ATS-3 Draft RFP Industry Question and Answers (Final).pdf

Document Sec�on Ques�on Gov Response

1. Will the Gov be considering mul�-rotor drone aerial targets for the resul�ng ATS-3 contract?

There are no iden�fied requirements for aerial target configura�ons to be acquired under the ATS-3 contract. The Government will issue task orders describing specific Test and Training requirements.

Each offeror is encouraged to propose their best solu�on to meet those requirements.

2. Will the Gov be considering fixed-wing drone aerial targets for the resul�ng ATS-3 contract?

There are no iden�fied requirements for aerial target configura�ons to be acquired under the ATS-3 contract. The Government will issue task orders describing specific Test and Training requirements.

3. Will the Gov be considering VTOL fixed-wing drone aerial targets for the resul�ng ATS-3 contract?

There are no iden�fied requirements for aerial target configura�ons to be acquired under the ATS-3 contract. The Government will issue task orders describing specific Test and Training requirements.

4. Will the Gov give preference to companies that can manufacture two or more types of targets? Which type of target is preferred?

There are no iden�fied requirements for aerial target configura�ons to be acquired under the ATS-3 contract. The Government will issue task orders describing specific Test and Training requirements.

5. Approximately what size are each of the targets? In both size and weight.

There are no iden�fied requirements for aerial target configura�ons to be acquired under the ATS-3 contract. The Government will issue task orders describing specific Test and Training requirements.

Each offeror is encouraged to propose their best solu�on to meet those requirements.

Atachment 03 - Cost-Pricing Workbook

Labor Descrip�on tab, CLIN X002

- CLIN X008

tabs

6. The labor categories provided on the Labor Descrip�ons tab include 5 labor categories which are not used on any of the CLIN X002 through CLIN X008 tabs. Specifically, these 5 labor categories are:

Aeronau�cal Engineer, CAD Designer, Electrical Engineer, So�ware Engineer, and Test Engineer. These labor categories are per�nent to CLIN X002, in par�cular. Should we include those labor categories in our Cost-Pricing Workbook under the CLIN(s) we feel are appropriate?

No, Offerors will only be required to complete input in which the Government has iden�fied in Atachment 03 – Cost/Price workbook. Pricing informa�on for the Aeronau�cal Engineer, CAD Designer, Electrical Engineer, So�ware Engineer, and Test Engineer will be filled out on the FFP and CPFF Labor Rates tabs.

Atachment 03 - Cost-Pricing Workbook

CLIN X006 tab

7. For CLIN 0006 two labor categories are provided, i.e., General Engineer and HW/SW Technician. For CLINs 1006 - 4006 two different labor categories are used, i.e., Mechanical Engineer I and Engineering Technician I. The Engineering Technician labor category is not included in the list of labor categories on the Labor Descrip�on tab. Also, the "Team Role" for the General Engineer is the same as the Mechanical Engineer I, and the HW/SW Technician is the same as the Engineering Technician I. Should "Mechanical Engineer I" be changed to "General Engineer" and "Engineering Technician I" be changed to "HW/SW Technician" on CLINs 1006 - 4006 for consistency with

CLIN 0006 has been corrected on the CLIN X006 tab of Atachment 03 – Cost-Pricing Workbook to reflect the correct labor categories of General Engineer Mid and HW/SW Technician Mid.

CLIN 0006 and consistency with the provided labor categories?

Atachment 03 - Cost-Pricing Workbook

Basic IDIQ tab;

SOW 3.4.1

8. CLIN 0001 is the Capability Brief/Capability Informa�on (documenta�on, videos and photographs) and is FFP. Would it be possible for the Government to provide more details on the required number of items, length of video, etc. to facilitate more accurate pricing of this item?

No addi�onal informa�on will be made available.

Each offeror is encouraged to provide capability informa�on that documents their unique strengths and capabili�es to meet SOW 3.4.1 requirements.

Atachment 03 – Cost Price Workbook

9. Only CLIN X002 includes any level of the labor category to price. Do you intend for the offeror to propose the appropriate level based on our analysis or will you be providing the levels of all rates to propose for this effort? Assuming we need to price all levels is it appropriate to update the two labor rate tabs to include the different levels per labor category?

Atachment 03 – Cost/Price Workbook labor rate experience level (Junior/Mid-level/Senior) will be updated to match the experience levels iden�fied in Tab – Labor Descrip�ons.

ATS-3 RFP

W900KK-24-R-

L.4.1.2 (a)

10. L.4.1.2 (a) Sample Task A references SOW paragraphs 3.5.2, 3.5.4 and 3.5.7. However, the correla�ng Evalua�on Criteria M.7.1.2 references 3.5.2, 3.5.4 and 3.5.5. Please clarify the appropriate SOW references.

Sample Task A includes ac�vi�es related to SOW paragraphs 3.5.2, 3.5.4, 3.5.5, and 3.5.7. Sec�ons L and M of the solicita�on and Atachment 07 – Cross Reference Matrix have been updated accordingly.

ATS-3 RFP

W900KK-24-R-

L.6.1

11. L.6.1 states “Offerors shall submit up to five (5) of the Offeror’s most relevant contracts and no more than three (3) of the most relevant contracts for each major subcontractor.” This is not consistent with Atachment 9 List of Past Performance Contracts which only provides inputs for up to 3 prime contracts and a total of 2 for all subs. Please clarify the total number

The requirement at L.6.1 to submit up to five (5) of the Offeror’s most relevant contracts and no more than three (3) of the most relevant contracts for each major subcontractor remains. Atachment 09 – List of Past Performance Contract has been updated to reflect this.

of past performance references allowed for the Prime and for each major subcontractor.

ATS-3 RFP

W900KK-24-R-

L.6.1.3

12. L.6.1.3 Sec�on 2 – Past Performance. Please confirm l) and m) should be part of L.6.1.2

L.6.1.3 l) and m) have been moved to L.6.1.2 in the solicita�on.

ATS-3 RFP

W900KK-24-R-

L.7.9.3

13. L.7.9.3 states, “Evidence of FAR 52.219-9 compliance includes, but is not limited to, submission of copies of Contractor Performance Assessment Repor�ng System (CPARS) reports where “Small Business Subcontrac�ng” was evaluated, for the past three (3) calendar years, from the release date of this solicita�on, under no more than five (5) separate relevant Federal Government contracts”. If the customer did not use CPARS, is verifica�on by signature from knowledgeable government POC acceptable as evidence?

Yes, if there is approved documenta�on from an authorized Government component of past performance outside of the CPARS system, the offeror may submit those with and/or in lieu of

CPARS.

ATS-3 RFP

W900KK-24-R-

L.8.5

14. L.8.5 Leters of Commitment states, ”The Government will review any Leters of Commitment contained in Volume V to verify they are referenced in Volume I Technical.” The RFP prohibits cross volume references to other volumes. Are bidders to assume this informa�on should be included in both rather than referenced?

Offerors shall provide shall all Leters of Commitment in Volume V. Offerors shall also provide Leters of Commitment applicable to respec�ve Volume I, II, III, and IV submission requirements.

Sec�on L.8.5 will be updated in the solicita�on.

ATS-3 RFP

W900KK-24-R-

L.8.8

15. L.8.8 Accoun�ng System Compliance - L.5.10 requires prime and major subs to have approved systems. Does this requirement, along with the

Yes, major subcontractors as defined in the solicita�on, are required to adhere to L.8.8 requirements.

associated means of confirma�on, also apply to major subs?

ATS-3 RFP

W900KK-24-R-

L.8.13

16. L.8.13 Government Property – Please confirm L.8.13 is really associated with L.8.12 as L.8.12.1

L.8.12 and L.8.13 are separate and dis�nct requirements.

SOW

Sec�on 8 Configura�on Management

17. Can the Government clarify what type of portal will be used to transfer documents to / from the customer?

The Government will iden�fy transmission of documenta�on on future solicita�on orders.

SOW

Sec�on 8.6 Configura�on Control

18. Can the Government clarify instruc�ons for Requests for Variances?

Instruc�ons related to Requests for Variance will be included on future solicita�on of orders.

RFP

L.1 Introduc�on

19. Will the Government provide a DoD SAFE Drop-off link for proposal submission?

The following verbiage has been added to Sec�on L.1 of the solicita�on: Only unclassified documents can be sent via DoD SAFE. Offerors without CAC cards will need to email thomas.l.halverson.civ@army.mil and william.r.jensen1.civ@army.mil to request a “Drop-off” link. The “Drop-off” cannot be requested earlier than 14 days before the proposal submission date/�me iden�fied in the solicita�on. Offerors requiring a DoD SAFE request shall no�fy the points of contact in the solicita�on no later than 72 hours prior to the proposal submission date/�me iden�fied in the solicita�on.

RFP

L.2.3 File Packaging

20. Can the Government clarify whether Bases of Es�mate (BOE) submited for proposed labor rates and other cost elements (i.e. payroll records, salary surveys, etc.) must be submited in Microso� Office Excel format?

The suppor�ng documenta�on for the labor rates BOE can be excel, word or pdf.

RFP L.2.7

21. Can the Government clarify the requirement for dividers and index tabs for digital proposals as dividers and index tabs are used for hard copy submissions?

Dividers and Index Tabs have been removed from L.2.7.

RFP

L.3.1 Format;

L3.2 Cross- Reference Matrix

22. Can the Government clarify whether the Cross- Reference Matrix for Volume I - Factor 1 - Technical/Management must be submited as a separate document in its na�ve Excel format, or whether it must be inserted as a table within Volume I which is to be submited in Microso� Word/PDF format?

Atachment 07 – Cross Reference Matrix can be submited separately or embedded within Volume I, which will not count against Volume 1 page limits.

RFP L.3.1 Format

23. Can the Government clarify the requirement for tab indexing as this is a digital submission?

It is up to the offerors to iden�fy/index their proposal submissions to allow the Government to properly iden�fy the content.

RFP L.3.1 Format

24. Can the Government confirm that the signed SF 33, SF 30, and Sec�on K have to be submited within Vol V

- Administra�ve Informa�on, and not as separate documents?

The offeror can submit the SF 33, SF 30 and Sec�on K documenta�on either separately or embedded with Admin Volume V. It is ul�mately the offeror’s responsibility to ensure all documenta�on is submited IAW the solicita�on.

RFP L.4.1.3.2

25. Can the Government clarify whether Offerors must iden�fy all proposed personnel by name in response to L.4.1.3.2?

IAW L.4.1.3.2, Offerors shall iden�fy personnel and/or the methods for obtaining personnel exempt to the Service Contract Labor Standards (29 CFR 541).

RFP L.5.1 General

26. Can the Government confirm whether Atachment 06 Proposal Adequacy Checklist must be submited as a separate atachment?

The offeror can submit atachment 06 - Proposal Adequacy Checklist either separately or embedded within Volume II. It is ul�mately the offeror’s responsibility to ensure all documenta�on is submited IAW the solicita�on.

RFP L.6.1.1; L.6.1.4

27. Can the Government clarify the requirement for leters of commitment from all major subcontractors?

Are these required in addi�on to Teaming Agreements and Leters of Consent for the disclosure of past performance informa�on?

The Offeror is required to submit the writen consent of it major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance informa�on to the Offeror. Leters of Commitment for key personnel shall be included for all major subcontractor partners. Teaming Agreements shall be provided for each joint venture/teaming or subcontrac�ng arrangement established for this solicita�on and a signed document (format as established by Offeror) indica�ng an agreement (i.e., Teaming Agreements) among the par�es IAW L.8.5 and L.8.6.

RFP

L.6.1.2 and L.6.1.3

28. The list of informa�on requirements in Sec�on L.6.1.2 goes from (a) to (k) and seems to con�nue in Sec�on L.6.1.3 with (l) and (m) listed a�er requirements 1-4 of Sec�on L.6.1.3. This seems to be a clerical error; please clarify.

L.6.1.3 l) and m) have been moved to L.6.1.2 in the solicita�on.

RFP L.6.1.6

29. Can the Government clarify whether the Past Performance POC List must be submited as a separate atachment or within Volume III - Past Performance?

IAW Sec�on L.6.1.6 - The Offeror shall e-mail to the Contrac�ng Officer a list of all the POC’s who were sent a ques�onnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date. The POC List shall be submited in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicita�on Number; Company Name; Contract Number;

Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name;

POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC (month/day).

RFP L.6.1.6

30. Can the Government confirm whether CPARS reports (or a foreign equivalent for global companies) are acceptable in lieu of Past Performance Ques�onnaires?

The requirement of L.6.1.6 for the Offeror to provide Past Performance Ques�onnaires to contracts iden�fied in Sec�on 1, Contract Descrip�ons stands.

RFP L.7.3

31. Can the Government clarify the 20% small business par�cipa�on requirement for EACH op�on period? It seems unclear how Large Business Offerors can commit to u�lizing SB subcontractors for 20% of work during each op�on period on a mul�ple award IDIQ with no defined scope for each TO.

RFP Sec�on L.7.3 requires Offerors to meet or exceed the Small Business Par�cipa�on requirement of no less than 20.0% of the Total Contract Value (cumula�ve of all delivery/task orders) for each 12-month period during the Five-Year Ordering Period and the Six-Month Op�on to Extend Period. The Government provided the Total Contract Value (ID/IQ Contract Ceiling) of $95,085,894.00, which should allow the Offeror to es�mate a reasonable percentage goal for Small Business Par�cipa�on for each 12-month period, based on the assump�on that the Offeror is awarded all delivery/task orders during performance.

RFP L.4.1.3.4

32. Can the Government clarify whether the Leters of Commitment for Key Personnel must be included within Volume I - Technical/Management or Volume V

- Administra�ve Informa�on?

Offerors shall provide all Leters of Commitment in Volume V. Offerors shall also provide Leters of Commitment applicable to respec�ve Volume I, II, III, and IV submission requirements. Sec�on L.8.5 will be updated in the solicita�on.

RFP L.6.1.6

33. Can the Government confirm whether RFP Atachment 11 PPQ Cover Leter must be submited to POCs along with each PPQ?

The Government does not mandate being copy furnished when submi�ng atachments 10 and 11 to the Government contrac�ng ac�vity and the third party technical representa�ve POC responsible for the past/current contract.

RFP L.6.1.2

34. Can the Government confirm whether the format of RFP Atachment 12 Past Performance Contract Descrip�on is required for Sec�on 1 - Contract Descrip�ons of Volume III Past Performance, or whether Atachment 12 must be completed and submited separately for each past performance reference?

The offeror can submit atachment 12 - Past Performance Contract Descrip�on either separately or embedded within Volume III. It is ul�mately the offeror’s responsibility to ensure all documenta�on is submited IAW the solicita�on.

RFP L.6.1.6

35. Can the Government clarify whether the Past Performance POC List required in this sec�on refers to RFP Atachment 09 List of Past Performance Contracts?

No, sec�on L.6.1.6 refers to the Past Performance Ques�onnaire and associated atachments 10 and

11. Atachment 09 is associated with L.6.1.

Atachment 03 Cost/Price Workbook

CLIN X006 Tab

36. The two labor categories under this CLIN tab are Mechanical Engineer I and Engineering Technician I.

However, the FFP Labor Buildup and CPFF Labor Buildup tabs only include Mechanical Engineer (no level) and do not include an Engineering Technician labor category. Can the Government clarify?

CLIN 0006 has been corrected on the CLIN X006 tab of Atachment 03 – Cost-Pricing Workbook to reflect the correct labor categories of General Engineer Mid and HW/SW Technician Mid. The levels for each labor category have been added to the FFP and CPFF Labor Buildup tabs.

Workbook

CPFF Labor Buildup Tab;

FFP Labor Buildup Tab

37. The General Engineer and SW/HW Technician labor categories are split into Senior and Junior on several CLINs. However; the CPFF Labor Buildup and FFP Labor Buildup tabs do not include this difference - they only have General Engineer and SW/HW Technician, not split between Senior and Junior. Can the Government clarify how these LCATs are to be priced since qualifica�on requirements are different for Senior and Junior levels?

Atachment 03 – Cost/Price Workbook labor rate experience level (Junior/Mid-level/Senior) will be updated to match the experience levels iden�fied in Tab – Labor Descrip�ons.

Workbook

FFP Labor Buildup Tab

38. Can the Government clarify the requirement to provide buildup for FFP Labor? The industry standard is that labor buildup is not provided with FFP proposals.

The Government requires the fully burdened rate build up for both FFP and CPFF labor.

L.4.1.2 Subfactor 1.2:

Sample Tasks

39. Can the Government clarify whether offerors must use labor categories iden�fied within Atachment 3 Cost/Pricing Workbook for the Sample Tasks requirement for "the number of personnel required, their skill mix, number of hours per category" within Volume I - Technical/Management?

The Government requests the offeror use the iden�fied labor categories or your iden�fied equivalents in the response to the Sample Tasks.

RFP L.4.1.3.4

40. Can the Government confirm that the General Engineer Key Personnel must be at the SENIOR level of qualifica�ons per labor category descrip�ons included in Atachment 03 Cost/Price Workbook?

Yes, the General Engineer will be at the Senior level iden�fied in the labor descrip�ons tab of Atachment 03.

RFP L.4.1.1(a)

41. Can the Government confirm whether responses to the SOW requirements listed under Subfactor 1.1 Technical Solu�on must describe a technical approach to mee�ng the requirements under SOW paragraphs 3.5.1, 3.5.3, 3.5.4 and 3.5.5, or describe exper�se and

As stated in sec�on L.4.1.1(a), This part shall contain the Offeror's responses to the Statement of Work and atachments. Document the methodology and procedures to be followed in accomplishing the task and discharging responsibility to address each SOW experience in the specific areas described in the bullets that follow each SOW requirement?

requirement in the order it appears. The Offeror shall provide specific emphasis on mee�ng each requirement cited in the SOW task area paragraphs 3.5.1, 3.5.3, 3.5.4 and 3.5.5. Mere parro�ng of the SOW or unqualified acknowledgments will be considered an inadequate response.

The Government will evaluate each Offerors’ proposal according to the Evalua�on Criteria listed in Sec�on M of the RFP.

SOW 3.4.1

42. Can the Government confirm whether the "Documenta�on, videos and photographs showing capabili�es" required in this sec�on must be delivered as a CDRL and not as a part of the Offeror's proposal?

The Government confirms the requirements of SOW Paragraph 3.4.1 are to be delivered a�er contract award IAW CDRL A005.

RFP L.4.1.1(a)

43. Can the Government confirm that Subfactor 1.1 Technical Solu�on must address SOW paragraphs 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.5, 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 ONLY?

As stated in sec�on L.4.1.1(a), This part shall contain the Offeror's responses to the Statement of Work and atachments. Document the methodology and procedures to be followed in accomplishing the task and discharging responsibility to address each SOW requirement in the order it appears. The Offeror shall provide specific emphasis on mee�ng each requirement cited in the SOW task area paragraphs 3.5.1, 3.5.3, 3.5.4 and 3.5.5. Mere parro�ng of the SOW or unqualified acknowledgments will be considered an inadequate response.

The Government will evaluate each Offerors’ proposal according to the Evalua�on Criteria listed in Sec�on M of the RFP.

L.4.1.2.c - Sample Task C

44. Can the Government confirm whether the only open text code required to be transmited by the sensor is C/A code?

The sample tasks are no�onal tasks that could be competed under a future task order. No addi�onal informa�on is available. The offeror is encouraged to document their assump�ons in their proposal.

RFP

L.4.1.2.c - Sample Task C

45. Can the Government clarify the frequency requirement for the posi�on sensor/transmiter?

The sample tasks are no�onal tasks that could be competed under a future task order. No addi�onal informa�on is available. The offeror is encouraged to document their assump�ons in their proposal.

RFP

L.4.1.2.c - Sample Task C

46. Can the Government clarify whether the batery weight is included in the 4 lb weight limit of the sensor?

The sample tasks are no�onal tasks that could be competed under a future task order. No addi�onal informa�on is available. The offeror is encouraged to document their assump�ons in their proposal.

RFP

L.4.1.2.c - Sample Task C

47. Will the Government provide the target integra�on requirements? Is this integrated on a USA or into a Pod? This will drive different development requirements.

The sample tasks are no�onal tasks that could be competed under a future task order. No addi�onal informa�on is available. The offeror is encouraged to document their assump�ons in their proposal.

SOW

3.5.4 (G) Tech flight, engineering and field services support

48. Are GFE Lear 35/Lear 36 aircra�s with the required AWRs available or will the aircra� be the responsibility of the contractor to provide?

Lear 35/Lear 36 aircra�s will not be provided as GFE.

It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide suppor�ng documenta�on for AWR cer�fica�on.

Atachment 03 Cost/Price Workbook

FFP Labor Buildup Tab

49. Can the Government confirm whether one Full Time Equivalent cons�tutes 1920 hours for the purposes of this contract?

There is no set direct FTE hours amount, it is based solely on each offeror’s fringe benefits. HOWEVER, please note that the hours required are contained for each labor category in each CLIN tab of the workbook.

Note, that when compu�ng hourly rates from annual salary informa�on 2,080 should be assumed in the computa�on of the hourly rate.

SOW/RFP N/A

50. Can the Government specify the Place and Performance for this contract?

Aerial Target Systems are operated in both CONUS and OCONUS loca�ons. Common loca�ons include various Gov/DoD Ranges such was White Sands Missile Range, Orogrande, NM, Yuma Proving Grounds, Redstone Arsenal, Contractor facili�es, etc.

Specific opera�onal loca�ons will be documented in future orders.

Atachment 03 Cost/Price Workbook

FFP/CPFF

Labor Buildup Tab

51. Are the Offerors required to submit both Contractor site and Government site pricing for all Labor Categories? Or is all labor to be performed at Government site?

Offerors can assume that all labor will be performed at Offeror site.

L.8 Volume V - Administra�ve Informa�on, L.8.6

52. This sec�on states "team members (as defined in Sec�on L.A.2.15)" but that sec�on does not exist. The only defini�on is for Major Subcontractor but does not define team member or subcontractor. Can the Government please define the difference between a team member and subcontractor?

Corrected reference “L.A.2.15” to “L.2.15”. Team member and subcontractor are synonymous unless there are regulatory rela�onships such as a joint venture.

RFP

L.2 Proposal Submission Requirements, L.2.15

53. The sec�on defines requirements for major subcontractors submi�ng proprietary informa�on and defines what is a major subcontractor; it also states, "Subcontractor proposal submited separately are considered part of the Offeror's proposal, including page count." Is there a difference between the term Major Subcontractor and Subcontractor for the purposes of this instruc�on?

No, the prime offeror is responsible for ensuring all proposal documents (prime, major subcontractor, subcontractor, vendor, etc.) meet the proposal submission requirements iden�fied in sec�on L.

L.6 Volume III - Factor 3 Past Performance, L.6.1.4 Sec�on 3 - Subcontracts and L.8.6 Teaming Agreements

54. The required informa�on lists DUNS Number as a requirement in Sec�on L.6.1.4 and L.8.6, b., requests DUNS number in addi�on to UEI in c. Does the Government require Offerors and Subcontractors to provide DUNS numbers in addi�on to UEI numbers?

UEI has replaced DUNS and therefore Offerors shall submit UEI. The solicita�on will be amended to remove DUNS language.

RFP L.5.1 General

55. Can the Government clarify whether pricing informa�on is only required from Major Subcontractors featured in the Offerors' proposal, or all subcontractors?

The prime offeror is responsible for the overall submission of theirs and any major subcontractor/vendor/etc. to be compliant IAW sec�on L.5. Please note for specific major subcontractor submission requirements IAW L.5.5.

Atachment 03 Cost/Price Workbook

FFP/CPFF

Labor Buildup Tab

56. The Test Engineer, CAD Designer and Aeronau�cal Engineer LCATs are included in the FFP and CPFF Labor Buildup tabs, but NOT in any of the CLIN tabs. Can the Government clarify which CLINs the two LCATs align with?

The Government is asking the offerors to price these categories for poten�al future requirements.

Offerors will provide pricing in the Labor Rates FFP and CPFF Buildup Tabs.

Atachment 03 Cost/Price Workbook

FFP/CPFF

Labor Buildup Tab; CLIN

X002, CLIN

X007, CLIN

X008 Tabs

57. The Func�onal Analyst LCAT listed under CLIN X002 and Logis�cs Analyst LCAT listed under CLINs X007 and X008 seem to be combined in the FFP and CPFF Labor Buildup Tabs, and Labor Descrip�ons tab into one LCAT (Logis�cs/Func�onal Analyst). Can the Government clarify why these are two different LCATs under the CLIN tabs but not within the Buildup and Labor Descrip�ons tabs?

The Logis�cs/Func�onal Analyst is one labor category. The cost/price workbook will be updated to reflect this.

Dra� RFP L.1 Introduc�on

58. Please confirm the Government is prohibi�ng external website URL hyperlinks to include email addresses.

Email addresses are acceptable. The Government will not evaluate any informa�on that requires a URL hyperlink to informa�on outside of the source document.

Dra� RFP L.2.7

59. Please confirm the Word-created Table of Contents, List of Figures, and hyperlinks for referencing sec�ons within the same document are acceptable.

Hyperlinks that direct the Government to an area within that specific document are acceptable.

Dra� RFP / SOW

L.4.1.2

M.7.1.2

Atachment 07

60. Sec�on L.4.1.2 (a) Sample Task A contains references to SOW paragraphs 3.5.2, 3.5.4, and 3.5.7, while the corresponding Sec�on M.7.1.2 (a) Sample Task A contains references to SOW paragraphs 3.5.2, 3.5.4, and 3.5.5.

Please deconflict SOW 3.5.5 and 3.5.7 references in Sec�on L, Sec�on M, and Atachment 07.

Sample Task A includes ac�vi�es related to SOW paragraphs 3.5.2, 3.5.4, 3.5.5, and 3.5.7. Sec�ons L and M of the solicita�on and Atachment 07 have been updated accordingly.

Dra� RFP

L.6.1.2

L.6.1.4

Atachment 12

61. L.6.1.2 Sec�on 1 – Contract Descrip�ons requires a “Unique En�ty Iden�fier (formerly DUNS) number.

L.6.1.4 Sec�on 3 – Subcontracts requires a “DUNS Number”.

Atachment 12 – Past Performance Contract Descrip�on requires a DUNS number.

Please confirm L.6.1.4 and Atachment 12 require a Unique En�ty Iden�fier (UEI) instead of a DUNS Number.

UEI has replaced DUNS and therefore Offerors shall submit UEI. The solicita�on and atachment 12 have been amended to remove DUNS language.

L.2.3

L.4.1.3.3

L.4.1.3.4

L.5.1

L.6.1

L.6.1.1

L.6.1.4

L.6.1.5

L.7.7

L.8.5

M.7.1.3.3

M.7.1.3.4

62. Teaming Agreement (TA) and Leter of Commitment (LOC) seem to be interchangeably used throughout instruc�ons and evalua�on criteria for all volumes (Past Performance, Small Business, Administra�on, Technical).

Please clarify if Teaming Agreements are required for Subcontractors in appropriate volumes, and Leters of Commitment are required for key personnel �ed to an LCAT in appropriate volumes.

Leters of Commitment for key personnel shall be included for all major subcontractor partners.

Teaming Agreements shall be provided for each joint venture/teaming or subcontrac�ng arrangement established for this solicita�on and a signed document (format as established by Offeror) indica�ng an agreement (i.e., Teaming Agreements) among the par�es IAW L.8.5 and L.8.6.

Atachments

Atachment 12

63. There is no reference to Atachment 12 Past Performance Contract Descrip�on in the Dra� RFP.

Please confirm Offerors should use Atachment 12 to meet L.6.1.2 Sec�on 1 – Contract Descrip�on requirements.

Atachment 12 - Past Performance Contract Descrip�on has been added so L.6.1.2.

Dra� RFP Atachments

Atachment 07

64. Please confirm Atachment 07s correct �tle as it’s referred to as a Cross-Reference Matrix (L.3.1, L.3.2, Atachment 07) and Traceability Matrix (L.8.10) in the dra� RFP.

L.8.10 has been updated to reflect Cross Reference Matrix.

P 128 L.4.1.2(a)

65. Lists two UAS systems:

1. Skywalker X8 (or equivalent)

2. IF 750 (or equivalent)

Please define the “equivalent” (i.e. SWaP parameters within +/- %?).

The sample tasks are no�onal tasks that could be competed under a future task order. No addi�onal informa�on is available. The offeror is encouraged to document their assump�ons in their proposal.

Dra� RFP / SOW SOW 15

66. The SOW states “Contractor shall submit to the Procuring Contrac�ng Officer (PCO) a report that documents (at least quarterly) how they are adhering to or exceeding their proposed u�liza�on of small business supplies and/or service providers”.

Requiring this report on a quarterly basis is an administra�ve burden that does not seem commensurate with number of poten�al awardees and the high probability of limited number of Task Orders awarded annually.

Will the Government consider making this semi-annually or annually?

CDRL B008 (DI-MGMT-82041B - Small Business U�liza�on Report) requires submission semi-annual (for the periods ending 31 March and 30 September); the SOW will be revised to match the CDRL language.

Dra� RFP and SAM No�fica�on

SF 33

67. There is no submission date in the SF 33 and the SAM no�fica�on stated the Final RFP will be released 45 days a�er the Dra� RFP pu�ng the date of release 13 December 2023.

Ques�on: Will the Government please provide a 45- or 60-day response �me for proposal submitals?

The Government will provide submission response �me based on the �me of year in which the solicita�on will be issued, the submission response �me will be on the front page of the solicita�on.

Dra� RFP L.4.1.1 (a)

68. This part shall contain the Offeror's responses to the Statement of Work and atachments. Document the methodology and procedures to be followed in accomplishing the task and discharging responsibility to address each SOW requirement in the order it appears. The Offeror shall provide specific emphasis on mee�ng each requirement cited in the SOW task area paragraphs 3.5.1, 3.5.3, 3.5.4 and 3.5.5.

Ques�on 1: Can the Government please clarify the Offeror only needs to address SOW sec�ons 3.5.1, 3.5.3, 3.5.4, and 3.5.5?

As stated in sec�on L.4.1.1(a), This part shall contain the Offeror's responses to the Statement of Work and atachments. Document the methodology and procedures to be followed in accomplishing the task and discharging responsibility to address each SOW requirement in the order it appears. The Offeror shall provide specific emphasis on mee�ng each requirement cited in the SOW task area paragraphs 3.5.1, 3.5.3, 3.5.4 and 3.5.5. Mere parro�ng of the SOW or unqualified acknowledgments will be considered an inadequate response.

The Government will evaluate each Offerors’ proposal according to the Evalua�on Criteria listed in Sec�on M of the RFP.

Dra� RFP Sample Task B

69. The contractor shall have an Air Worthiness Release, issued by the Army Systems Readiness Directorate, for the Learjet aircra� operated under this contract.

Ques�on: Can the Government please clarify the Learjet can receive the Air Worthiness Release issued by the Army Systems Readiness Directorate a�er ATS-3 contract award?

The sample tasks are no�onal tasks that could be competed under a future task order. It is the responsibility of the offeror to propose if or how they will obtain an Air Worthiness Release issued by the Army Systems Readiness Directorate for the Learjet aircra�.

Dra� RFP L.4.1.3.4

70. The Offeror shall iden�fy the minimum and proposed levels of educa�on, training and experience for each proposed labor category. One resume (educa�on, training, and experience) is required for each of the following labor categories (or related contractor equivalent labor category) for key personnel

Sec�on L.4.1.3.4 has been updated to state that resumes or leters of commitment are not included as part of the page count.

which will establish the minimum qualifica�ons for personnel during contract performance.

Ques�on: Can the Government please remove resumes from page count?

Dra� RFP L.5.5

71. Because this is a compe��ve RFP response, can the Government confirm that, “This informa�on shall be submited u�lizing the requirements of FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, and shall be submited in an unprotected spreadsheet and include all formulas.” Is this correct and expected from offerors?

References of table 15-2 have been removed from sec�on L.5.5.

Dra� SOW 7.6.3

72. Can the Government confirm whether the Offeror’s proprietary data will become property of the Government post-award at the Task Order level?

DFARS clauses 252.227-7013/7014/7015 and 7017 will be added to the solicita�on.

The Government does not ‘own’ technical data or noncommercial so�ware. The Government is granted a certain level of license rights (unlimited, Government Purpose, limited/restricted) based on the funding source used to develop the technical data or noncommercial so�ware.

Atachment 07 L.3.2

73. Can the Government confirm where they would like Atachment 07 in the submission?

Atachment 07 – Cross Reference Matrix can be submited separately or embedded within Volume I, which will not count against Volume 1 page limits.

Sec�on L.3.2 has been updated.