Industry-Qs_Govt-Answers_LTRaC-MAC2_Draft-RFP_5Mar2024.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 382 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-24-R-0002
About this file
This presolicitation notice provides details for the Live Training, Ranges, and Combat Training Centers (LTRaC) Multiple Award Contract (MAC) 2 opportunity. The Department of the Army Materiel Command Contracting Command Orlando Contracting Center seeks to establish the LTRaC MAC 2, a small business set-aside, to support less complex hardware-centric efforts for programs including the Future Army System of Integrated Targets, Digital Range Training System, Combat Training Center Instrumentation System, Home Station Instrumentation Training System, Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center, and Marine Corps live training efforts. The LTRaC MAC 2 will include work previously performed under the Targetry Range Automated Control and Recording Plus and Army Combat Training Instrumentation Contracts. The acquisition approach encompasses competitive MACs with a five-year base period and one three-year option period to allow for firm-fixed price, cost reimbursement, time and material, or mixed contract types. Industry is requested to provide feedback on the draft RFP by February 13, 2024 to inform the final solicitation.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
LTRaC MAC 2 Draft RFP Q&As Live Training Ranges and Combat Training Centers (LTRaC) Multiple Award Contract (MAC) 2 Solicitation Number W900KK-24-R-0002 DRAFT Request For Proposal (RFP) Industry Questions/Comments & Government Answers
| Question | ||||
| Number | Topic | Subject | Question / Comment | Question/Comment |
Reference (SOW, L&M, Page #s, etc.) Government Answer
| 1 | SUBMISSION | |||
| INSTRUCTIONS | Volume 1 experience | L.3.1(b) “The Offeror shall submit the corresponding SOW / PWS / SOO for the contract(s) indicated in Table L.2.” Does that requirement for submission of SOW/PWS pertain to the entire text of applicable PWS for the program? Or only the relevant sections? | DRAFT RFP L.3.1(b) | Upon review of the Technical Factor's evaluation criteria detailed in sections L and M, the Government has updated those sections. In the Technical Factor, the offeror no longer needs to describe nor will the Government evaluate the offerors' experience with Live Training Ranges. There is no longer a requirement to submit SOWs, PWSs, or SOOs as part of this Factor/Volume. |
| 2 | SUBMISSION | |||
| INSTRUCTIONS | Volume 1 experience | L.3.1(b) For providing SOW/PWS references, can the Offeror simply refer to PWS documentation initially published by the procuring unit or available via the LT2 portal website? | DRAFT RFP L.3.1(b) | Not applicable any longer. |
| 3 | SUBMISSION | |||
| INSTRUCTIONS | Volume 1 experience | L.3.1(b) Are these SOW/PWS attachments included in the page count? | DRAFT RFP L.3.1(b) | Not applicable any longer. |
| 4 | SUBMISSION | |||
| INSTRUCTIONS | Volume 1 experience | L.3.1(b) In the case where the work was performed as a subcontractor, is the subcontractor SSOW adequate to meet this requirement or must the Offeror obtain the original prime contract PWS/SOW for submission? | DRAFT RFP L.3.1(b) | Not applicable any longer. |
| 5 | SUBMISSION | |||
| INSTRUCTIONS | Volume 2, Factor 2, Past Performance | L.3.2 VOLUME II: FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE. Are the contract references provided in Volume 2 Past-Performance required to be the same as or different from the references provided in Volume 1: Experience? | DRAFT RFP L.3.2 | The Technical and Past Performance Factors are significantly different with the revisions made to the Technical Factor. |
| 6 | SUBMISSION | |||
| INSTRUCTIONS | Volume 2 Past Performance, Section 2 Past Performance Questionnaire | L.3.2.3 “The Offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and email the questionnaire.... and the technical representative shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and email the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Officer....” Do we understand correctly that the Contract specialist will be responsible for providing the form to the POC and for obtaining the response in a timely manner? Or, shall the offeror send the form to the POC and request that it be returned to the KO? | DRAFT RFP L.3.2.3 | The Offeror is required to send the form to the POC (PP Reference) and request that it be returned to the PCO and CS before the solicitation closing date. |
| 7 | SUBMISSION | |||
| INSTRUCTIONS | L.3.3.10 Property Management Plan | L.3.3.10 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLAN. Is it necessary for the offeror to include a full and detailed property management plan in the proposal? This may be difficult if the Government furnished property is not defined. Alternatively, can an Offeror refer to specific corporate standard operating procedure documentation and provide a detailed plan at the Task Order level? | DRAFT RFP L.3.3.10 | The Property Management Plan language within the RFP Section L has been updated. An 'entity level' Property Management Plan shall be provided as part of the Offeror's proposal submission. |
| 8 | Past |
Performance Questionnaire Inconsistency between section L and the Past Performance Questionnaire document. Section L.3.2.3 states that the offeror should only complete Part 1 of the Past Performance Questionnaire and the government POC will complete Part II, however the Past Performance Questionnaire document attachment states that Part II is "to be completed by offeror" and Part III is to "completed by the POC." We believe the RFP should be reworded accordingly. Section L.3.2.3 (Past Performance
| Questionnaire) | RFP_LTRaC-MAC2_SectionJ-Attach-2_Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire has been updated to reflect that the questionnaire "Part II" is to be completed by the Government contracting activity and the technical representative. | |
| 9 | Past |
Performance Volume What qualifies as "major subcontractor." We do not have past performance as a prime contractor and we are unsure if our previous experience as a subcontractor qualifies as a "major subcontractor." Can the government please clarify what qualifies as a major subcontractor or confirm per Section M.3.2.e that a neutral rating will result in "Acceptable" where no past performance data can be submitted if all of our relevant past performance was as a subcontractor? Section L.3.2 Factor 2 -
| Past Performance | Section L.3.2 was updated to remove "major". Offerors shall submit a list of no more than three (3) contracts on which the Offeror served as either the prime, as a subcontractor, or as part of a Joint Venture, in performance and / or completed during the past five (5) years from the issue date of this solicitation. | |||||
| 10 | NAICS | Other Training NAICS | Is this response open to companies operating under NAICS other than 333310? | Draft p. 56 | No. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 333310, Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing. | |
| 11 | Experience | Live Training Range Instrumentation | Is training experience outside of the programs listed acceptable for submission? | Draft p. 89 (a-g) | The Technical Factor no longer includes an evaluation of the Offeror's experience. | |
| 12 | Place of | |||||
| Performance | Performance | |||||
| locations | Please specify the locations where performance is expected to be delivered in order to accurately determining pricing. | Draft p. 58, | Locations will be identified when soliciting at the ordering level. The are potential locations around the world where performance may be expected. Please note that price is not an evaluation factor for this MAC level solicitation. Therefore, Offeror's pricing is not required. | |||
| 13 | Past | |||||
| Performance | Questionnaire | |||||
| turnaround time | Allow for several weeks for the return of Past Perf questionnaires. If an RFP posts with only 5-7 days prior to the submission date, many POCs cannot turn a full response around with such short notice. | Draft p. 91, | ||||
| L.3.2.3 | RFP will be open for 30 days minimum time. That is adequate Questionnaire |
turnaround time.
| 14 | Pricing | Estimated | |||
| Cost | Quantity and the number of units required are not determinable at this time. Many of the requested items will be unique to the scope of the training systems and place of performance. The development will be over the duration of the contract. This will make price difficult to predict at the time of submission. | Draft p. 3-8 | No pricing is needed. See Paragraph M.1. of the RFP which reads: “In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii), which permits MACs to exclude price/cost as an evaluation factor under certain conditions, the Government intends to make a MAC award to each qualifying Offeror who is a responsible source and submits an acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of this solicitation.” | ||
| 15 | LMS | SCORM | |||
| Compliance | What LMS will be utilized for this program? | SOW | |||
| p. 12, 3.2.1 | There is no mandated tools required by the Government. | ||||
| 16 | Security | Security | |||
| Clearance | What level of Security Clearance is required for selected vendors? | SOW | |||
| p. 16-17, 3.3 | Security clearance level will be defined at the ordering level. The Government anticipates the majority of the work to be unclassified. | ||||
| 17 | Training | New Equipment Training (NET) | Advance knowledge of the number of courses needed is essential to the predicted costs for the Final response. | SOW | |
| p. 21, 3.4.3. | Please note that price is not an evaluation factor for this MAC level solicitation. Therefore, Offeror's pricing is not required. | ||||
| 18 | COTS | New or existing manuals | Will the materials need to be newly developed or are you requesting revisions to existing publications? | SOW | |
| p. 20, 3.4.2.1 | Requirements for training publications and manuals will be identified at the ordering level. | ||||
| 19 | Subcontractor |
Corporate
| Experience | Volume I | L.3.1.c states, The Government will not consider the experience of individual employees or of team members as qualifying experience for a proposed contractor. Our firm has worked for over a year to develop a strong team to bid LTRaC. The effort is wasted if we can't use the corporate experience of our teaming partners/subcontractors. Will the Government change their mind and allow Offerors to use the corporate past experience of first-tier subcontractors? | The Technical Factor no longer includes an evaluation of the Offeror's experience. | ||
| 20 | Corporate | ||||
| Experience | L.3.1.1 Live Training Range Instrumentation definition | The LTRaC Industry Slides dated 13 Sep 2022 note the Small business efforts include desktop and laptop computers, tablets, servers, monitors, switches, printers, various RF devices, personnel communication devices and uninterruptable power supply (slide 29). These are all projects that SB firms are doing, just not necessarily on the noted list of required programs (FASIT, DRTS, HITS, etc.). Will the Government relax the requirements for what programs corporate experience must use to increase competition? | The Technical Factor no longer includes an evaluation of the Offeror's experience. | ||
| 21 | Corporate | ||||
| Experience | L.3.1 Live Training Range Instrumentation Experience | LTRaC Q&As Final document, response to Question #2 notes, The Government will also balance the risk of including vendors in Lots 3 and 4 (DRTS & CTC/HITS/JPMRC) with no or limited prior Live Training experience. However, the Draft RFP, Volume 1, does not meet the goal of this note. It requires a Prime to have range experience vice showing they have Prime Contractor experience and allowing their subcontractor team to show range experience. Is there a specific reason the Government is maintaining this strict requirement that primes show range experience vice Prime contractor experience? Will the Government allow Primes to show they are strong Prime contractors and allow the use of subcontractors to show range experience? | The Technical Factor no longer includes an evaluation of the Offeror's experience. | ||
| 22 | Corporate | ||||
| Experience | L.3.1.1 Live Training Range Instrumentation definition | We have work developing, designing and producing applications and systems that contribute substantially toward submarine combat system and surface ship trainer evolution. Will the Government relax the programs that relevant work must fall under (FASCIT, HITS, DRTS, etc.) and that is must be strictly live fire instrumentation to allow a broader scope of relevant contracts to help Prime's receive an acceptable rating for Volume I? | Upon review of the Technical Factor's evaluation criteria detailed in sections L and M, the Government has updated those sections. In the Technical Factor, the offeror no longer needs to describe nor will the Government evaluate the offerors' experience with Live Training Ranges. | ||
| 23 | Corporate | ||||
| Experience | L.3.1.1 Live Training Range Instrumentation definition | After researching the sectors that are required to use in Volume 1, there are only very few (7) Small businesses that have contracts within 5 years in the designed areas (FASIT, TRACR, HITs, DRTS, etc.). Several of the same firms show up in multiple areas so the competition is even slimmer. Not sure how many of these firms are bidding LTRaC MAC 2. Accordingly, will the Government expand the types of areas where relevant work can be used to help increase competition? | The Technical Volume's submission requirements have been significantly updated. The Past Performance Volume remains mostly unchanged. | ||
| 24 | Question | CDRL for basic contract | Section J does not include any CDRLs for the base contract award. Is one needed in support of the post award conference? | Section A, | |
| para A.4 | The CDRLs list is listed within the SOW. There is no requirement for any deliverable in support of the Post Award Conference. | ||||
| 25 | Question | Pricing on IDIQ | The solicitation, para A.6 states "All CLIN unit quantities and pricing information provided in the resulting IDIQ are for administrative purposes only and may be adjusted throughout the life of the LTRaC MAC..." Since no cost or pricing data will be requested under the solicitation, please clarify this statement. | RFP Section A, | |
| para A.6 | The statement clearly indicates that CLIN unit quantities and pricing information provided in the resulting Base IDIQ contract are for administrative purposes only for the contracting office. Contractual CLIN info and Pricing will be solicited and identified at the ordering level. | ||||
| 26 | Question | RFP | Section L, Para L.3.1.1 limits an offeror's ability to discuss experience, to seven specific programs. There is no wording to the effect of "Such as", or "Includes but is not limited to". Section M, Para M.3.1.1.1 also lists the same seven programs and includes the statement "Any work included outside the efforts listed above will not be considered as part of the rating." The current wording precludes any company not already working on these programs from competing, thus restricting competition. It is noted that language in the SOW, para 1.1 DOES state "The programs included, but not limited to..." but appears to be in a different context. | Section L, |
para L.3.1.1 Section M, para M.3.1.1.1
| SOW, para 1.1 | Upon review of the Technical Factor's evaluation criteria detailed in sections L and M, the Government has updated those sections. In the Technical Factor, the offeror no longer needs to describe nor will the Government evaluate the offerors' experience with Live Training Ranges. | ||||
| 27 | Question | Attachment 2 | States "Dollar value of effort as it relates to Similar to TESS". A search of both the solicitation and the SOW failed to reveal any mention of TESS. Please clarify. Will TESS efforts be included under the LTRaC MAC 2 and if so, should that be added to the live training range instrumentation work areas in L.3.1.1? | Attachment 2, | |
| para I | No. TESS as relates to the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System is being competed under the BEST MAC from PEO STRI. Other STE LTS efforts may be competed under LTRAC MACs 2 and 3. The "TESS" reference was removed from the RFP Attachment 2. | ||||
| 28 | Question | Attachment 2 and RFP | Will TESS efforts be included under the LTRaC MAC 2 and if so, should that be added to the live training range instrumentation work areas in L.3.1.1? | Attachment 2, para I | |
| and L.3.1.1 | No. TESS as relates to the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System that will be competed under the PEO STRI BEST MAC effort. | ||||
| 29 | Clarify | RFP | Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP in terms of scope, magnitude, and complexity. Magnitude is not listed in section M as an evaluation factor. If it is evaluated, please provide the magnitude in terms of the dollar value of the expected delivery orders under the MAC. | L.3.2.2 SECTION 2 – |
PERFORMANCE and
M.3.2 FACTOR 2 -
| PAST PERFORMANCE | Magnitude will not be evaluated in terms of past performance for the MAC. | |||||
| 30 | Clarify | RFP | RFP discusses subassemblies, components and parts, but are there specific computer systems, laptops, switches (and any other HW related items) that make up the new IT HW installations, and/or tech refreshes? | It depends on the requirements in each Delivery Order. Some Delivery Orders will require compliance with an Authority to Operate which dictates specific hardware other are open to new hardware. | ||
| 31 | SOW 3.1.9 | CHESS | We tried to access the Chess.army.mil website to review a list of CHESS contracts and received a Certification error - Access Denied. How does a potential contractor gain access to this list? | SOW 3.1.9 | Offerors shall contact the CHESS Customer Support Team at armychess@army.mil if they are having difficulty accessing chess.army.mil. Their Business Hours are Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm EST. | |
| 32 | RFP Vol. ! Experience | Table L.2 | Is the government looking for only base contract level examples (not task order level) relative to the MAC 2 RFDOP, and how they are applicable to the SOW? | RFP LTRAC MAC2 L3.1 | Upon review of the Technical Factor's evaluation criteria detailed in sections L and M, the Government has updated those sections. In the Technical Factor, the offeror no longer needs to describe nor will the Government evaluate the offerors' experience with Live Training Ranges. There is no longer a requirement to submit SOWs, PWSs, or SOOs as part of this Factor/Volume. | |
| 33 | RFP release | General timeline | What is the anticipated release date for the MAC 2 RFP? | MAC 2 RFP | Within the next two weeks -- 3rd quarter of the Government Fiscal Year 2024 | |
| 34 | Example DO's | Past DO's under ARTIC and (TRACR) Plus | Would the Government consider including examples of scope and pricing format of prior DO's released under TRACR Plus and ARTIC in the final RFP release to ensure a clear understanding of potential task order scope? | MAC 2 Clarification of scope | No, relevant info about each Delivery/Task Order requirement will be provided with solicitation for the applicable Order. | |
| 35 | Attachment 4 - Preaward Survey | Accounting System | Please verify the Attachment 4 - Preaward Survey will be part of the required submittal for the RFP, along with technical, and past performance and will not be required to be completed prior to the RFP release. | Attachment 4 - Preaward Survey of Contractor Accounting System Checklist | Correct. If the Offeror does not have an approved accounting system, the Offeror shall complete RFP Section J, Attachment 4 - PreAward Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist and return the documentation as part of the Contracting Information Volume of their proposal. Offeror shall comply with instructions in Section L of the final RFP. | |
| 36 | Approved |
Accounting
| System | Accounting system compliance | In order to maximize the competition under the IDIQ, will the Government consider awarding to small businesses that do not have an approved accounting system and allow them to bid only on any FFP Task Order contracts. | RFP, Page 93, Section L - L.3.3.7 ACCOUNTING SYSTEM COMPLIANCES | Section L.3.3.7 of the RFP has been changed to include the following: “Please note, while an approved accounting system is not required at the time of proposal submission, it is required at time of award of a Delivery/Task Order with a Cost Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). If an otherwise successful Offeror does not have an approved accounting system at the time of award of an Order with a Cost CLIN, the Offeror will not be awarded that Order. A Contractor cannot receive Progress Payments for a Firm Fixed Price Order until DCMA determines the Contractor’s accounting system and controls adequate for proper administration of progress payments.” |
| 37 | Approved |
Accounting
| System | Accounting system compliance | If the Government will not allow vendors without approved accounting systems to be awarded and bid FFP TO contracts, will the Government consider awarding to vendors that are undergoing the process of receiving an audit of their accounting system. Since that process could take upwards of 1 year, it is possible that vendors will not receive their audit/approval by award date. | RFP, Page 93, Section L - L.3.3.7 ACCOUNTING SYSTEM COMPLIANCES | Section L.3.3.7 of the RFP has been changed to include the following: “Please note, while an approved accounting system is not required at the time of proposal submission, it is required at time of award of a Delivery/Task Order with a Cost Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). If an otherwise successful Offeror does not have an approved accounting system at the time of award of an Order with a Cost CLIN, the Offeror will not be awarded that Order. A Contractor cannot receive Progress Payments for a Firm Fixed Price Order until DCMA determines the Contractor’s accounting system and controls adequate for proper administration of progress payments.” |
| 38 | Past |
Performance
| Questionnaire | Past Performance Ratings by Prime | All of our relevant past performance in the Live Training domain is as a major subcontractor. Our organization has provided engineering services and support to a number programs across a number of disciplines from Systems, Software, Integration/Test and Fielding. Our organization plans to submit the PPQ to our Prime, however, the Prime will not provide a rating on our performance due to their corporate policies. They will confirm our support to the program - they just will not quantify ratings. How will the Government evaluate such past performance submissions when no rating is provided by a Prime? | RFP, Page 91, Section L - L.3.2.3 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE | Yes, the Government will accept PPQs from Prime contractors despite quantified rating not been provided. |
| 39 | Past |
Performance
| Relevancy | Past Performance Relevancy | To increase competition, will the Government consider allowing submission of Prime past performance outside of the Live Training domains identified in L.3.1.1 LIVE TRAINING RANGE INSTRUMENTATION EXPERIENCE. A small business organization may have significant experience as a major subcontractor in this domain, but no Prime experience. Allowing submission of at least one citation outside of the domain to substantiate an organizations ability to execute as a Prime contractor to the US Army on a program of similar size and complexity would increase the competition upon IDIQ award. | RFP, Page 89, Section L - L.3.1.1 LIVE TRAINING RANGE INSTRUMENTATION EXPERIENCE | The Technical Factor no longer includes an evaluation of the Offeror's experience. | |
| 40 | Source Selection | Section L | L.1.g states, An Offeror’s submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation constitutes approval for disclosure of proprietary information contained within the proposal to non-government participants involved in the source selection. Can the Government tell us what firm(s) will support source selection? | Paragraph deleted. We will not have non-government participants involved in the source selection. | |
| 41 | Cost Submission | 252.215-7012 | Section L, pg. 95, states, The Offeror shall submit the cost portion of the proposal via electronic mail to the solicitation Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. However, there is no cost data required. Is this a cut and paste error? | DFARS 252.215-7012 will be deleted from the RFP | |
| 42 | Subcontractor Corporate Experience | Volume 1 | L.3.1.c states, The Government will not consider the experience of individual employees or of team members as qualifying experience for a proposed contractor. Many teams have worked for over a year to develop a strong team to bid LTRaC. Primes are potentially no longer able to prime without using subcontractor past experience. Will the Government change the requirement and allow the use of subcontractor past experience to meet the Volume I requirements; therefore, not limiting competition but increasing competition? | The Technical Factor no longer includes an evaluation of the Offeror's experience. | |
| 43 | SOW/PWS/SOO | Volume 1 | L.3.1.a, Table L-2, column 4 states, Relevant Reference Sections from SOW/PWS/SOO. Does this mean you only want the relevant sections provided with the volume as proof or do you want the entire/complete SOW/PWS/SOO? | Not applicable any longer. | |
| 44 | Corporate Experience | Volume 1 & 2 | Volume 1 requires up to 3 contracts in the past 5 years, along with a narrative describing the substantive work under the contract. Volume 2 requires using the same contracts, with the exception that Volume 2 the administrative data for each contract. These volumes are the same when it comes right down to it. Recommend Volume II contain just Section 1- Contract Description and the Past Performance Questionnaire list (and not Section 2 - Performance) since the contract narrative is included in Volume I and would be redundant. | The Technical Volume's submission requirements have been significantly updated. The Past Performance Volume remains mostly unchanged. | |
| 45 | Past Performance | L.3.2.3 Past Performance Questionnaire | There is a sentence that references a Volume not required in this RFP. "The Offeror shall submit within Volume IV (Past Performance) a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire." Volume IV should be Volume 2, correct? | RFP paragraph updated to reflect Volume II, not IV | |
| 46 | Corporate Experience | L.3.1.1 Live Training Range Instrumentation definition | Will the Government include Mission Training Complex (MTC) in their definition of Live Training Range Instrumentation. MTC is responsible (within the Government) for simulation support to Active Army, US Army Reserve, Army National Guard units, and other DoD units. The MTC provides quality individual, leader, and unit training through Army, Joint, USAF, USN, USMC and other agencies simulations at all levels from individual soldier through Corps staff. Each simulation is tailored to unit specifications by a dedicated team of experts to maximize training benefit. DA definition of MTC functionalities includes: A linkage of existing service training structures, simulations, and systems inside a common framework capable of conducting individual (operator, maintainer, integrator, and leader) and collective training (crew, staff section, command post, integrated command posts) in a combination of Live-Virtual-Constructive, and Gaming (L-V-C-G) environments. While focused on primarily Army requirements, the MTC is able to integrate those systems required to train at JTF or JFLCC headquarters. In addition, STE-LTS solutions maximize the usage of BCT weapons during live collective training and eliminates current gaps (PEO STRI Dec 2023 Briefing). It stands to reason that STE-LTS work is enhanced by having a MAC 2 LTRaC Prime who understands the linkage between LVC and thus MTC work is relevant for LTRaC MAC 2. Accordingly, can we use such a citation for Volume 1, Corporate Experience? | Upon review of the Technical Factor's evaluation criteria detailed in sections L and M, the Government has updated those sections. In the Technical Factor, the offeror no longer needs to describe nor will the Government evaluate the offerors' experience with Live Training Ranges. | |
| 47 | Corporate Experience | L.3.1.1 Live Training Range Instrumentation definition | Under Synthetic Training Environment - Live Training Systems (STE - LTS), can we use designing, developing, producing, integrating, testing, fielding, and / or developing documentation of Synthetic Training Environments and providing integration of Live, Virtual, Constructive (LVC) for staff training realism during force-on-force training as a contract we can use in Volume I, Corporate Experience? The work is not Live Training Systems but rather taking the inputs from those live training systems and integrating them into a virtual common operating picture for the Operations Center Staff to conduct their roles and responsibilities as it pertains to force-on-force engagements. The work complies with many of the applicable documents outlined in PWS 2 of the Draft RFP. | Upon review of the Technical Factor's evaluation criteria detailed in sections L and M, the Government has updated those sections. In the Technical Factor, the offeror no longer needs to describe nor will the Government evaluate the offerors' experience with Live Training Ranges. | |
| 48 | Evaluation Criteria | M3.1.1.1 | The evaluation criteria for Volume 1 says only efforts from FASIT, DRTS, HITS, JPMRC, CTC, STC-LTS, and RISCON-T can be used. This limits competition and reduces the availability of firms that haver strong qualifications under other efforts that are relevant, such as efforts that bring new IT equipment and software to player units, CTCs and homestation virtual ranges. Will the Government modify the list to include other work outside the list of program listed. For example, under PEO-STRI vehicles, such as ETSC, TSSE, MTCCS, CBID, TREX, SBIRs, PDDS contracts, etc.? | Upon review of the Technical Factor's evaluation criteria detailed in sections L and M, the Government has updated those sections. In the Technical Factor, the offeror no longer needs to describe nor will the Government evaluate the offerors' experience with Live Training Ranges. | |
| 49 | Corporate Experience | L.3.1.1 Live Training Range Instrumentation definition | The LTRaC Industry Slides dated 13 Sep 2022 note the Small business efforts qualification criteria includes IT equipment installation and troubleshooting (slide 28). Will the Government relax the types of efforts that must be used (FASIT, DRTS, HITS, etc.) to help increase competition? There are many SB firms that have IT equipment install and troubleshooting expertise that will benefit LTRaC customers. They also have PWS 3.2, Systems Engineering, PWS 3.3 Cybersecurity, PWS 3.4, Logistics, etc. experience but not specifically on the programs listed. Opening the scope of what can be used as a Volume I corporate experience contract will increase competition, which is a noted goal on slide 12. | Upon review of the Technical Factor's evaluation criteria detailed in sections L and M, the Government has updated those sections. In the Technical Factor, the offeror no longer needs to describe nor will the Government evaluate the offerors' experience with Live Training Ranges. | |
| 50 | Evaluation Criteria | M3.1.1.1 | The roles and responsibilities of a Prime contactor managing the efforts under an IDIQ like LTRaC is to 1) competitively bid Tasks, 2) Effectively and efficiently manage awarded work to strict quality standards, 3) meet all schedule and cost requirements, and 4) manage their subcontractors and the interface to other contractors using Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) to ensure only high-quality efforts are delivered, etc. This is noted in PWS 3.1, Program Management, and the 14 subtasks under (3.1.1 - 3.1.14). However, as written, Volume I does not allow a Prime to use their Prime Corporate Experience to manage an effort, and their ability to build a competitive team to ensure robust competition and pricing to win a Prime position on LTRaC - it demands they have range experience to win a Prime position. Will the Government relax the criteria for what qualifies as an Acceptable contract by a Prime in Volume I and allow contracts that cover PWS 3.1.1 - 3.1.14 tasks? | Upon review of the Technical Factor's evaluation criteria detailed in sections L and M, the Government has updated those sections. In the Technical Factor, the offeror no longer needs to describe nor will the Government evaluate the offerors' experience with Live Training Ranges. There is no longer a requirement to submit SOWs, PWSs, or SOOs as part of this Factor/Volume. | |
| 51 | Corporate Experience | L.3.1. Live Training Range Instrumentation Experience | LTRaC Q&As final document, response to Question 5 notes, The Government intends to evaluate past experience for various lots, that experience can be achieved by the large business or small business partners. The Government wants to ensure the team will be able to perform the task at hand. Despite this response, the Government (in the Draft RFP) is not allowing the use of subcontractor experience. Is there a specific reason? Will the Government allow Primes to use their subcontractor's experience and past performance to meet the current evaluation criteria? We have built a team for over a year to showcase our corporate experience and now can't use it to qualify as a prime. | The Technical Volume's submission requirements have been significantly updated. The Past Performance Volume remains mostly unchanged. | |
| 52 | Evaluation Criteria | M3.1.1.1 | LTRaC Q&As Final document, response to Question 23 notes, For qualifying into the lots, past experiences within the domain and similar efforts will be considered. The Government does not intend to limit competition to only vendors that have done install work in the past. However, the current evaluation criteria for Volume I does just that - limits competition to those with live range experience on 8 different types of programs (FASIT, TRACR, DRTS, HITS, JPMRC, CTC-IS, STE-LTS, and RISCON-T). |
1) Will the Government relax/remove the types of contracts that can be used to qualify as a Prime (DRTS, CTC, HITs, etc.)?
2) Will the Government allow Primes to use their experience being a Prime and leading teams to qualify, and
| 3) Will the Government allows the use of subcontractors to show the team brings range experience? Taken in total, these changes will improve competition, both at the IDIQ and TO/DO level. | Upon review of the Technical Factor's evaluation criteria detailed in sections L and M, the Government has updated those sections. In the Technical Factor, the offeror no longer needs to describe nor will the Government evaluate the offerors' experience with Live Training Ranges. There is no longer a requirement to submit SOWs, PWSs, or SOOs as part of this Factor/Volume. | |||||
| 53 | Corporate Experience | L.3.1 Live Training Range Instrumentation Experience | Volume 1 notes, For each contract reference in Table L.2 provided, the Offeror shall describe the substantive work under the contract / sub-contract that demonstrates their experience as the prime contractor or sub-contractor which includes some combination of design, development, production, integration, testing, fielding, and / or developing documentation of United States Military live training range instrumentation. However, PWS 3, Requirements, notes, issued DOs under LTRaC’s MAC 2 for the studies, analysis, design, development, prototyping, procurement, production, integration, testing, fielding, documentation, training, contractor support, sustainment, and disposal of live-fire training systems. Will the Government change the Volume I wording and use this more expanded version to help respondents with a broader range of topics they must address to be Acceptable? | Upon review of the Technical Factor's evaluation criteria detailed in sections L and M, the Government has updated those sections. In the Technical Factor, the offeror no longer needs to describe nor will the Government evaluate the offerors' experience with Live Training Ranges. There is no longer a requirement to submit SOWs, PWSs, or SOOs as part of this Factor/Volume. | ||
| 54 | Experience | Team Member | Will the Government consider the corporate experience of teaming partners (subcontractors)? | L.3.1.c | The Technical Factor no longer includes an evaluation of the Offeror's experience. | |
| 55 | Experience | Similar Systems | Wording for experience with specific system implies the Government only seeks Offerors who have or had contracts with PEO-STRI for the listed training range programs. Would the Government allow increased competition by changing the wording to " Live Training Range Instrumentation is defined as work efforts on a contract for one of the following programs or experience with similar systems:" leaving it to the bidder to show how experience with other training range systems relates to those listed? | L.3.1.1 | The Technical Factor no longer includes an evaluation of the Offeror's experience. |
LTRaC MAC 2 - Draft RFP Questions / Comments Form &"Arial,Bold"&12SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION image1.png image2.emf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .