Attachment_12_ Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 17 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Amendment 0003 to Meteorological Support Services - Reagan Test Site: Formal Request for Proposals (RFP) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W9113M-24-R-0061
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for meteorological support services at Reagan Test Site. The solicitation is a recompete of an existing contract held by Atmospheric Science Technology LLC to provide personnel, equipment, supplies and services to support mission forecasting, local weather observations, equipment maintenance and management at Reagan Test Site located in Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands. The services are required for a one-year base period and four one-year options and will be awarded by the Department of the Army Contracting Command located at Redstone Arsenal. The solicitation includes both firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract line items. Proposals are due by January 29, 2024.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 22
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question Number | Subject | Reference (PWS Section/Proposal) | Contractor Question | Government Response | |
| 1) | The government states that In order to be considered eligible for award, an offeror must be rated at least “Acceptable” in the Management and Techynical Approach, they state further in M-3 that they plan to employ combined adjectival/risk rating schemes in evaluation of the Management and Technical factors, and that risk will be assessed and integrated with each non-cost factor evaluation; therefore a separate “risk” evaluation will not be assigned. | 2.2 Local Community Meteorological Support; 2.2.1 Forecasting and Observations: | Can the gov clarify if they want hourly synoptic observations 24/7 and one Radiosonde observation at 0000Z each day? If not this then please clarify what observation and Radiosonde schedule is required. | Surface weather observations should be disseminated hourly, they are currently automated and sent our hourly, but can be manually amended/or edited to be sent out for signifcant weather events (severe thunderstorms, lightning within 10/5 nautical miles, high winds/waves/sea state. For the weather balloon and Radiosonde support, Kwajalein has an upper air sounding station that can launch weather balloons to support specific mission requirements. The daily minimum is normally at least once per day, usually at either 00:00 or 12:00Z. Occasional shortages of helium on-island at Kwajalein may result in launches only 3-4 times a week during non-mission periods. For specific missions, weather balloons may be launched every 2 hours for the mission window of interest, perhaps 4-5 weather balloons for the duration of the mission. | |
| 2) | Typical support includes a minimum of two (2) personnel providing on console support in the Huntsville Mission Control Center (HMCC) located at the Remote Operations Center-Huntsville (ROC-H) in Huntsville, Alabama and/or the Kwajalein Mission Control Center (KMCC) located at Kwajalein Atoll, RMI. | PWS 2.1.7 | PWS 2.1.7 mentions the requirement for two personnel providing on-console support at both the Huntsville Mission Control Center (HMCC) and the Kwajalein Mission Control Center (KMCC). Could the government provide historical data or insights regarding the primary location of these personnel? Specifically, is there a standard practice where they are stationed full-time at either ROC-H or KMCC, or is their location assignment typically divided between the two centers based on shifting mission requirements? | Refer to updated PWS 2.1.6. The primary location of personnel on this contract will be on Kwajalein Atoll. This is where the majority of work takes place for the mission and local community meteorology sypport. There is also the requirement to provide 2 individuals to provide on-console support located within the HMCC. | |
| 3) | Attachment_10 | Can the government provide estimated or historical workload data for the positions listed in Attachment 10? This information would greatly assist in accurately assessing staffing needs and resource allocation for these roles. | The level of effort overall for MSS service provision to RTS is based in large part on the vendors proposed management and technical forecasting approach - especially for RTS MSS sensor and system maintenance. Additionally, historical level of FTE executed is not necessarily a good indicator of current and future MSS level of effort requirements. Therefore no overall historical FTE counts will be provided.However, due to the fluctuating nature of RTS Test Mission Support, the levl of effort for Test Mission Support per year is 3.5 FTE for proposal purposes, understanding that this level of effort can change based on RTS Mission schedule/OPTEMPO. | ||
| 4) | Attachment_10 | With respect to the positions listed in Attachment 10, are these roles intended to be standalone, or is there flexibility for them to be dual-hatted, combining responsibilities with another listed position? | There is the opportunity to be dual-hatted with some personnel having combined responsibilites as another listed position. Please note that dual-hatted personnel must still met the education and experience requirements for each postion held. | ||
| 5) | How many FTEs are currently supporting this contract? | The level of effort overall for MSS service provision to RTS is based in large part on the vendors proposed management and technical forecasting approach - especially for RTS MSS sensor and system maintenance. Additionally, historical level of FTE executed is not necessarily a good indicator of current and future MSS level of effort requirements. Therefore no overall historical FTE counts will be provided.However, due to the fluctuating nature of RTS Test Mission Support, the levl of effort for Test Mission Support per year is 3.5 FTE for proposal purposes, understanding that this level of effort can change based on RTS Mission schedule/OPTEMPO. | |||
| 6) | Where are the personnel located? | The bulk of the personnel are located on Kwajalein Atoll at Ronald Reagan Balistic Missile Defense Test Site (RTS) in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). There are also 2 personnel to be located in Huntsville, AL to provide on-console support at the Huntsville Mission Control Center. | |||
| 7) | Does the government expect that the follow on contract will require the same number of FTEs at the same locations? | Yes. | |||
| 8) | Is the Chief Meteorologist currently dual hatted as the Program Manager? If yes, is this desirable to continue in the future? If no, is the Program Manager dual hatted as a different position? | Yes. It is the current makeup and would be preferred, but is not mandatory. | |||
| 9) | Will the government provide a list of contractor-furnished equipment, supplies, and facilities currently provided by the incumbent contractor? | All GFP is currently provided as Attachment 5_MSS_GFP. | |||
| 10) | Toward that end, the contractor agrees to cooperate with the successor, whether it is the Government or another contractor, in order to enhance the continuity and consistency of the services called for by the contract. In conjunction with the solicitation of offers for a follow-on contract, the contractor agrees to permit the Government to conduct site visits for other contractors at all contractor-operated facilities utilized in performance of this contract. During such visits, the contractor agrees to allow said other potential contractors to conduct on-site interviews with contractor employees for possible employment under any follow-on contract. If said employees are agreeable to the change and are accepted by the successor, then the contractor shall release them at a mutually agreeable date. | PWS 3.2.3 (pg. 12) | Will the USG consider extending the proposal due date 90 days so that offerors can plan, coordinate, and conduct site visits? | No. PWS 3.2.3 Phase -Out refers to the post-award awardee and to a pre-award offeror. This section provides for a sixty (60) day transition period from the incumbent contractor to the post-award awardee. This section does not apply to a pre-award offeror or to a potential pre-award offeror. | |
| 11) | During such visits, the contractor agrees to allow said other potential contractors to conduct on-site interviews with contractor employees for possible employment under any follow-on contract. If said employees are agreeable to the change and are accepted by the successor, then the contractor shall release them at a mutually agreeable date. | PWS 3.2.3 (pg. 12) | Will the USG provide contact data for the incumbent both in Huntsville and at the RTS? | Yes, the USG will provide incumbent contact information during the transition phase. | |
| 12) | a. Base Support: In the performance of this contract, the contractor is authorized on a | ||||
| non-charge-for-use basis (except (8) and stated exclusions in (13), (16) and (18) below), the below listed government property, facilities, and/or logistic support to the extent available at the U.S. Army Garrison - Kwajalein Atoll (USAG-KA) subject to the direction and control of the Commander, USAG-KA, or his/her designated representative. | Solicitation (pg. 21, para 1) | Will the USG please provide the current number contractor personnel that occupy Single Family Housing (FH) units and unaccompanied housing units on Kwajalein Island? | There are currently 3 Family Housing units and 7 unaccompanied Housing units being utilized by contractor personnel on Kwajalein. | ||
| 13) | Can the Government explain what providing on-console support consists of and what labor categories are associated with this role? | On-console support located at the HMCC includes, but is not limited to, providing pre & post mission briefings to the RTS Director, Mission Operations team, and Range Customers. | |||
| 14) | The government states that In order to be considered eligible for award, an offeror must be rated at least “Acceptable” in the Management and Techynical Approach, they state further in M-3 that they plan to employ combined adjectival/risk rating schemes in evaluation of the Management and Technical factors, and that risk will be assessed and integrated with each non-cost factor evaluation; therefore a separate “risk” evaluation will not be assigned. | Section M-1 Basis For Award, para C and Section M-3 Evaluation Factors For Award | Will the government provide the rubric or matrix that will be used to evaluate the Management and Technical factors and is this rubric a "acceptable" or "Non-acceptable" matrix? | The management and technical factors will be evaluated using the DoD five-level combined adjectival/risk rating approach (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable). The combined adjectival/risk rating considers risk in conjunction with the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies in determining ratings. Section M has been updated. | |
| 15) | Does the government intend to remove the DRAFT watermark from (Attachment_01_MSS_PWS_FINAL, W9113M-24-R-0061_(amendment_01), etc.) to ensure clarity? | The DRAFT watermark has been removed. | |||
| 16) | Solicitation (pg. 1) | Is it the Government's intent for the proposal due date to be on a Saturday (20 January 2024)? | The proposal due date has been extended from 20 January 2024, 11:00AM (CST) to 29 January 2024, 11:00AM (CST). | ||
| 17) | RFP Amendment 01, Section L, paragraph 1.5 Cost/Price Volume Information (p. 64) | The last sentence of the first paragraph beginning "At the contracting officer's direction, the breakout by year shall also be provided by Government Fiscal Year (GFY)." This instruction is confusing. Are offerors instructed to submit a breakdown of cost elements by Government Fiscal Year (GFY)? | The verbiage Government Fiscal Year (GFY) has been removed from the RFP, please refer to RFP amendment 02. | ||
| 18) | RFP Amendment 01, Section L, paragraph 1.8 Escalation (p. 65) | RFP Amendment 01, Section L, paragraph 1.8 Escalation (p. 65): The first sentence beginning "The prime contractor shall identify the escalation factors used for each CFY and GFY, …". It is not clear from the instruction in paragraph 1.5 whether or not cost elements are broken down by GFY (see previous question). If offerors are not instructed to breakdown cost elements by GFY, do we still identify escalation factors for each GFY and how should we present that? | The verbiage Government Fiscal Year (GFY) has been removed from the RFP, please refer to RFP amendment 02. | ||
| 19) | Attachment 12 Cost Price Schedule Template, Tab "PART 5 - Introduction" | Introduction" - On the Introduction tab, the 2nd rule refers to a TORP. The RFP doesn't refer to any TORP. Does this rule apply to this RFP? | Cost/Price Schedule Template shall be proposed in MS Excel, in the offeror’s own format; attachment 12 entitled Attachment 12_Cost/Price Schedule Template has been removed and replaced with Attachment 12_Questions and Answers, please refer to RFP amendment 02. | ||
| 20) | Attachment 12 Cost Price Schedule Template, tab "Part 5A - Total TO Summary" | The tab label and Summary table title both describe this contract as a Task Order. Is this contract anticipated to be a task order award? | Cost/Price Schedule Template shall be proposed in MS Excel, in the offeror’s own format; attachment 12 entitled Attachment 12_Cost/Price Schedule Template has been removed and replaced with Attachment 12_Questions and Answers, Please refer to RFP amendment 02. No, this contract is not anticipated to be a task order. It will be a single type “C” contract. | ||
| 21) | Attachment 12 Cost Price Schedule Template, Tab "5A - Total TO Summary" and other tabs | The template is organized by base years and option years (e.g. tab Part 5A, cells B8:F8). The base years and option years in the Attachment do not align with the RFP Section B CLINS or Section F Delivery Schedule. Should offerors adjust the Attachment spreadsheet to match the RFP periods of performance? | Cost/Price Schedule Template shall be proposed in MS Excel, in the offeror’s own format; attachment 12 entitled Attachment 12_Cost/Price Schedule Template has been removed and replaced with Attachment 12_Questions and Answers, please refer to RFP amendment 02. | ||
| 22) | Attachment 12 Cost Price Schedule Template, Tab "5A - Total TO Summary" | Cells A15:G15 include calculations for a 0.10% Contract Access Fee (CAF). This fee is not mentioned in the RFP. Will there be a CAF for this contract? | The Contract Access Fee (CAF) is associated with another contract and is not applicable to this requirement. Therefore, there is no CAF on this contract. Cost/Price Schedule Template shall be proposed in MS Excel, in the offeror’s own format; attachment 12 entitled Attachment 12_Cost/Price Schedule Template has been removed and replaced with Attachment 12_Questions and Answers, please refer to RFP amendment 02. | ||
| 23) | Attachment 12 Cost Price Schedule Template, tabs "Part 5B - Labor Hours", "Part 5B - Labor Costs", and "Part 5C - Travel and ODCs" | The worksheets are setup for only one contract type of CLINS: Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF). How should offerors breakdown cost elements for the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs? | Cost/Price Schedule Template shall be proposed in MS Excel, in the offeror’s own format. The offeror’s own format shall include all required information. Attachment 12 entitled Attachment 12_Cost/Price Schedule Template has been removed and replaced with Attachment 12_Questions and Answers, please refer to RFP amendment 02. | ||
| 24) | Attachment 12 Cost Price Schedule Template, Tab "PART 5D - Optional Data Rights" | There should not be any calculations in cells F9:F13 and H:9:H13, like the other periods. Also, the Total Data Rights (column I) does not sum all of the periods. | Cost/Price Schedule Template shall be proposed in MS Excel, in the offeror’s own format. The offeror’s own format shall include all required information. Attachment 12 entitled Attachment 12_Cost/Price Schedule Template has been removed and replaced with Attachment 12_Questions and Answers, please refer to RFP amendment 02. | ||
| 25) | RFP Amendment 01, Section L, paragraph 1.10 Escalation (p. 65) and Attachment 12 Cost Price Schedule Template | The RFP separates direct materials from ODCs and provides instructions to treat them as subcontracts. The Attachment 12 only allows for labor hour services as subcontracts (in the two Tabs 5B). How should offerors present material costs in the Attachment? | Cost/Price Schedule Template shall be proposed in MS Excel, in the offeror’s own format. The offeror’s own format shall include all required information. Attachment 12 entitled Attachment 12_Cost/Price Schedule Template has been removed and replaced with Attachment 12_Questions and Answers, please refer to RFP amendment 02. | ||
| 26) | Is this a new requirement or a contract re-compete? If this is a re-compete, what is the current contract number? Who is the incumbent? | The solicitation posted is a re-compete of current contract requirements W9113M-19-C-0093 with Atmospheric Science Technology LLC. |
&"-,Bold"D3I TORP X-XXXX Questions and Answers Procurement Sensitive Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 &"-,Bold"DD MONTH YY&"-,Regular"
Procurement Sensitive Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Do Not Release Beyond ACC-RSA/CAMO, SMDC/ARSTRAT, and D3I Prime Contractors/Subcontractors Public Release and Release Beyond Listed Entities Is Strictly Prohibited
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .