D3I2 D1 DRFP QandAs_26Apr24.pdf

Question # Document Reference Page # Vendor Question(s) Government Answer(s)

DRFP Section L- 6.5.a.(1) 83

Please confirm that a firm certifying as a SDVOSB and WOSB can count as a SB, SDVOSB, WOSB, and a VOSB. Yes, the example provided is correct. For clarification, the example will be revised in the RFP.

DRFP Section L- 5.k.(2)1, Content Requirement

l. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, and to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents (to include a list of figures, if applicable), Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. Note - All proposal information shall be submitted in the correct volume as specified in Section L. The Government evaluation team will neither look for nor evaluate misplaced information that is in other volumes.

Can the Government please confirm that first page of each volume should contain the Summary Section AND that it is not included in the page limitation of the section overall.

Per DRFP Section L-5.k.(2)1, each file of the proposal shall contain a summary section. Note that the Government intends to update the RFP to exclude the Summary Section from countable pages and state that the Summary Section shall be no more than one (1) page in length.

SOW Paragraphs 1.2.1, 3.2.7 and 2.1.2

3, 21, and 4

The DRAFT SOW is ambiguous regarding delivering services and products with the contract.

Paragraph section 1.2.1 states, "USASMDC requires a contractual vehicle that will fulfill a gap in the ability to design, develop, demonstrate and integrate products...", paragraph 3.2.7 "LIMITED QUANTITY PRODUCTION" and elsewhere in the DRFP. However, paragraph 2.1.2 states "This is an R&D Services contract". 2.1.2 is ambiguous as appears to limit contractual deliveries to services without delivering any products which contrasts requirements identified for delivering products in other locations.

In light of this ambiguity, would the government change paragraph 2.1.2 to state "This is an R&D services and products contract" or clarify that no products are to be delivered?

No, the SOW will not be changed. D3I2 is an R&D services contract vehicle.

However, as stated in Section J Attachment, Special Contract Instructions, Section 3.0, paragraph b, "This contract allows for the purchase of materials (as defined by FAR 45.101, Definitions), equipment (as defined by FAR 45.101, Definitions), hardware, software, contractor acquired services (see paragraph e below), and in some cases special test equipment (STE) in direct support of the individual task orders. In addition, the requirements include delivery, product transition, fielding, sustainment, operations, and maintenance of research and development (R&D) projects, R&D systems and sub-systems, and prototypes."

DRFP Section L-4.c and L-4.f, Submission of Proposals 72-73

The DRFP states that the offeror and major subcontractors shall submit electronic files of each volume through PIEE however it then states that major subcontractors are to submit through DoD SAFE.

Can the Government confirm the submission site requirement for both offeror and major subcontractors, PIEE or DoD SAFE?

All major subcontractor proposals and the Volume II, Gateway Criteria, shall be submitted through DOD SAFE. All other Volumes shall be submitted by the offeror through PIEE. RFP Section L-4 will be revised to clarify these instructions.

DRFP Section L- 6.1.c, Volume II:

General Information, Part 3: SF33, Solicitation Documents and Certification/Represen tation

The DRFP states that Section K and other applicable fill-ins for major subcontractors or team members must be included in Volume I.

Can the Government confirm the completed Section K and other applicable fill-ins for major subcontractors shall be submitted by the major subcontractors in their un-sanitized packages vice being included in the Offeror's Volume I?

The offeror (prime) and JV partners must complete section K. Major subcontractors will be removed from this requirement in the RFP.

N/A

N/A

Will the government be providing a classified RFP (partial or full) for this acquisition? The D3I2 solicitation will be unclassified. Note that per DRFP Section L-5.f, proposals shall not contain classified information. However, it is likely that some task order requests for proposals will be classified and will be handled in accordance with the applicable security classification guide.

Disclaimer: The Government responses to industry questions should not be considered a guarantee of the Government's course of action in proceeding with the acquisition. The information provided reflects current Government intentions of how the acquisition will be carried out and is subject to change based on a variety of circumstances, including input from contractors. The final, formal solicitation is the only document that is relied upon in determining the Government's requirement.

Design, Development, Demonstration and Integration (D3I2) Domain 1 Industry Questions & Government Answers

SOW Para. 3.2.2.6

Will the Government designate PWS 3.2.2.6. as a critical performance requirement (CPR)? The rationale is that effectively executing this PR minimizes non-recurring engineering and capitalizes on existing investments. This is also critical in shared mission space and interoperability of capabilities.

The Government does not anticipate adding SOW paragraph 3.2.2.6 to the critical performance requirements at this time.

SOW Para. 3.2.4.5.5

Will the Government designate PWS 3.2.4.5.5. as a critical performance requirement (CPR). The rationale is that the Army and joint force are data driven and this should be critical interest area for D3I2 primes to address and may provide an additional evaluation / discrimination method for source selection. Such a data management requirement becomes even more important when accounting for operations in a disconnected, denied, intermittent and/or with limited bandwidth (D/DIL) environment. It is recommended that this not be an afterthought.

The Government does not anticipate adding SOW paragraph 3.2.4.5.5 to the critical performance requirements at this time.

SOW Para. 3.2.4.5.7

Will the Government designate PWS 3.2.4.5.7. as a critical performance requirement (CPR). The rationale is that the Army is a data-centric warfighting organization and operates on different systems and on different security domains. Consequently, operational units and staffs at the right levels must have access to timely data.

The Government does not anticipate adding SOW paragraph 3.2.4.5.7 to the critical performance requirements at this time.

N/A

N/A

Would the Government please create a separate subcontractor cost price proposal worksheet and adjust the current Attachment_05_-_D3I2_D1_Cost_Price_Proposal_Worksheet02_APR_2024 tabs for major subs to show their Fully Burdened Labor Rate plus the prime’s loads?

No. Major subcontractors are to use the RFP Attachment 05 to provide the details of the major subcontract fully burdened labor rates (FBLRs) and their build-ups to include the major subcontract offeror's base labor rates, any applicable indirect rate(s)/burden(s), and fee. Offerors shall input the build-up of major subcontractor FBLRs with prime offeror prime pass-through costs into tabs "Major Sub X Rate Build-up - CONUS" and "Major Sub X Rate Build-up - High-Cost CONUS" of Attachment 05. Please refer to tab "Instructions" of Attachment 05 for instructions on how to complete the Attachment 05.

DRFP Section L-6.6.f, Volume VI: Cost/Price

Confirm that submission of a valid FPRP notification is acceptable for validating approved indirect rates & TCP. If the prime has submitted an indirect rates Forward Pricing Rate Proposal to our DCMA CACO, can a copy of the Forward Pricing Rate Proposal letter and a copy of DCMA’s Forward Pricing Rate Proposal notification letter be an acceptable replacement for the total compensation plan as currently included in Attachment_05_- _D3I2_D1_Cost_Price_Proposal_Worksheet02_APR_2024

Offerors shall follow the instructions at RFP Section L-6.6(d)(5)(iv)2 for supporting its indirect rates. As stated in RFP Section L-6.6(d)(5)(iv)2(d), "If the proposed rates are not based on a FPRA or FPRR, then the offeror shall provide an indirect rate proposal for the budgeted/forecasted rates used in this proposal. The indirect rate proposal shall provide the total pool and base amounts for each indirect rate proposed. Also, provide the actual indirect rate history for the prior three years for all proposed indirect rates not supported by an FPRA or FPRR, showing the historical total pool and base amounts. If a comparison of this procurement’s proposed rates to prior year rates is not applicable, so state and state the reason for differences. If the difference between the former year and current year rates may appear excessive, provide rationale and supporting documentation for the differences."

Regarding the second question, no.

Design, Development, Demonstration and Integration (D3I2)

DRFP Section L- 6.3.a, Volume III:

Technical, Part 1:

Technical Approaches and Solutions

L-6.3.a - PART 1: Technical Approaches and Solutions. (Reference Section M-3.a(1).)

As relating to each Technical Support Area (TSA) within the basic contract SOW, the offeror shall provide a detailed description of the planned technical solutions for accomplishing each performance requirement of the basic contract SOW critical performance requirements (CPRs) listed below:

• SOW Section 3.2.2 (Design), as well as subsections 3.2.2.2, 3.2.2.3, and 3.2.2.4;

• SOW Section 3.2.3 (Development), as well as subsections 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.5, 3.2.3.6, 3.2.3.8, 3.2.3.10, and 3.2.3.11;

• SOW Section 3.2.4 (Integration), as well as subsections 3.2.4.1, 3.2.4.2, 3.2.4.3, 3.2.4.4, and 3.2.4.5 (including subsections 3.2.4.5.2, 3.2.4.5.4, 3.2.4.5.6, and 3.2.4.5.10);

• SOW Section 3.2.5 (Demonstration, Testing, and Experimentation), as well as subsections 3.2.5.2 (and all subsections), 3.2.5.4, 3.2.5.5, 3.2.5.8 (not including subsections), and 3.2.5.9 (not including subsections);

• SOW Section 3.2.6 (Assessment, Evaluation, Verification, and Wargaming), as well as subsections 3.2.6.1, 3.2.6.2, 3.2.6.4, and 3.2.6.5; and

• SOW Section 3.2.7 (Limited Quantity Production), as well as subsection 3.2.7.1.

This list of CPRs is unclear as written. Should offerors provide detailed descriptions of solutions for each performance requirement (PR) in SOW Section 3.2.2 “as well as” 3.2.2.2, 3.2.2.3, and 3.2.2.4. Or are those three Level-4 SOW elements the Critical Performance Requirements (CPRs) and all that the offeror is required to address? Can the Government please clarify this ambiguity in CPR with respect to the use of “as well as” in the reference above?

Offerors shall provide a detailed description of the planned technical solutions for accomplishing each critical performance requirement. For example, an offeror's proposal should address planned technical solutions for SOW paragraphs 3.2.2, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.2.3, and 3.2.2.4, but are not required to address SOW paragraphs 3.2.2.1 or 3.2.2.5 through 3.2.2.11.

DRFP Section L- 6.3.b, Volume III:

Technical, Part 2:

Corporate Technical Capabilities and Experience

80-81

As relating to each TSA within the basic contract SOW, the following CPRs will be addressed as stated above:

• SOW Section 3.2.2 (Design), as well as subsections 3.2.2.2, 3.2.2.3, and 3.2.2.4;

• SOW Section 3.2.3 (Development), as well as subsections 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.5, 3.2.3.6, 3.2.3.8, 3.2.3.10, and 3.2.3.11;

• SOW Section 3.2.4 (Integration), as well as subsections 3.2.4.1, 3.2.4.2, 3.2.4.3, 3.2.4.4, and 3.2.4.5 (including subsections 3.2.4.5.2, 3.2.4.5.4, 3.2.4.5.6, and 3.2.4.5.10);

• SOW Section 3.2.5 (Demonstration, Testing, and Experimentation), as well as subsections 3.2.5.2 (and all subsections), 3.2.5.4, 3.2.5.5, 3.2.5.8 (not including subsections), and 3.2.5.9 (not including subsections);

• SOW Section 3.2.6 (Assessment, Evaluation, Verification, and Wargaming), as well as subsections 3.2.6.1, 3.2.6.2, 3.2.6.4, and 3.2.6.5; and

• SOW Section 3.2.7 (Limited Quantity Production), as well as subsection 3.2.7.1.

This list of CPRs is unclear as written. Should offerors provide detailed descriptions of solutions for each performance requirement (PR) in SOW Section 3.2.2 “as well as” 3.2.2.2, 3.2.2.3, and 3.2.2.4. Or are those three Level-4 SOW elements the Critical Performance Requirements (CPRs) and all that the offeror is required to address? Can the Government please clarify this ambiguity in CPR with respect to the use of “as well as” in the reference above?

Offerors shall provide a detailed description of the planned technical solutions for accomplishing each critical performance requirements. For example, an offeror's proposal should address planned technical solutions for SOW paragraphs 3.2.2, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.2.3, and 3.2.2.4, but are not required to address SOW paragraphs 3.2.2.1 or 3.2.2.5 through 3.2.2.11.

Attachment 4 - Special K Instructions, Section 7.0

Will the Government establish a classified reading room for D3I2 Domain 1 which allows contractor access to task order-level data AND include USASMDC and ACC-RSA Space, Missile Defense, and Special Programs (SMD/SP) SEC interim guidance and the USASMDC Security Classification Guide (SCG)? Industry recommends a list of previous, existing, and future task orders along with standard procurement parameters to deliver a full scope solution. Recommended parameters for each task order are: Task order title, contract number, period of performance, place of performance, security level, end user organization, technical monitor name, COR name, incumbent prime, total contract value, and total obligated value.

The Government will not establish a classified reading room for the D3I2 Domain 1 requirement. The Government is responsible for and prioritizes safeguarding classified and secure environment contracting information. Per the DRFP special notice, the Government does not intend to provide a repository of predecessor requirements at this time. However, vendors may access unclassified predecessor requirements through the Electronic Data Access application within PIEE. The following link provides the general steps in gaining access to the PIEE suite (https://piee.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/web/homepage/vendorGettingStartedHelp.xh tml).

Design, Development, Demonstration and Integration (D3I2)

N/A

N/A

Will the Government provide a list of task orders and associated documents for each task order: SOW / PWS, solicitation, CPARS, CDRLs, contract issued to the prime?

Vendors may access unclassified predecessor requirements through the Electronic Data Access application within PIEE. The following link provides the general steps in gaining access to the PIEE suite (https://piee.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/web/homepage/vendorGettingStartedHelp.xh tml).

DRFP Section L- 6.3.c, Volume III: Technical, Part 3: Transition Out/Transition In

Will the Government clarify its intent regarding the phrase “to ensure full continuity of TO support from predecessor contract TOs with minimal disruption in mission”? Specifically, is the Government’s intent that there will be a one-for-one D3I TO to D3I2 TO transition necessitating due diligence and knowledge transfer between old (D3I) and new (D3I2) prime contractors, OR is the Government referring to its ‘general’ mission support being provided by the set of D3I TOs and the replacement of that ‘general’ support by the issuance of TOs under D3I2?

It is anticipated that most active task orders on the D3I Domain 1 contract vehicle will transition to the D3I2 contract at the end of their period of performance (which varies by task order). The Government cannot confirm if there will be a one-to-one transition because this will be determined during task order solicitation and evaluation under the resulting D3I2 D1 basic contracts. However, the Government will evaluate an offeror's capability and capacity to transition out/transition in resources and personnel effectively to ensure full continuity of task order support from predecessor contract task orders with minimal disruption in task order missions.

DRFP Section L- 6.3.c, Volume III Technical, Part 3: Transition Out/Transition In

If the Government’s intent in the prior question is a one-for-one D3I TO to a D3I2 TO, will the Government clarify its intent concerning “staff and utilize a workforce capable of immediately accomplishing requirements…”? Is it the Gov’t’ intent that TO service delivery commence immediately upon TO award or that there is a ‘transition’ period following the award of newly issued TOs to enable a seamless transition out of resources from the predecessor contract (including due diligence and knowledge transfer) and the transition in of newly issued TO resources with an assumption of service delivery responsibility by the D3I2 contractor under the newly issued TO at the end of the transition period?

The Government anticipates that most task orders will have a transition period. However, work is expected to commence immediately upon task order issuance. Per Section L-6.3.c., the offeror shall have the capability and capacity to transition out/transition in resources and personnel effectively and efficiently.

DRFP Section L- 6.3.c, Volume III Technical, Part 3:

Transition Out/Transition In 81

By Transition Out, is the Government referring to the seamless replacement of existing support (transition out) from a D3I task order while transitioning in support under a newly issued D3I2 TO?

Yes. It is anticipated that current D3I task orders will transition to D3I2 at the end of their period of performance (which varies by task order). The offeror shall provide the capability and capacity to transition out/transition in resources and personnel effectively and efficiently as task orders are issued under the resulting contract to ensure full continuity of task order support from predecessor contract task orders with minimal disruption in task order missions.

DRFP Section L- 5.k.(1), Format 75-76

Will the Government allow the use of an 11x17 page size for larger graphics or charts? No.

DRFP Section L- 5.k.(2)1, Content Requirement

Content Requirement: Per DRFP, Section L, a Summary Section is required for each file. Can we assume that the Summary Section is excluded from the page limit? Also, do we need to provide a Summary for the Excel Files?

The Government intends to update the RFP to exclude the Summary Section from countable pages and state that the Summary Section shall be no more than one (1) page in length.

Regarding the second question, the Government intends to update the RFP to exclude the Summary Section from Cost Volume Excel spreadsheet files.

Design, Development, Demonstration and Integration (D3I2)

6.5.a.(1), Volume V – Small Business Participation (SBP)

Will the Gov’t provide a percentage of task orders anticipated for each of the TSA areas tied to the $514M, or 1/5 value to help establish a common basis for determining and establishing SBP goals aligned to projected TOs by technology support areas?

Rationale: This will provide the Gov’t evaluators with a common basis from all bidders, for evaluation purposes, and help the Offeror accurately align SBs to projected TSA requirements and establish the complexity and variety of work anticipated to be performed under this contract.

No. The Small Business (SB) Participation factor will evaluate the extent to which offerors identify and commit to SB concerns, regardless of the TSAs associated with any given task order issued. Vendors may access unclassified predecessor requirements through the Electronic Data Access application within PIEE. The following link provides the general steps in gaining access to the PIEE suite:

https://piee.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/web/homepage/vendorGettingStartedHelp.xht ml to make independent assessments.

SOW Para. 3.2.3, Development

The contractor shall develop hardware and/or software systems necessary to build/fabricate prototypes or limited production quantities of systems as defined in each TO utilizing modern software development methodologies with continuous integration/continuous delivery (such as Agile and development, security, and operations [DevSecOps]) to support rapid delivery and to demonstrate functionality, performance, or feasibility of mission capabilities.

Will the Govt provide a preferred DevSecOps environment with CI/CD tools or is that up to the Awarded Contractor to provide their own?

No. Requirements will be tailored at the task order level. If a preferred DevSecOps environment with CI/CD tools is required to be used, it will state so in the task order performance work statement.

DRFP Section L-5.e

L-5.e states, “All paragraphs, tables, schematics, etc. of each volume/appendix shall be appropriately labeled, numbered, and cross-referenced in the applicable proposal narrative.”

Question: Can the Government clarify that any graphic, table, schematic, etc., must have a label (title), number, and be cross-referenced in the narrative? Or is the Government’s intent that each written paragraph (that is part of a section or subsection) have a label (title), number, and be cross-referenced within the proposal narrative?

Regarding question one, yes.

Regarding question two: Per RFP Section L-5.e., all pages of the proposal shall be numbered. Additionally, per the noted RFP section all paragraphs, tables, schematics, etc. of each volume/appendix shall be appropriately labeled, numbered, and cross-referenced in the applicable proposal narrative.

Specifically, as to paragraphs, only main paragraphs/section and second level subparagraphs/subsections shall be labeled.

DRFP Section L-5.e

L-5.e states, “For proposal table of contents, all proposal paragraphs/subparagraphs shall be numbered, but only main paragraphs/section and second level subparagraphs/subsections shall be labeled.”

Question: Can the Government confirm that main (first level) and second level sections/subsections should be numbered, labeled (titled), and included in the proposal table of contents? Or does the Government intend that every paragraph in the proposal (as well as every first and second-level section/subsection) be numbered, and this numbering included in the proposal table of contents?

Regarding question one, yes.

Regarding question two: Per RFP Section L-5.e., all pages of the proposal shall be numbered. Additionally, per the noted RFP section all paragraphs, tables, schematics, etc. of each volume/appendix shall be appropriately labeled, numbered, and cross-referenced in the applicable proposal narrative.

Specifically, as to paragraphs, only main paragraphs/section and second level subparagraphs/subsections shall be labeled.

Attachment 4 - Special K Instructions- Section 1.0, paragraph c.

Attachment 04 cites CDRL A111, which is not included in Exhibit A CDRLs. Would the Government clarify the CDRL cited in Attachment 04?

The Government has verified that CDRL A111, List of Subcontractors Report, is provided in Exhibit A, Contract Data Requirements List.

DRFP Section B, CLINs 0005 and 1005 Pages 6 and 9

Is the cost type for CLIN 0005 CDRLs the same as CLIN 1005 CDRLs, i.e., FFP? Would the Government confirm that cost type FFP is correct for CDRL delivery, or should this cost type be changed to Not Separately Priced

(NSP)?

CLINs 0005 and 1005 are Not Separately Priced. The descriptions for each CLIN will be updated in the RFP.

DRFP Section B, CLINs 0006/1006 and 0007/1007

Pages 7 and 10 Would the Government confirm that CLINs 0006/1006 Service Contract Reporting and CLINs 0007/1007 Reporting of CAP are cost type FFP, or should this cost type be changed to Not Separately Priced (NSP)?

CLINs 0006 and 1006 are Not Separately Priced. The descriptions for each CLIN will be updated in the RFP.

Design, Development, Demonstration and Integration (D3I2)

DRFP Section L-5.b and L-5.k.(1), Format

73 and 75-76

Section L-5b states landscape pages are allowed for charts, tables, and graphs; however, Width and height are proscribed in L-5k(1). These two instructions conflict with each other. Can the government please clarify?

Per RFP Section L-5.b., all proposal pages, except those containing cost/pricing data in the Cost/Price Volume or specific portions of other volumes as noted herein, shall be in portrait or landscape to accommodate letter size (8.5” x 11”) paper.

However, Section L-5.k(1) will be revised in the RFP to clarify that pages may either 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 8.5" depending on page orientation.

DRFP Section L- 5.k.(2)1, Content Requirement

Is the Summary Section included in countable pages/page limitations? No. The Government intends to update the RFP to exclude the Summary

Section from countable pages and state that the Summary Section shall be no more than one (1) page in length.

DRFP Section L-6.5, Table L-6.2, Minimum SBP Goals

Is the expectation that contractors will meet the 25% SB goal as well as the goals for the sub-categories for each task order, or will the 25% SB goal be averaged across all awarded task orders?

The overall SB Participation goal, as well as each socioeconomic goal, will be tracked as an average of all issued task-orders and not on individual task-orders.

DRFP Section L-6.5, Table L-6.2, Minimum SBP Goals

Can the market research be provided that supports the 25% small business goal? No; the Government cannot release internal decision documents.

Attachment 9a Tab 2, SBP Percentages; Tab

3, SB Firms Identification

Are the small businesses and associated subcontract values to be rough estimates based on the notional contract value? Is the contractor required to include all potential small businesses that may be awarded scope?

It is the offeror's responsibility to develop a plan to meet its proposed goals.

The RFP will require a list of small businesses that will make up these goals with assigned notional dollars.

Attachment 4 - Special K Instructions, Section 1.0, para.

a.(4)

How does the Gov't intend to enforce the non-recognition of exclusive agreements between the Prime and Subcontractor arrangements? And will this have impacts to the grading evaluation of an Offeror's proposal?

The Government encourages teaming but will not recognize exclusive teaming arrangements between prime contract offerors/subcontractors and their team members. Thus, a proposal containing an exclusive teaming arrangement will not be assessed a finding regarding the teaming arrangement (i.e., no significant strength, strength, significant weakness, weakness, or deficiency). However, all offerors must ensure that they avoid violations of Federal anti-trust/anti-competitive laws/regulations (examples include collusive bidding, follow-the-leader pricing, rotated low bids, collusive price estimating systems, and sharing of the business) (See FAR Subpart 3.3.) Additionally, all offerors must also comply with applicable Federal laws/regulations concerning organizational conflicts of interest. (See FAR Subpart 9.5.)

Attachment 5 - Cost/Price Worksheet, Tabs 1a and 2

N/A

Will execution of the base and option contracts be bound at the rates provided in the D3I2 D1 Cost Price Proposal Worksheet? Will there be opportunities to update rates?

According to RFP Attachment 04, 2.0 TO Procedures,e.(2)(b), "For estimating purposes of CPFF TOP labor, an offeror will use the cost per hour rates, fee per hour rates, and total FBLR rates established in the appropriate contract rate tables to calculate the TOP’s CPFF total cost, fixed fee and total price."

Regarding the second question, the Government anticipates providing an opportunity to update rates at some point during contract performance.

N/A

N/A Will the Government be holding another Industry Day after the final RFP is issued? No.

Design, Development, Demonstration and Integration (D3I2)

N/A

N/A

Does the government plan on having any on-ramps for D3I2 Domain 1 in the future after the award of the D3I2 Domain 1 IDIQ? If we are not one of the companies awarded the MA-IDIQ, will we have opportunities to compete in future task orders?

Per SOW paragraph 4.6 (and subparagraphs), the Government will assess the overall health of the D3I2 program following the conclusion of the first 48 months of contract performance. (However, note that the USG reserves the right to conduct a ramp on/ramp off assessment and implementation at any time during the basic contract base ordering period or basic contract optional ordering period, respectively). The purpose of this review will be to assess the demonstrated viability of each prime contractor team in terms of competing for, winning, and successfully performing future task order requirements under the D3I2 program. This assessment shall be based on the following criteria.

Note that only a prime contractor awarded a basic contract under a given domain (D1 or D2) will be eligible to compete for TO requirements under that specific domain (such that a D3I2 D2 awardee cannot compete for a D3I2 D1 TO requirement).

DRFP Section A2, para. 9 4

"As stated in Section J, Attachment 04, entitled D3I2 D1 Special Contract Instructions, TOs will be awarded on a best value basis." Can the government expand on the definition of “best value basis”?

No. Each task order competition will provide instructions for basis of the task order award and best value/tradeoff approach.

DRFP Section L-6.6.c and Section M-3.d.(3), Reasonableness 85 and 98

Since only rate tables (not actual costs) will be submitted to the government for the IDIQ RFP, can the government please explain what is meant by determining cost reasonableness? (As stated in Section L-6.6 VOLUME VI – COST/PRICE, Section c. General Instructions and in Section M-3. EVALUATION CRITERIA. FACTOR 4:

COST/PRICE, (3) Reasonableness) Would like a better understanding of how the government will evaluate our rate tables and if the cost reasonableness applies only to future task order proposals.

As described in Section M-3.d.(3), the Contract Rate Tables will be evaluated to determine if they are reasonable. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate competition, but also may be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

SOW Para. 3.2.3.7 and Section L-6.3.a (bullet 2)

SOW page14 and RFP page 80

Background : SOW 3.2.3.7 requires creation of “Digital Twins of systems that replicate or emulate the as-built system to facilitate system upgrades and fixes throughout the lifecycle.”, but Section L-6.3.a (bullet 2) doesn’t include 3.2.3.7 as a critical performance requirement (CPR) that must be addressed as part of the offeror’s technical solicitation.

Digital twins supporting both conceptual and as-built systems is a design and development best practice that has become nearly mandatory for low-risk, efficiently and optimally designed programs. For example, DoDI 5000.97 (12/21/23) notes “Programs started after the date of the policy will incorporate digital engineering during development unless the program’s decision authority provides an exception.” and “Digital Engineering is a critical practice necessary to develop modern, complex systems in an environment of dynamic threats and rapidly evolving technologies.”

Recommendation: Given the current DoD emphasis on digital engineering (and digital twin), we recommend SOW

3.2.3.7 be reworded as “The contractor shall create Digital Twins of systems that replicate or emulate conceptual and as-built systems to facilitate system AoAs, designs, upgrades and fixes throughout the lifecycle” and added as a CPR to L-6.3.a (bullet 2).

Recommendation partially accepted. The Government will update the RFP to add SOW para. 3.2.3.7 as a critical performance requirement.

DRFP Section L-6.3.b and Section M-3.a.(2) 80-81 and 96

Please confirm that the corporate technical capabilities and experience is to collectively address all TSAs. In relation to each Technical Support Area, offerors are expected to discuss their capabilities and experience as relates to the critical performance requirement(s).

Design, Development, Demonstration and Integration (D3I2)

DRFP Section M- 3.a.(2), Corporate Technical Capabilities and Experience

Please confirm that the evaluation of corporate technical capabilities and experience is collective, such that all 3 examples will be given one evaluation score/grade.

Each proposal example will be evaluated and may be assessed a finding (or assessed as meeting the requirement), which is then used in determining the overall factor rating (note that while there are three parts that comprise this factor; there are no subfactors). Note that adjectival ratings, provided in Section M-4.a.(2), will be applied at the factor level (e.g. Technical or Management). These ratings include the consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, significant weaknesses, strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies, as applicable, identified in the evaluation of the Technical Factor and Management Factor. Given that subfactors are not used, an adjectival rating will not be applied to the individual parts of a factor (e.g.

Technical Approaches and Solutions; Corporate Technical Capabilities and Experience; or Transititon Out/Transition In).

DRFP Section B, CLIN X004 6 & 9

Will the Government please clarify what the "RESERVED" CLIN X004 is for? CLINs 0004 and 1004 are Not Separately Priced. These are placeholders to align the D3I2 Domain 1 CLIN numbering sequence with the D3I2 Domain 2 CLIN numbering sequence.

DRFP Section B, CLIN X005 6 & 9

Will the Government clarify whether CLIN X005 should be NSP or is the Government truly seeking proposed prices for these CLINs?

CLINs 0005 and 1005 are Not Separately Priced. The descriptions for each CLIN will be updated in the RFP.

DRFP Section B, CLIN X006 7 & 10

CLIN X006 is for Service Contract Reporting - if the awardee uses overhead labor to conduct this task, would they price this at $0 for task orders?

CLINs 0006 and 1006 are Not Separately Priced. The descriptions for each CLIN will be updated in the RFP.

DRFP Section G1, para. a. 17

The second to the last statement seems incomplete - "a person other than the…" Will the Government please review and clarify that statement?

Statement will be updated to "a person other than the KO be effective or binding upon the Government."

DRFP Section G1, para. b. 17

Will the Government please clarify whether the intent of this paragraph is only to provide the mailing addresses when needed, or if correspondence has to be through mail with the contracting officer, the COR, or the PM, and not through email?

The intent is to provide the mailing/physical addresses of the contracting offices when needed.

DRFP Section I, Clauses 252.227- 7013 and 252.227-

37-55

The clauses 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014 in Section I of the solicitation contain fill-ins. Please clarify if offerors are required to fill them in for the IDIQ proposal, or if these are fill-in to be completed only at the TO level.

These are fill-ins to be completed at the task order level.

DRFP Section K, Clause 52.209-7 59

The provision 52.209-7 in Section K includes check boxes for the offerors to complete. Will the Government please provide this provision by full text? If not, please advise whether any actions are required of the offerors in relation to this provision.

Provision 52.209-7 will be changed to "full text" in the RFP.

DRFP Section K, Clause 52.230-1 59

The provision 52.230-1 in Section K contains checks boxes and fill-in fields. Will the Government please provide this provision by full text? If not, please advise whether any actions are required of the offerors in relation to this provision.

Provision 52.230-1 will be changed to "full text" in the RFP.

DRFP Section K, Clause 52.230-7 59

The provision 52.230-7 in Section K includes check boxes for the offerors to complete. Will the Government please provide this provision by full text? If not, please advise whether any actions are required of the offerors in relation to this provision.

Provision 52.230-7 will be changed to "full text" in the RFP.

DRFP Section I, Clause 52.225-3 and Section K, Clauses 52.204-8 and 52.225-

23 and 61

52.204-8 within Section K states that 52.225-4 applies if 52.225-3 is contained in the solicitation. Section I includes 52.225-3. Please clarify if the offeror is required to provide the required fill-ins for 52.225-4 in the IDIQ proposal. If so, please provide specific instructions on how this information should be provided in the proposal.

Provision 52.225-4 is applicable at the task order level and the fill-ins are not required to be submitted in the proposal.

DRFP Section L-1.a.

and Section L-2.e.

71 and 72

Section L-1.a. states an offeror may propose as a prime and also be in a teaming arrangement with another prime as a subcontractor; however, Section L-2.e. states awardees shall ensure that new team members are not prime contractors in the same domain. These two sections seem to conflict. Will the Government please clarify?

Note that RFP Section L-1.a. is in reference to teaming arrangements in the offeror's proposal and Section L-2.e. is in reference to teaming arrangements after contract award.

DRFP Section L-4.f.

Would the Government consider allowing major subcontractors to submit their unsanitized proposals through PIEE? No.

Design, Development, Demonstration and Integration (D3I2)

6.1.c. 77

For Volume I Part 3, the completed SF33, Solicitation Documents, and Certification/Representation, will the Government allow the offeror to provide the completed/signed SF33 to include all sections as a separate PDF file attachment to Volume I to preserve its formatting?

No. Per RFP Section L-5 j. "**No more than one (1) electronic file shall be submitted per part." This is applicable to Volume I, Part 3.

DRFP Section L- 6.1.c. 77

The instructions note to provide signed acknowledgements of all issued RFP amendments. Please clarify if this means the amendments and dates need to be listed in the front page of the SF33 or if the Government is requiring the offerors to include sign SF30s as well.

Block 14 of the SF 33 shall be completed and each SF 30 shall be signed and included, if issued.

DRFP Section L- 6.1.c. 77

The instructions state to see FAR 4.102 for signature requirements. Please confirm this relates only to the SF33. This relates only to the SF33.

DRFP Section L- 6.1.c.

The instructions state to see FAR 4.102 for signature requirements. Please clarify if the Government is requiring the offerors to provide evidence of signature authority for the prime and sub entities. If so, please clarify if a letter provided by each entity signed by an office of the entity stating the signatory’s authority would be sufficient.

The RFP does not require proof of signature authority.

DRFP Section L- 6.2.b.2, TS Safeguarding

79-80

To pass the Gate Two FCL criteria, can the prime offeror provide the NISS printout for its CAGE code showing a TS FCL and Secret Safeguarding, along with a NISS printout of another CAGE code of an entity that shares the same parent company that has the TS Safeguarding capability? For example, Company A is the prime offeror and has a TS FCL and Secret Safeguarding. Company B is the immediate owner and parent company of Company A.

Company B is also the immediate owner and parent company of Company C and Company C has a TS safeguarding capability.

To pass Gate Two: FCL criteria, the offeror does not have to have TS Safeguarding at time of proposal. An offeror must only demonstrate the capability to request and obtain TS safeguarding. Per Section L-6.2.b.2., the prime contract offeror (the entity that will be awarded the resulting prime contract) shall demonstrate the capability to request and obtain TS safeguarding at the time of proposal submission by submitting a DCSA print-out from the NISS that demonstrates that the prime contract offeror is currently approved for a TS FCL. Note that, per Sections L-6.2.b.2, a prime contractor can only flow down the TS safeguarding requirement to a subcontractor/team member if both the prime contractor and subcontractor/teammate meet the TS safeguarding requirement.

DRFP Section L- 6.2.b.2, TS Safeguarding

79-80

Section L-6.2.b.2 states that the prime contract offeror…shall demonstrate the capability to request and obtain TS safeguarding at the time of proposal submission by submitting a DCSA print-out from the NISS that demonstrates that the prime contract offeror is currently approved for a TS FCL. Please confirm the prime contract offeror only needs to demonstrate it is approved for a TS FCL at the time of proposal in order to receive a basic contract DD Form 254 requiring further TS Safeguarding which they will need to request and obtain in order propose on future task orders.

To demonstrate an offeror's capability to request and obtain TS safeguarding at the time of proposal submission, an offeror shall submit a DCSA print-out from the NISS that demonstrates that the prime contract offeror is currently approved for a TS FCL. Once a contract has been awarded, the prime contractor shall request and obtain TS safeguarding in order to propose on future task orders.

DRFP Section L- 6.2.b.1 and Section L- 6.2.b.2

79-80

Section L-6.2.b.1 and L-6.2.b.2 state the prime contract offeror shall provide written evidence as of the time of proposal submission of a current TS FCL by providing a DCSA print-out from NISS to demonstrate that the prime contract offeror is currently approved for a TS FCL.

Given that the NISS print-outs are CUI, will the Government allow the offeror to submit Government CUI documents in a separate file attachment from Volume II?

No. An offeror may submit CUI information so long as the document is marked properly. Note that, per Section L-5.j., no more that one (1) electronic file shall be submitted per part. Therefore, for Volume II, no more than three

(3) electronic files shall be submitted. (i.e., the NISS print-out should be merged into the other electronic file for that part).

DRFP Section L- 6.1.b.(2) and Section L-6.6.a., 5th paragraph

76-77 and 85

It appears the offeror’s and major subcontractors’ DCMA/DCAA information is required in both Volume I (Executive Summary) and Volume V (Attachment 6). Would the Government consider eliminating the requirement from one of the volumes?

The RFP will be revised to remove the submission of the offeror’s and major subcontractors’ DCMA/DCAA information from Volume I, PART 2.

DRFP Section L- 6.6.d.(2), Business System Status

DCMA letters have CUI markings. Would the Government consider allowing the offeror to submit Government CUI letters/documentation supporting the proposal requirements in separate file attachments to Volume V?

No. An offeror may submit CUI information so long as the document is marked properly. Note that the two asterisks requiring only one file be submitted per part will be removed from the Cost/Price Volume.

DRFP Section L-5.i & Volume I, Part 6 75

Section L-5.i requires a separate acronym list per volume. Volume I, Part 6 requires a comprehensive list inclusive of acronyms from the entire proposal. Rather than 6 different acronym lists, please confirm that the offeror may provide the same list for each volume.

The acronym list for all volumes may be the same.

Design, Development, Demonstration and Integration (D3I2)

DRFP Section L-5, Table L-5.1 and Section L-6.3.a., Part I 75 and 80

Table L-5.1 shows the Technical Volume is allocated 35 pages, to be distributed by the offer as desired across Parts 1, 2, and 3. A. PART 1 – Technical Approaches and Solutions identifies 6 Critical Performance Requirement (CPRs) scope elements with 31 subordinate CPRs for which offerors must define technical approach (methodologies, processes, and procedures). 35 pages shared across 3 parts does not provide sufficient space to allow an offeror to effectively provide approach details for Part 1, as instructed by M-3.a(1). Will the Government consider increasing the Technical Volume page count allocation to 50 pages?

No. Current page limitations will remain in effect.

DRFP Section L- 6.1.b.(1)

RFP requires “provide the offeror’s proposed team structure, to included offeror’s teaming agreements.”

Teaming agreements can be up to 10 pages each – please confirm that these may be provided as a separately attached PDF appendix that is not page limited.

Per Section L-5: JV, teaming and/or partnering agreements are excluded from countable pages/page limitations.

Note that Per RFP Section L-6.1.b(1), offerors' teaming arrangements are to be in Volume I - General Information, Part 2 - Executive Summary. Per RFP Section L-6.5d., teaming arrangements and agreements are to be included in Volume V as well.

DRFP Section L.5, Table L-5.1 and Section L-6.2.a

74 and 78-79 Volume II has a 10 page limit, yet all subcontractors are required to provide a 1 page letter attesting to their US-owned status. Please adjust the page limits to unlimited, as this will depend on the size of the team.

Per Section L-5: Gateway Criteria Gate One (U.S. Owned/Controlled Entity) attested written statement is excluded from countable pages/page limitations.

Therefore, 10 pages is sufficient for Volume II.

DRFP Section L- 6.4.c, Volume IV:

Management, Part 3:

Organizational Structure

Volume IV, Part 3 requires the teaming/subcontract agreements. Teaming agreements can be up to 10 pages each

– please confirm that these may be provided as a separately attached PDF appendix that is not page limited.

The teaming/subcontract agreements are no longer required in Volume IV.

The RFP will be updated to remove bullet 2 from Volume IV, Part 3.”

DRFP Section L-6.5.d

This section requires signed arrangements/ agreements and is not counted against the page limits for the volume.

Please confirm that these agreements are to be provided 3 times – 1 in Volume I, 1 in Volume IV, and 1 in Volume V?

Per RFP Section L-6.1.b(1), offerors' teaming agreements are to be in Volume I - General Information, Part 2 - Executive Summary. Additionally, Per RFP Section L-6.5d., teaming arrangements and agreements are to be included in Volume V. The teaming/subcontract agreements are no longer required in Volume IV. The RFP will be updated to remove bullet 2 from Volume IV, Part 3.

DRFP Section L-5, Table L-5.1, Volume I;

Section L-6.1.b.(1);

Section L-6.4.c; and Section L-6.5.d

74, 76, 82, and

Assuming that the teaming arrangements/agreements are only required as part of Volume V Small Business Participation, please confirm that the other sections (in Volume I and Volume IV) can simply confirm the type of agreement – e.g., “fully executed non-exclusive teaming agreement”

Reference response to Question 68.

DRFP Section L-6.5, para. 2

The RFP states: “SBPP is separate and distinct from the SB subcontracting plan requirements of FAR 52.219-9, Alternate II, and DFARS 252.219-7003”

If a Subcontracting Plan is confirmed to be required, please confirm that this is to be provided as a separate attachment, as an appendix to Volume V.

The Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan is required for other than small businesses and it is not considered in proposal evaluation. An acceptable SB subcontracting plan is a regulatory requirement for contract award. The SB subcontracting plan shall be submitted with the offeror's proposal as a separate stand-alone document, but should not be a part of Volume V - Small Business Participation. The SB subcontracting plan will not count against the SBPP page count.

DRFP Section L-6.1.c

RFP states: “Furthermore, include Section K and other applicable fill-ins for major subcontractors or team members.” Please confirm that only the offeror (prime), JV partners, and major subcontractors must complete section K.

The offeror (prime) and JV partners must complete Section K. Major subcontractors will be removed from this requirement.

Design, Development, Demonstration and Integration (D3I2)

Table L-5.1, Volume

VI

For Vol VI, Cost/Price, # COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED, the notes state that ** No more than one (1) electronic file shall be submitted per part. Please confirm that this means offerors are allowed to submit one cost narrative document and one excel file for this volume in its entirety.

Yes. DRFP Section L-6.6.a states, "The Cost/Price Volume proposal shall contain a supporting narrative describing the basis and rationale of the FBLRs proposed in the Contract Rate Tables to show that they are realistic. The Cost/Price Volume proposal narrative shall be provided in a MS Word (MS 365 for Windows) or Adobe Acrobat DC."

DRFP Section L- 6.6.a, para. 7

The offeror shall provide a table of contents (to include a list of figures, if applicable) showing each file submitted as part of the Cost/Price Volume with a short description of the contents of the file.

Please clarify if this table of contents is to provided within the cost narrative or a separate file as the solicitation is asking to provide a short description of the contents of the file.

The RFP will be updated to clarify that "In the supporting cost narrative, the offeror shall provide a table of contents (to include a list of figures, if applicable) showing each file submitted as part of the Cost/Price Volume with a short description of the contents of the file."

DRFP Section L- 6.6.d.(5), para. 3

The prime offeror shall propose FBLRs for every RFP labor category by calendar year for Government Site and Contractor Site locations for both Continental United States (CONUS) and High-Cost CONUS areas. However, not all proposed team members (prime and subcontractors) are required to propose a FBLR for every RFP labor category.

Please clarify that for all RFP labor categories that are proposed, the offerors are to provide for both locations and sites, however, offerors are not required to propose every RFP labor category.

Yes, that is correct.

Attachment 3 - DD254

N/A

Will there be opportunity to establish appropriate…