FMT RFP Attachment 10 QandAs 19 MAY 25.pdf

QUESTION ANSWER

Question: Can the page counts be raised to 1) SEMP – 50, 2) CMP – 25, 3) RMP – 25, 4) QAPP – 40? No. Offerors should clearly and concisely communicate the information required by the solicitation within the stated page limitations. The Government does not expect Offerors to include infinite detail of their business policies and practices but rather is looking for Offerors to provide sufficient information for the Government to assess the Offeror's ability to successfully satisfy FMT PL requirements.

Does this RFP contemplate opportunities for cyber ranges intended for upskilling cybersecurity personnel?

No. This RFP does not include scope for cyber ranges or training of cybersecurity personnel.

Can the Government please provide a searchable version of the solicitation? This is a known issue which the Government is trying to resolve. If it is resolved, a searchable version will be posted or provided to all Offerors.

Considering the page count restrictions, would the Government please consider consolidating the solicitation requirement to address development, tracking, metrics and maintaining the IMS in either the Technical or Management volume rather than addressing in both volumes? [ref: Solicitation Section L

4.3 and 5.3]

The requirements for addressing the IMS was removed from Section L. 4.3.

Considering the page count restrictions, would the Government please consider consolidating the solicitation requirement to address collaboration with the USG and other FMT Primes in either the Technical or Management volume rather than addressing in both volumes? [ref: Solicitation Section L

4.3 and 5.3]

No. The Offeror's response for the Technical Factor should address the technical aspects of collaboration whereas the Offeror's response for the Management Factor should address the program management aspects of collaboration.

Solicitation W900KK25RA003, Family of Maintenance Trainers (FMT) Product Line (PL) Multiple Award Contract (MAC), is identified in the Solicitation as PSC 6910. The SAM record for this procurement identifies PSC 6910 and NAICS 333310. However, the Solicitation does not identify a NAICS code.

Please clarify the intended NAICS code for this procurement.

IAW FAR 52.219-28 Alt I, the NAICS is 333310

Solicitation -

W900KK25RA003

Regarding FAR 52.219-4, are small business concerns (non-HUBZone) eligible for the price evaluation preference outlined in this clause? Or is this preference exclusively for HUBZone small business concerns?

IAW FAR 15.304(C)(1) price is not being evaluated. Price will be evaluted at the Delivery Order level where 52.219-4 will be used if applicable.

Solicitation -

W900KK25RA003

Regarding FAR 52.244-2(d), the current wording states, “If the Contractor has an approved purchasing system, the Contractor nevertheless shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before placing the following subcontracts: ALL.” Can the Government confirm if the intent is that all subcontracts, regardless of type or value, require the Contracting Officer's prior written consent, even with our approved purchasing system?

Per FAR 52.244-2, The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before placing all subcontracts

Solicitation -

W900KK25RA003

Can the Government confirm that 252.242-7004 Material Management and Accounting System is not applicable to Small Businesses?

DFARS 242.7204 outlines the prescriptions for 252.242-7004

Solicitation -

W900KK25RA003

Given the requirement to submit files labeled as CUI without encryption, will the Government provide a DoD SAFE site link or an equivalent secure file transfer method for proposal submission to ensure the secure transmission of sensitive information?

See updated language in Seciton L.

W900KK25RA003 Attachment 10

Solicitation -

W900KK25RA003

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 nine 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?

Volume I shall consist of the Execustive Summary and 8 seperate attachments/files (if applicable).

Solicitation -

W900KK25RA003

Section 4.3 states that the offer's technical approach shall address "the process for developing, tracking, and maintaining Integrated Master Schedules and the metrics to be used to measure progress on specific tasks and the overall program effort." Similar verbiage also exists in the instructions for Factor 2: Management, as well as Section 3.8 of the Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) (per Attachment 09, Data Item Descriptions).

Can the Government clarify whether offerors are intended to address this same IMS topic across the Technical volume, Management volume, and SEMP attachment?

The requirements for addressing the IMS have be removed from Section 4.3.

Solicitation -

W900KK25RA003

Regarding Attachment 1 of the Technical volume (Systems Engineering Management Plan), is the Government able to provide a FMT PL Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) to help inform offerors’ response?

A Government SEP is not available. Offerors should use the tailored DID provided in RFP Attachment 09 and describe their policies and practices as they relate to the items in the DID.

Solicitation -

W900KK25RA003

Regarding the submission format for the list of POCs in the Past Performance Volume, the solicitation specifies submission in Microsoft Word Table Format. To streamline our submission, would the Government accept the POC list as a PDF file within the Past Performance Volume, or is a separate Word document submission required to facilitate Government follow-up with POCs?

Section L has been revised to permit submission via pdf file.

FMT RFP

Attachment 01

BASE SOW 27 JAN

Does the Government foresee a mobile requirement for training or supporting any Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) hardware models?

Not at this time.

FMT RFP

Attachment 01

BASE SOW 27 JAN

Will the Government specify the desired Image Generator (IG) used for training applications? Requirements for Image Generators will be specified by Delivery Order.

FMT RFP

Attachment 01

BASE SOW 27 JAN

Does the Government already have a cloud framework in place for hosting training packages and applications?

None are currently in use by FMT.

FMT RFP

Attachment 05 Relevancy Matrix

Attachment 5 (Relevancy Matrix) states that, for a given contract reference, offerors must have performed in one of the following three technical areas in order to be considered Relevant: (1) system engineering and configuration management, (2) hardware design and development, or (3) software design and development. Can an offeror's Past Performance volume still be rated Acceptable if they do not address all three of these areas across all of their contract references?

Offerors must have performed in one of the three technical areas to be considered releveant.

Technical Documents

Will the Government provide access to the existing FMT PL Documentation Library? All documentation required for response to this solicitation has been provided. Any additional documentation an Offeror feels is required to provide a response to this solicitation should be requested through the POC listed in the solicitation with justification for why the documentation is necessary to provide a response to the solicitation.

Company Roadmap

To provide all data required in Sections L and M for the Past Performance Volume, would the Government please consider excluding the Company Roadmap from the volume's page count? These can range from 15-50 pages depending on the vendor.

The page limit shall remain unchanged.

Past Performance Questionnaires

Would the Government consider accepting a referenced program’s most recent Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) in lieu of sending out Past Performance Questionnaires? If the response time of the RFP is 30 days, this could be difficult for the bidders to gather the required documentation. If yes, would CPARs be excluded from the Past Performance Volume’s page count?

The requirements for the past performance volume are outlined in the Section L. As stated in L.6.3. "For all contracts identified, a Past Performance Questionnaire (RFP Attachment 04) must be completed and submitted...

Attachments Page Count

A fully compliant SEMP normally exceeds 30+ pages, but the current page count accepted by the Government is only 20 pages. Will the Government consider increasing this page count allowance to 30- 40 pages to allow all bidders to submit a fully compalint SEMP?

No. A tailored DID has been provided in RFP Attachment 09 which reduces/limits the amount of information required for submission.

FAR 52.244-2 Subparagraph (d) of FAR 52.244-2 indicates that even if a Contractor has an approved purchasing system, every subcontract will require the Contracting Officer's written consent before ordering. Is this correct?

Per FAR 52.244-2, The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before placing all subcontracts

Clarification of "Business Relationship Page"

Normally the phrase "Business Relationship Page" refers to the first page generated from the Government's Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool. Because this RFP does not require contractors to use the PPI Tool, what does the Government expect to see on the Business Relationship Page?

The RFP was revised to remove the referece to the Business Relationship page

Duty Free 252.225- 7013 clause

Due to the unprecedented situation with tariffs being applied to products would the Govt please add the Duty Free 252.225-7013 clause to the solicitation? In our experience with training devices materials pertaining to components may come from sources outside the U.S. if they are from the OEM or authorized distributers that are foreign owned companies.

252.225-7013 added to RFP

49 (Section L 2.2 Table 1)

The content and structure of the plans called for the in the Solicitation are based on definitions found in the Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) (Attachment 9). Would the Government consider revising the plan sizes listed in Table 1 to ensure they can accommodate the required content as described in the DIDs of Attachment 9? Historically these plans, developed and executed against the required DIDs, are twice the size as annotated in the table.

No. A tailored DID has been provided as RFP Attachment 09 which reduces/limits the amount of information required for submission.

Section L - Section

3.9 Accounting

System

Note that FAR 16.301-3 Limitation indicates that all potential awardees with a cost-reimbursable contract, must have an approved accounting system prior to contract award. This statement is unclear.

Recommend the language be revised as follows: Prior to Task Order award and in accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a)(3) cost type task orders will require the contractor's accounting system to be deemed adequate for determining costs applicable to each Task Order.

As stated in Section L, to receive an award under the FMT MAC ID/IQ RFP, a potential awardee must have an approved accounting system prior to (FMT ID/IQ) contract award.

Section L - Section

2.4 Electronic

Offers

Submit proposal Volumes I, II, III, and IV as attachments to a single email titled FMT Proposal (Insert Company Name). The file size limit for email submissions of documents is 30MB. No hard copies of proposals will be accepted. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including exhibits, annexes, addenda, and attachments, if any. Recommend this section allow multiple emails, as required, for proposal submittal to ensure there are no issues with transmission of the files. Or, alternatively, recommend the option of submitting the proposal via DoD SAFE.

Section L..2.4 has been revised.

Section L - 3.1 Executive Summary, last paragraph

In addition, the Executive Summary shall indicate complete compliance with the solicitation. As part of the Statement of Compliance, the authorized official identified in FAR 52.215-l(c)(2)(v) shall sign certifying the following: "Agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation, resultant contract, and Delivery Order 01." Request that "Delivery Order 01" be removed from this text as not applicable to this RFP.

The authorized official identified in FAR 52.215-l(c)(2)(v) shall sign certifying the following:

"Agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation, resultant contract, and Delivery Order 01."

52.219-28 Post Award Small Business Program Representation Alternate I and 4(e)

- NAICS Codes

There are two different NAICS codes in the solicitation. Under FAR 52.219-28 Alt I, it states NAICS 333310 and under FAR 52.219-28(e) and FAR 52.204-8(a)(3), it states 541519. Can the Government clarify which NAICS code is applicable?

IAW FAR 52.219-28 Alt I, the NAICS is 333310. For questions on FAR 52.219-28(e) and FAR 52.204-8(a)(3) please see https://www.acquisition.gov

Section M - 1.84 &

1.85 Quality

Assessment and Acceptability Assessment

The Offeror's recent and relevant past performance must achieve a Quality Assessment Rating of Satisfactory for the Past Performance Factor to be considered Acceptable. However, the definitions provided in Section 1.8.5 describe Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings without referencing “Satisfactory.

“Satisfactory” is not defined in the RFP’s evaluation criteria, and other factors use an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Can the Government clarify whether “Satisfactory” is a CPARS-specific rating, and whether a proposal with a mix of CPARS ratings (including one below Satisfactory) can still be considered Acceptable overall?

The definitions of "Satifactory" and "Unsatisfactory" as it relates to the Quality Assessment are provided in the table located in Paragraph 1.8.4.

Section L - 3.

Volume I Administrative

If an offeror proposes assumptions, or conditions that conflict with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation, the offeror's proposal shall be considered non-responsive and eliminated from further consideration for award at the sole discretion of the KO. FAR 15 procedures allow discussions unless award without discussions is explicitly intended, and this statement appears overly rigid given other flexibility language in Sections L - 1.3 and 2.1.7. Can the Government clarify whether offerors will have an opportunity to resolve assumptions or ambiguities during discussions before being eliminated?

If an offeror proposes assumptions, or conditions that conflict with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation, the offeror's proposal shall be considered non-responsive and eliminated from further consideration for award at the sole discretion of the KO.

Section L - 2.1.6 Pre-Award Surveys

In accordance with FAR 9, as part of the Responsibility Determination, the Government will request the Defense Contract Management Agency to perform a Financial Capability Survey to confirm that all Offerors have the financial ability to successfully perform the contract. The Financial Capability Swvey shall assess, among other things, if the Offeror has or can obtain adequate financial resources for the successful completion of a $50M Delivery Order (Offerors are cautioned that the $50M is in no way indicative of the expected dollar value of future DOs awarded under this MAC RFP, nor is it a guarantee.

Offerors are cautioned that the $50M is in no way indicative of the expected dollar value of future DOs awarded under this MAC RFP, nor is it a guarantee

Section L - 3.

Volume I Administrative and

6.3 PPQ and3.4

Security Self- Vetting Form

Alternate proposals are not permitted, and the solicitation shall not be altered. If an offeror proposes asswnptions, or conditions that conflict with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation, the offeror's proposal shall be considered non-responsive and eliminated from further consideration for award at the sole discretion of the KO. and For all contracts identified, a Past Performance Questionnaire (RFP Attachment 04) must be completed and submitted. and The Offeror (including all partners if applicable) shall complete the Security Self-Vetting Form (RFP Attachment 02) and submit with proposals. As the Offeror is required to complete the SF 33 and Reps & Certs, plus Attachment 02 and 04, and the PDF file does not recognize text, can Government please provide a fillable version of the SF 33, and Attachments 02 and 04?

Regarding the RFP is a known issue which the Government is trying to resolve. If it is resolved, a searchable/fillable version will be posted or provided to all Offerors. If it is not resolved, Offerors may print and scan a copy a signed copy of the document(s). Regarding Attachments 2 & 4, the Government confirmed they should be editable via Adobe Acrobat Pro. If issues persist, offerors may print and scan the completed documents.

Section L - 4.2, 5.2, and 6.2

The Technical Factor Volume shall be organized according to the following general outline: Table of Contents (not included in the 15-page limit) List of Table and Drawings (not included in the 15-page limit) Glossary (not included in the 15-page limit) Technical Factor Content The Management Factor Volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

Table of Contents (not included in the IO-page limit) List of Table and Drawings (not included in the IO-page limit) Glossary (not included in the IO-page limit) Management Factor Content :It is unclear whether the title/cover page is excluded from page count for Volumes II, III, and IV. Can cover/title pages also be excluded from the page limits for the Technical Factor, Management Factor, and Past Performance Factor main narrative documents?

Cover/title pages are excluded from the page limites for Volumes II, III, and IV.

2.2.5 Marking,

2.4 Electronic

Offers

Question: Will the Government consider a different submission process (DoD SAFE or PIEE) rather than email since the contractor submission proposal documents must be marked as CUI?

See updated language in Seciton L.

all Comment: The PDF document for Solicitation W900KK25RA003 is not editable or searchable.

Question: Will the Government provide a PDF copy that is editable and searchable?

Regarding the RFP is a known issue which the Government is trying to resolve. If it is resolved, a searchable/fillable version will be posted or provided to all Offerors. If it is not resolved, Offerors may print and scan a copy a signed copy of the document(s)

2.2, Table 1

Comment: In the Solicitation pdf file, pg. 48, para. 2.2, Table 1 for Volume IV Past Performance Factor, the requirement there states "…20 pages maximum to allow for introductory information, including Business Relationship page.

Question: What is the format/content for the Business Relationship page? This page is not mentioned in Section 6 & subsections containing instructions for Past Performance volume.

The Table has been updated to remove reference to Business Relationship page.

RFP

Will the Government please re-publish the SF33 and RFP PDF document so that it is searchable and so that we can fill out SF33?

Regarding the RFP is a known issue which the Government is trying to resolve. If it is resolved, a searchable/fillable version will be posted or provided to all Offerors. If it is not resolved, Offerors may print and scan a copy a signed copy of the document(s)

RFP, Section L Would the Government please clarify what is meant by "Business Relationship Page" for Past Performance volume reference in Table 1, Section 2.2 in RFP Section L?

The Table has been updated to remove reference to Business Relationship page.

RFP Do you know the order of the delivery orders to be announced? No, we do not know the order.

RFP, Section L Can you delay the submission date by one week, to 16 June 2025?

No. The Government previously provided a Draft RFP and believes 30 days for proposal submissions is sufficient time to respond to the Government's Final RFP.

Section L - 2.2 & 3.5

Section L 2.2, references "Attachment 2: Non-Governmental Advisor Consent" in accordance with Section 3.5, can the Government please provide a copy/template of this agreement?

Offers should contact the POC listed in Section L.3.5.

FMT_RFP_Attachm ent_01_BASE_SO

W_27_JAN_2025,

3.2.3

For clarification, does the term "Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), as used in section 3.2.3, refer to all changes, or is it limited to Class 1 changes only?

This will be specified by each Delivery Order.

SOW, 3.4 Per DI-SESS-81785A Section 3.3, the SEMP should contain an annotated mapping between contractor and government SE processes. Does the Government have an SE process document that contractors should use to align the contractor SEMP and Gov processes?

Government SE processes are not available. Offerors should use the tailored DID provided in RFP Attachment 09 and describe their policies and practices as they relate to the items in the

DID.

The government solicitation attachments provided in .pdf format are not in a format that is searchable and copyable. We request that the government provide copies of the solicitation documents in Microsoft Word or Adobe Portable Document Format that are searchable and copyable

Regarding the RFP is a known issue which the Government is trying to resolve. If it is resolved, a searchable/fillable version will be posted or provided to all Offerors. If it is not resolved, Offerors may print and scan a copy a signed copy of the document(s)

Section L.3.1 states, “Whether or not your firm (under the proposed CAGE Code) is listed in the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) National Pre-Award Registry (dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/pre-award/registry).” When going to that link, a “Page Not Found” error is displayed in the browser. Can the Government confirm the link?

The Government is tracking this issue and awaiting guidance. Until further guidance is provided the language has been updated to say "TBD".

Section L.2.2.5 of the RFP states that each page shall be marked “CUI/SSEL” at the top and bottom of each page and email (Section L.2.4) to the Contracting Officers, Contract Specialist, and team mailbox.

Emailing documents that are marked CUI per DoD requires encryption. Please confirm that encryption is required to email the proposal. If encryption is required, ASI would like to test the encryption email with the Government prior to the due date. Would the Government consider other delivery methods such as DoD SAFE?

See updated language in Seciton L.

Can the Government provide a word searchable solicitation document “Solicitation – W900KK25RA003”? The one available on SAM cannot be searched nor converted to a searchable document.

Regarding the RFP is a known issue which the Government is trying to resolve. If it is resolved, a searchable/fillable version will be posted or provided to all Offerors. If it is not resolved, Offerors may print and scan a copy a signed copy of the document(s)

Section L.3.1 of the RFP references FAR 52.215-1(c)(2)(v) which states that the authorized person’s signature must be “accompanied by evidence that they are authorized. What kind of evidence is the Government is looking for?

If the person is not the CEO/President/Owner/Vice president of the company, a signed letter designating an individual to make financially/contractually binding decisions for the company is required.

FOR RFP