W900KK25RA0003 - FMT Draft RFP Feedback with Government Response_19_FEB_2025.pdf

Number RFP Document Section Page Number Question/Comment Government Response

1 Section L 2.2 43 Will the Government provide its SEP for development of the SEMP ahead of the final RFP release? The Government will provide a tailored version of DI-SESS-81785A that fully defines the format and content requirements for the Offeror's proposal SEMP.

2 Section L 2.4 45

Section L 2.4 Electronic Offers, states offerors shall submit their proposal via email and files shall not be locked, encrypted, or otherwise contain barriers to opening. However, Section 2.2.5 Marking, states each proposal page shall include "SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION, CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION" marking at the top and bottom of each page. In accordance with https://www.dodcui.mil/, CUI must be encrypted when emailed. Can the Government please clarify?

Proposal files should not be encrypted, however the email used to submit the proposal should be encrypted IAW CUI policy.

3 SOW 3.1.10.1 11

SOW Section 3.1.10.1 Earned Value Management (EVM) states, "The Contractor shall develop, implement, maintain, and use an EVM system that complies with Industry Guidelines ANSI/EIA-748 and meets contractual requirements. The Contractor shall document the integrated cost and schedule status of work progress on the contract and relate technical performance with cost and schedule accomplishment using procedures for planning work, controlling costs, and measuring performance based on ANSI/EIA-748."

Can the Government expand on or clarify the EVM reporting requirements that are expected of the Contractor during contract performance?

The Government does not currently anticipate that any DOs awarded under the FMT ID/IQ contract will include an EVM requirement. The requirements of FMT PL IDIQ Base SOW Section 3.1.10.1 will be applicable only if the effort is designated as a Major Defense Acquisition Program or otherwise required by the FMT PL ID/IQ Contracting Officer. If EVM is required for any DO, the DO SOW will define the implementation and reporting requirements.

4 SOW 3.1.10.1 11

Can the USG expand upon the level of fidelity that is required for Earned Value Management? Will the CDRLs DIDs be provided for feedback and comment?

Can the USG confirm that Task/Delivery Orders that are below the DoD Instruction 5000.02 threshold of $20M for compliance with NDIA/EIA-748 will be excluded from EVMS requirements?

The Government does not currently anticipate that any DOs awarded under the FMT ID/IQ contract will include an EVM requirement. The requirements of FMT PL IDIQ Base SOW Section 3.1.10.1 will be applicable only if the effort is designated as a Major Defense Acquisition Program or otherwise required by the FMT PL ID/IQ Contracting Officer. If EVM is required for any DO, the DO SOW will define the implementation and reporting requirements.

5 Section D N/A 7-8 Section D Packaging and Marking was not included in the RFP documents. Section D was not included as part of the base ID/IQ as this will be handled at DO level

FMT PL Past Performance

Relevancy Matrix Paragraph 1 1-2

The first paragraph (last sentence) on Page 1 states that the Government does not intent to "analyze or associate any dollar values to the contract references provided in terms of defining magnitude of effort."

However, the 'Description' cells in the table below (Pages 1 and 2) identify 'magnitude' as one of the evaluation criteria.

Please clarify.

Magnitude, as it pertains to relevancy, is defined in terms of the duration (Period of Performance) and scale (size and/or quantity) a of contractual effort, as opposed to the dollar value of the effort.

7 Ordering Guide Paragraph 1 1

Paragraph 1 (second to last sentence) indicates that "If a MAC ID/IQ holder intends to decline submitting a DOP, the Contractor shall notify the Government POCs […] within 5 business days of DOPR issuance."

We recommend increasing this requirement to 10 business days to enable especially small business primes to 1) evaluate the requirement and 2) initiate potential teaming discussions (if needed).

The Government believes 5 business days is adequate to provide a response as previous notices will be posted throughout market research to allow additional time for vendors to evaluate the requirement and initiate potential teaming discussions.

8 SOW

3.11

Appendix A

This table lists a 'Quality Program Plan' (DID DI-QCIC-81722) instead of the 'Quality Assurance Program Plan' (DID DI-QCIC-81794A) discussed on SOW Pages 45/46 and RFP Page 50 of 64, Section L 5.3.

Recommend changing the reference to:

Quality Assurance Program Plan - DI-QCIC-81794A

DI-QCIC-81794A added to Appendix A of the Base SOW

9 SOW 3.4 19

SOW para. 3.4 states "The Contractor shall develop and adhere to a Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) developed in accordance with the Defense Acquisition University (DAU)’s Defense Acquisition Guidebook [DAG], Chapter 3…"

The DAG has been retired and replaced by a set of guidebooks.

Please confirm that the SOW reference should be the DAU’s "Systems Engineering Guidebook" instead.

SOW reference updated from DAU Defense Acquisition Guidebook to DAU Systems Engineering Guidebook

10 SOW 3.7.5 40 It is assumed the data covered under a Facility Clearance Level (FCL) is not externally accessible as part of the IDE? A FCL is not mandatory at the ID/IQ level. The requirement for an FCL will be specified at the DO level. Requirements for the IDE will be specified at the DO level.

11 DD1423 CDRL

Report N/A N/A

The DD1423 CDRL list is much shorter than list in Appendix A of the SOW. Which document represents the deliverable requirements? The DD 1423 included in the Draft RFP identifies the data deliverables associated with DO-01 (Minimum Award/PAC). Appendix A of the SOW identifies data that may be required for other DOs awarded under the ID/IQ contract.

12 General N/A N/A Is it the Government's intent to solicit DO #1 (FMT CC PDSS) with the IDIQ? DO-01 (Minimum Award/PAC) will be awarded with the ID/IQ. The CC Management and Support DO will be solicited and awarded after award of the base ID/IQ contracts.

Section L

Section M

6.1

1.8.3

6.1 General: Each offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing relevant past performance information on contracts which have had at least twelve months of performance and are either active or have been completed within five years preceding the date of this solicitation

1.8.3 Recency Assessment: To be recent, the effort must have at least 12 months of performance and either be active or have been completed within three years preceding the date of this solicitation.

Please clarify the Past Performance window. Section L states 5 years while Section M states 3 years.

Past performance submissions should be from contracts active or completed within five (5) years preceding the date of the solicitation.

14 Section M 1.1 2

To be considered for award under FMT PL, a "qualifying offeror" is an offeror who:

6) is assessed with Neutral Confidence of better for Factor 3 (Past Performance)

We recommend removing Neutral Confidence assessment eligibility for an IDIQ award.

The Government has determined that a rating of Neutral or better for the Past Performance Factor is suitable for identifying qualified offerors.

Section L

Section M

1.2

Sections L.1.2 & M.1 state that the Government will evaluate technical acceptability and past performance for prime offerors only.

Prime ID/IQ contract awardees may form subcontracting teams as necessary at the base ID/IQ or DO level.

Can the Government clarify if the prime offeror may include information regarding its proposed subcontracting team and their relevant experience in its ID/IQ proposal?

The Government will not evaluate past performance of subcontractors. Past Performance submissions should represent the offeror's experience.

Family of Maintenance Trainers Draft RFP - W900KK25RA0003_Draft - 9 Jan 2025 Industry Questions & Comments

Section L

Section M

1.2

Sections L.1.2 & M.1 state that the Government will evaluate technical acceptability and past performance for prime offerors only.

Can the Government clarify if past performance citations related to the proposed subcontractors' work may be submitted in support of the prime offeror's evaluation?

The Government will not evaluate past performance of subcontractors. Past Performance submissions should represent the offeror's experience.

17 DD1423 CDRL

Report N/A N/A

Does the Government intend to include DD 1423s for each severable attachment (SEMP, CMP, RMP, and QAPP) to ensure the required content in each DID aligns with the solicitation? For example, the RMP DID (DI-MGMT-81808) requires a distribution statement and destruction notice, which are not mentioned in the solicitation.

The Government will include tailored versions of the DIDs if appropriate for each data item to be submitted with the proposal.

18 Section L 2.2.5 44

Section L.2.2.5 states the following: "Each proposal page shall include the following marking at the top and bottom of each page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

See FAR 3.104 and 2.101"

To preserve page space, will the Government consider allowing the following marking as a single line at the top and bottom of each page? "CUI//SSEL See FAR 2.101 and 3.104"

The Government will update the marking to:

CUI//SSEL

See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

All page formatting and margin requirements remain and must be adhered to.

19 Section L 2.4 45

Section 2.4 includes Table 2: File Naming Conventions for the proposal volumes. The file names should include the appropriate extension corresponding to the file type.

Can the Government clarify whether Volume I requires eight separate files, one for each section, or if the sections can be included within a single document (e.g., Volume I - Administrative.pdf) with clear section headings and page breaks?

Separate files

20 Section L 2.4 45

Section 2.4 states that the file size limit for email submissions of documents is 30MB.

Considering the potential size of the SEMP, CMP, RMP, and QAPP documents, can the Government clarify if the submission of these attachments, as well as other large proposal files, will be permitted through the DoD SAFE Site or if alternative submission methods will be available?

DoD SAFE is not an approved method for submitting proposals. Email submissions are required.

Section L 2.4

First paragraph in section 2.4 stipulates that the necessary decompression application software must be provided if compressed files are to be submitted. However, the paragraph that immediately follows says that compressed files will not be accepted. Please clarify this discrepancy.

Only acceptable compression type is *.zip. Self-executing files will not be accepted. Section L will be updated to clarify this requirement.

22 Section L 4 48 One of the objectives stated in Section 1.1 of the SOW is maximizing reuse and commonality of subsystems. Would it not be appropriate for each offeror to outline their technical approach for maximizing reuse and commonality, to include reuse of lessons, across the DTT, PTT, and HOTS?

The Technical Content of Section L&M has been updated to include a requirement to describe the approach to achieving the objectives of the ID/IQ contract included in the SOW.

23 SOW 3.5 26 Can the government please confirm that the reference to DoD 8570.01-M should be DoDM 8140.03 DoDM 8140.03 is the correct reference. The Base SOW will be updated to reflect this.

24 Section B N/A 4-5 Can the Government clarify CLINs x004, x005, x006 for Data Deliverables, Technical Manuals, and TDP? Technical Manuals and TDP are data deliveries and are typically not separately priced.

Required to include these CLINs whether they are separately priced or not. Decision on whether they will be priced will be made at the DO level.

25 Section F F.1 10 F.1 states "contract award is expected for first quarter, Government Fiscal Year 2026." Current PALT and I/ITSEC updates indicate contract award in 3QFY25. Can the Government please clarify the anticipated contract award date.

Base award is anticipated for 4QFY25

Section A

Section L

A.2

1.2

RFP Section A.2 states the ceiling for the program is $396M. Section L.1.2 states "The aggregate ceiling of the FMTPL program is $416M."

Can the Government please confirm the contract ceiling?

$396M is the correct contract ceiling

27 Section L 2.2.5 44

L.2.2.5 states each proposal page shall include the following marking at the top and bottom if each page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

See FAR 3.104 and 2.101

52.215-1 (e) (2) (pg 54 of 64) states to mark each sheet of data it (the offeror) wishes to restrict with the following legend:

use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.

Can the Government please confirm that the markings in Section L.2.2.5 override the language in clause 52.215-1?

The offerors restriction markings should be in addition to the Government required markings

28 Section M 1.7 60-61 DRFP Section M.1.7 begins stating the government will evaluate management on a pass/fail basis, however, further in the section reference is made to acceptable/unacceptable. Please clarify.

The Government will update Section M for consistency with the terms "acceptable/unacceptable"

29 SOW 3.1.10.1 11

We understand the requirement for Earned Value Management to be required for the MAC, however, can the Government confirm that applicability at the TO/DO level will be based on the TO/DO value being > $20M and a cost type order?

The Government does not currently anticipate that any DOs awarded under the FMT ID/IQ contract will include an EVM requirement. The requirements of FMT PL IDIQ Base SOW Section 3.1.10.1 will be applicable only if the effort is designated as a Major Defense Acquisition Program or otherwise required by the FMT PL ID/IQ Contracting Officer. If EVM is required for any DO, the DO SOW will define the implementation and reporting requirements.

30 Section D N/A 7-8 Section D Packaging and Marking was not included in the Draft RFP. Section D was not included as part of the base ID/IQ as this will be handled at DO level

FMT PL Past Performance

Relevancy Matrix N/A 1-5

Part Task Trainers (PTTs) should be incorporated into Factor 1: Technical and Factor 2: Program Management in paragraph 2 for each Relevancy Rating under the FMT PL Past Performance Relevancy Matrix on pages 1-2. Additionally, this should be applied to the Past Experience Checklist-Technical and the Past Experience Checklist-Management under the column "System Types" on pages 3-5.

The Government will modify the FMT PL Past Performance Relevancy Matrix to clarify the definitions of physical fidelity training systems to include both Part Task Trainers and Hands-On Trainers

32 Section L 2.2 43-44

We request the page counts for the items below be revised as shown. These page counts would be consistent with the TSA IV proposal effort:

Plan Current FMT Page Limit Requested Page Limit Technical Volume 15 20 Management Volume 10 15

SEMP 20 30

CMP 10 25

RMP 10 25

QAPP 10 30

The Government has considered the proposed changes and has determined that no changes will be made to the page limits.

33 Section L 2.2.5 44 Requires the Source Selection and CUI markings to be inserted at both the top and bottom of each page. We would like to know if it is possible to revise the requirement such that markings are at the bottoms of the pages only.

Markings are required in the header and footer of each page.

34 Section A Section L 1.2 2, 41 The ceiling value stated in Section A is $396M while the ceiling stated in Section L is $416M, which is correct? $396M is the correct contract ceiling

35 Section A A.2 2

What is the timeline to know when funds will be made available? The FMT Product Line is 100% customer funded. FMT funding estimates for all anticipated efforts under the FMT ID/IQ have been communicated to FMT customers to be input into their respective POMs. Final allocation of customer funding is based on the available budget and customer priorities for each fiscal year. Customer commitment of funding for each FMT effort will occur prior to solicitation of each DO.

FMT PL Past Performance

Relevancy Matrix N/A 1-5

The government appears to identify that only companies who have previously developed maintenacne training will be catagorized as Very Relevant(technical and Managment) . Has the government considered that this limitation may narrow or exclude worthy vendors who have developed innovative and capable training systems or vendors who may be able to perform a limited DO that does not required any maintencae knowledge such as ECP's, H/W refreshes, etc. Would the governmen consider elevating the ratining for companies who have military or commerical training capabilities to being able to ganar a Very Relevant rating in order to due to the great similarity between developing training systems and mainteance training systems in order to not exclude innovative dedicated training developers and not restrict the government options for procurments and innovations solutions?

A neutral or better Past Performance rating is required to be considered a qualified offeror.

The Government does not see a need to modify the relevancy definitions included in the draft

RFP.

37 Section C C.1 6 Can the government say what the expected number of awardees that are anticipated for open and restricted lots? The Government intends on awarding base contracts to all qualified offerors. Lots will not be used on the FMT ID/IQ.

38 Section L 6.3 52 Will the vendor be decremented in the evaluation if a customer contact does not return a quetionaire that was sent to him or her?

Vendors may not be able to influence if a customer returns a questionair.

If the Offeror does not receive a response to the Past Performance Questionnaire from the requestee, the Government will then reach out to the POC identified.

39 Section L 3.5 47

Sec. L, Para. 3.5 states, "The Offeror shall complete the fill-ins and provide any appropriate signatures without modification to the sections to include, but not limited, to those in section K."

This statement indicates there may be fill-ins in other sections besides section K because the instruction is not limited just to section K.

In what other sections of the Model Contract are there fill-ins?

Respondents are responsible for reviewing the RFP and submitting all required elements

40 Section L 2.2 43

In Sec. L, Para. 2.2, Table 1 shows the attachments to be included with the Executive Summary. In Table 1, Attachment 2 is shown as Consent to use Non-Government Advisor. However, Attachment 02 provided with the Draft RFP documents is the Security Self-Vetting Form. Are both the Consent and Self-Vetting Forms required to be submitted? If so, do the attachment numbers need to be updated?

The attachments referred to in Table 1 are the attachments to be submitted with an offerors proposal.

Section L

Section M

4.3

1.6

59-60

Section L: Technical Factor Content

Section M: The Government will evaluate the offeror's Technical proposal on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The Government must be assured that each offeror has the technical ability to meet the objectives identified in the FMT PL ID/IQ Base SOW and to successfully meet the requirements of subsequent FMT PL DOs.

Based on L and M, is it your intent for industry to respond to all of the items within the SOW. Please provide more clarification on what the technical volume requirements are outside of the SEMP and CMP.

The Government has revised the Technical Factor requirements in Sections L and M to provide clarity on what should be included in the Offeror's proposal.

42 Section A Paragraph 3 2 How many awards are anticipated against this requirement? The Government intends to make base ID/IQ awards to all qualifying offerors. The amount of DOs is TBD based on customer requirements.

43 General N/A N/A [company name] recommends that PEO STRI consider hosting an industry day in association with the release of the next version of the solicitation.

The Government hosted two industry days for the FMT ID/IQ in November and December of 2023. No additional industry days are planned for the FMT ID/IQ base award. Future industry days to support DO solicitations are TBD.

44 Section L 4 48-49

Section L.4.1 states In this volume, address your proposed processes IAW the instructions in this section. The Government is not looking for approaches to everything in the base ID/IQ Statement of Work (SOW), just a description of top-level processes so we can determine that the offeror has the capability to satisfy FMT Requirements. The Technical Factor Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, brevity, and coherence will facilitate accurate and efficient evaluation of proposals and can reduce the need for discussions and clarifications. Your proposal will be evaluated against the Technical Factor as defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

Section L.4.3, titled Technical Factor Content lists only the SEMP, CMP and risks.

Can the Government clarify what specific aspects of the Technical Approach are to be addressed similar to the instructions in the Management Factor Content provided in L.5.3?

The Government will update Section L.4.3 to clarify what the offeror should address in the Content section of the Technical Factor Volume (this is in addition to the SEMP and CMP attachments).

45 Section L 2.2.5 44

L.2.2.5 states each proposal page shall include the following marking at the top and bottom if each page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

See FAR 3.104 and 2.101

52.215-1 (e) (2) (pg 54 of 64) states to mark each sheet of data it (the offeror) wishes to restrict with the following legend:

use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.

Can the Government please confirm that the markings in Section L.2.2.5 override the language in clause 52.215-1?

The Government will update the marking to:

CUI//SSEL

See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

All page formatting and margin requirements remain and must be adhered to.

46 Section M 1.8.5 63 Quality Assessment does not identify a minimum rating for the proposal to be acceptable. Because the quality assessment is made for each recent and relevant past performance effort, there is no minimum rating for individual efforts for the overall proposal to be rated as acceptable.

47 SOW

3.1.10.1

Will EVM be required on all DOs or will the requirement be identified in each specific DO? EVM will be specified by the DO. The Government does not currently anticipate that any DOs awarded under the FMT ID/IQ contract will include an EVM requirement. The requirements of FMT PL IDIQ Base SOW Section 3.1.10.1 will be applicable only if the effort is designated as a Major Defense Acquisition Program or otherwise required by the FMT PL ID/IQ Contracting Officer. If EVM is required for any DO, the DO SOW will define the implementation and reporting requirements.

48 Section L 6.2 50-52 We recommend that a single award IDIQ and associated TOs be counted as 1 past performance reference. This framework demonstrates the capability to manage a broad spectrum of activities under an IDIQ structure, similar to the requirements of the FMT PL contract.

The Government has considered the proposed changes and has determined that no changes will be made to the past performanceexample requirements for ID/IQ contracts.