement is in Volume 1? | Section L.4 Last paragraph before the 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." | ||
| 15 | Section L.4, Page 54 of 83, Table | Are we allowed to provide a compliance matric with each volume? | Section L.4 Last paragraph before the 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." | ||
| 16 | MTCCS II Solicitation QandA | Question # 108 | Question: Section L.5.2.1 states that, “The Offeror will also clearly delineate which positions are to be filled by prime contractor employees and which are to be filled by subcontractor employees…for each position that cross-references to the labor rates in the price proposal.” Is a Professional Employee Compensation Plan required from each subcontractor identified in Staffing Organization Table and Pricing Template or only from the Prime Offeror? |
Government Answer: If the sub-contractor has a Professional Employee Compensation Plan, then it needs to be submitted Section L.5.5.2.2 Professional Employee Compensation Plan states "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."
The requirement above implies that the PECP submitted should be for the entire MTCCS II MATOC and NOT the III Corps Task Order as referenced in Question 108. Are offerors required to submit PECP's for every subcontractor on its MATOC team?
Professional Employee Compensation Plans often contain company proprietary information and may require separate sealed packages from subcontractors if this is a requirement. If the subs want to submit their packages directly to the Governmetn, they can do that, na dit can be incorporated into the Primes package.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .