22 Jan 2020 TTSS Final Industry Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- U. S. Army Test and Evaluation Command/Operational Test Command (USATEC/OTC) Industry Day Notice
- Solicitation number
- W91151-20-R-0001
About this file
This document contains a draft Performance Work Statement (PWS) for Test Technology Support Services primarily performed at Fort Hood, Texas and Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The PWS outlines requirements for providing operational test support including test planning and execution, data collection and analysis, reporting, and equipment maintenance. It seeks industry comments on the draft to help ensure requirements are clearly understood prior to release of a solicitation. The solicitation is expected to be an 8(a) small business set-aside awarding separate task orders for each location. Responses to the industry questions and any revisions to the PWS will be published on beta.SAM.gov.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 24 Jan 2020_ Attachment 4 -Historical Data Labor Hours and Categories 15 Jan 20.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 24 Jan 2020_PWS -TTSS PWS dtd 24 January 2020 _.docx | DOCX document | |
| 24 Jan 2020_ TE R TTSS Supported Software-Nework List Revised .xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 24 Jan 2020_Remaining 22 Questions TTSS Industry Day Questions.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| W91151-20-R-0001 TTSS Industry Day Slides 20 Nov 19.pdf | ||
| Attachment_1-OTC__Access__and_Map_Industry_Day_20_Nov_19_.pdf | ||
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Performance_Work_Statement_TTSS.pdf | ||
| PWS_-TTSS_Follow-On_(CY20-24)_17_Apr_19_(LW).docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| First set of questions received on 12 Nov 19 | |||
| Question | PWS Ref | Vendor's Question/Comment | Government 's Response |
| 1 | C.1.6.27 | The requirement of 5 years experience in operational test and evaluation is restrictive, and favors current workforce and incumbent team. The requirements do not allow for other equivalent military and/or civilian expertise to be infused into the operational test organization. The requirement of 5 years OT experience would eliminate highly qualified personnel from the organization and limit potential innovation and/or best practices. Recommend that the government revise Program Manager Job Descriptions and modify the 5 years of operational test experience. | PWS was revised to reflect DoD testing experience instead of operational testing experience. |
| 2 | C.1.6.27; TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | LCAT descriptions between PWS and attachment are different. Recommend that the full description, and substitutions be written into the PWS. | Both the labor category descriptions spreadsheet for Key Personnel and PWS were revised to mirror each other for key personnel. |
| 3 | C.5.1.1 | Recommend that the government revise Program Manager Job Descriptions and modify the 5 years of operational test experience. Recommend the government provide the workflow and process as well as examples of the format for the TIP/TAR as part of the PWS or as an annex. | Part 1 - PWS revised under section C.1.6.27 not C.5.1.1. PWS was revised to reflect DoD testing experience instead of operational testing experience. Part 2 - TIP process is located under CDRL A003, TE F. Attachment will be provided for TAR example in the solicitation. |
| 4 | C.5.1.1.3.8 | This paragraph leads one to believe that the contractor will have to provide surge support as part of its offering. Recommend the government clarify the surge requirements. | The word "Surge" is removed from PWS. The contractor may need to increase or decrease personnel based on requirements to support each individual task order. |
| 5 | C.5.1.13 | Can the government provide detailed information on the TTSS developed software to include but not limited software language, licensing requirements, operating systems, current status of the software i.e. has ATO, needs ATO fielded and being currently used, status of documentation. | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. |
| 6 | C.5.1.13 | On software developed by outside organizations such as ONESAF does the government intend to be co-developers of the software? | No. The contractor personnel will have to be familiar with ONESAF tool and software. Any changes needed to ONESAF software will be through the Army agency who owns ONESAF. |
| 7 | C.5.1.13 | Is the intent of the government that all SW design and development be done on government site? | No. If the software engineers are supporting from the sites other than Fort Hood and Fort Huachuca Government site, the proposal must include locations from where they will be providing support full-time and should seek Government approval. |
| 8 | C.5.1.17.4 | The government requires the contractor to interface with Training systems and tools, but only mentions tools used predominantly in testing and experimentation. Recommend the government provide list of tools and capabilities that the contractor should have experience with such as JLTCC, IEWTPT that might be required to iin conducting operational test as part of a LVC enviroment. Recommend the government provide list of tools and capabilities that the contractor should have experience with such as JLTCC, IEWTPT that might be required to iin conducting operational test as part of a LVC enviroment. | The intent of this section is not to limit the vendor to the existing T&E tools but to describe the tools we have used and our need to expand our tools to anything used within or outside of DoD. |
-Specifically we need the vendor to conduct research and provide recommendations on what tools that would best support OTC T&E efforts.
-The Government acknowledges that a knowledge and/or background in training tools is required in order for OTC to comply with Army Future's Command (AFC) Synthetic Training Environment (STE) guidance.
| 9 | C.5.1.24.3. | Can the government clarify the requirement for an annual inventory. It appears that the government is requesting two reports, it is unclear based on the timing, and the potential for providing dated information based on the potential difference between end of year and Period of Performance. The Contractor shall conduct an annual inventory of all incidental property provided in TE C and provide a copy to the COR no later than thirty (30) days prior to end of each period of performance year, and ninety (90) days prior to the end of the period of performance IAW CDRL A017, and TE Z, Annual Incidental Property Inventory. Recommend the government clarify the requirement. | The inventory report requirement is yearly but the final inventory report will be 90 days before the contract ends. The PWS has been revised to clarify this requirement. |
| 10 | C.5.1.24.3. & C.5.1.24.4 | The requirements for reporting are in conflict, in 24.3 the government is asking for the report ninety (90) days prior to the end of the period of performance in 24.4 the government is asking for the report to be submitted to the COR thirty (30) days prior to end of each period of performance. | See Question #9 |
| 11 | C.5.1.25 and C.5.3.2.1.5.6. | The overarching requirements in the contract in PWS section 5.1.25 state that the contractor will use government TMDE facilities for calibration, however in the Fort Huachuca specific task the government requires the contractor to perform the TMDE maintenance to include calibration, but then also suggest that it use the government TMDE facilities. These paragraphs and sections appear to be in conflict. Recommend that the government clarifythe intent and who conducts TMDE maintenance and calibration? | Removed verbiage from PWS section C.5.3.2.1.5.6., duplication from C.5.3.2.1.1.1.1. TMDE maintenance will be performed by the government TMDE facilities and not the contractor. The contractor will administratively maintain the TMDE equipment. |
| 12 | C.5.1.5. and C.5.1.1.3.2 | The government asks for the contractor to provide cybersecurity and information management support para C.1.5 it alludes to just RMF for systems that the are provided in the contract. However C.5.1.1.3.2 states that the contractor shall provide protection from electronic threats and recovery from physical and electronic security breaches. The requirement in test support suggest that the contractor is running the networks for the test as well. C.5.3.2.1.1.6 and C.5.3.2.1.4.16 also has cyber task. Can the government clarify responsibilities between the contractor and government specifically the responsibilities of the OTC G6 , as well as other government entities and installation vice the contractor. | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. |
| 13 | C.5.2.1.1 | This is the only paragraph in which the government mentions risk reduction activities. Recommend that the government provide a guidance on Risk Management activities required by the contractor. Recommend that the government provide a guidance on Risk Management activities required by the contractor | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. |
| 14 | C.5.2.1.1 | The government ask for integration on various networks, however they are not named. Recommend the government provide the current networks that are used in support of the ATEC Technology Integration center | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. |
| 15 | C.5.3. | We understand the Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Test Directorate (IEWTD) is currently begin supported by a JAOBCS support contract. How will the government deconflict the transition from JACOBS to the awardee, and when is the timeline that the government expects to execute the transition. Recommend that the government clarify transition and timeline for IEWTD. | Each site (TTD and IEWTD) will be executed by a separate task order and will require their own Phase in/out process. Tentative Dates for IEWTD are 01 October 20 with the phase in starting on 01 Oct 20. |
| 16 | C.5.3. | The level of complexity of IEWTD is significant and while there are some similar tasks, there are significantly different tasks such as Motor Pool and Vehicle Maintenance. Based on the PWS it is unclear the scope of many of these tasks, the conditions or locations of the facilities. The current industry day is set for Fort Hood only, and does not include a visit to Fort Huachuca. It is difficult to gauge the level of support and or associated task without seeing the facilities, and equipment.Recommend that the government schedule and hold a secondary industry day at Fort Huachuca. | An Attachment will be provided to show IEWTD facilitates and a Tecnhical Exhibit will show the amount of equipment assigned to this Task Order. There will not be a site visit at Fort Huachuca. A separate base task order requirement will be provided in the solicitation. |
| 17 | C.5.3.2.1.5.13. | What is the list of tools that the contractor must provide that is not provided in GFP to meet the requirements of C.5.3.2.1.5.6. Recommend that the government provide the list of tools that the contractor must provide. | Removed sentence from paragraph in this section, there are no other tools than GFP required for TMDE. |
| 18 | C.5.3.2.1.6.1.2. | Is the governments intent for this paragraph to only apply to the Fort Huachuca site? Likewise will there be multiple COR's for this contract? Recommend that the government clarify performance coordination meetings, and standardize them for consistency of reporting and contract performance. Recommend that the government clarify performance coordination meetings, and standardize them for consistency of reporting and contract performance. | There will be a COR at both places. Deleted this paragraph. |
| 19 | C.5.3.2.1.6.1.2.1. | In analyzing the requirements for performance meetings, will the government please clarify what it means by first 30 days of the contract it is unclear if this is based on award date, kick-off, of full operating capability. Recommend that the government state meetings to begin after FOC, as the transition plan would have its own meetings. | Deleted this paragraph. |
| 20 | CDRL | The government references CDRLS throughout the PWS, and states that we will comply IAW CDRL. As part of the draft PWS will the government provide the CDRL table so that industry can provide feedback. | CDRLS will be included when the draft solicitation is posted. |
| 21 | General | When is the Government’s “desired” PALT entry date for the OTC TTSS effort? Recommend that the goverment publish an acquisition timeline. | See question #22 |
| 22 | General | Will the Government release a Draft RFP for the OTC TTSS Support effort, if so, when is the estimated date for release of the Draft RFP? Recommend the government release a draft RFP. This will allow industry to provide questions, comments and recommendations to help ensure the solicitation is thoroughly understood and the government receives quality proposals, as well as, reduces amount of questions and delays upon release of the final RFP. | The draft RFP will be published on the beta.SAM.gov website. |
| 23 | General | Will there be a Pre-solicitation Conference prior to the release of the Final RFP? Recommend that the government conduct a presolicitation conference to allow discussion between the government and industry to allow for clear understanding of government requirements, and potential issues. Thus reducing risk to delays in the procurement. | No. There will be no pre-solicitation conference |
| 24 | General | When is Final RFP estimated to be released for the OTC TTSS Support effort? Recommend that the government publish an acquisition timeline. | See question #22 |
| 25 | General | When is the projected Award Date for the OTC TTSS Support effort? Recommend that the government publish an acquisition timeline. | See question #22 |
| 26 | General | Considering the complexity of the requirements, are there specific innovative approaches, technologies, and solutions that you would like to see applied to the OTC TTSS Support tasks (Management / Technical innovations)? | Its up to the contractor to come up with solutions and innovations based on the requirements for each task order. |
| 27 | General | If you could do something different in terms of contract support for the OTC TTSS Support effort, what would it be? | Please refer to PWS & Industry Day slides for this concept |
| 28 | General | Will new hire employees be required to have Security Clearances prior to starting on the contract? | PWS - C.1.6.7.3. depicts the requirement |
| 29 | General, C5.1 and C.5.3 | in C.5.1 the government specifies that these are the tasks that are common to all locations. However in C.5.3 the Fort Huachuca IEWTD tasks appear at times to be duplicative in nature, or in conflict with elements of C.5.1. Is the governments intent to have two separate task order one to support Fort Hood, the other to support Fort Huachuca? Given what appears to be differences in process, and task it will be difficult to create efficiencies between the to locations and create additional cost to the government in duplicative and different SOPs we acknowledge differences based on installation requirements. Recommend that the government clarify its intent, and common task between contracts. | Yes, It is the government's intent to have two separate base task orders; One for Fort Hood and one for Fort Huachuca. Details will be included for each task order requirement specific to Fort Hood and Fort Huachuca. |
| 30 | Part 6 Applicable Publications | The government has a number of document set as references. The Fort Hood and OTC Physical Security links do not work and the Fort Huachuca publication do not appear to be on a publicly avaialble site. Recommend that the government establish a bidders library with all the documents, memorandums, AR, etc.. referenced in the PWS to provide equal access, or insure that the links work. | The weblink has been fixed and the PWS updated to reflect the new weblink. |
| 31 | TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | In the Tab Annual Labor Hours the government shows annual hours as 2080, and then productive hours as 1672. It appears that the government is stating that a FTE is equivalent to 1672 hours per year. This is below the government estimation for government employees of 1740, and significantly lower than a typicla FTE of 1880 and or 1920. Will the government please clarify this computation. Recommend that the government identify minimum hours for what constitutes an FTE, as well as identify expectations for part time work force. | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. |
| 32 | TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | Will the government provide historical performance data by LCAT hours, locations and surge requirements? Recommend government provide historical data LCAT hours, locations and surge requirements | Updated Labor Categories spreadsheet to include historical data with Labor Categories and hours work for the past 3 years for both Fort Hood and Fort Huachuca. |
| 33 | TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | Given the requirements of C.5.1.5. and C.5.1.1.3.2 the government appear not to have all the certifications, as well as the correct IAT/IAM levels; Recommend that the Cyber Security Lead/Information Security Analyst II be a min of an IAT Level III as well as a IAM Level III ; additionally, recommend that the government move to IAT level for specific LCATS instead of calling out specific certifications such as security + | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. |
| 34 | TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | When reviewing the various labor categories appear to be direct lifts from the Wage Determination Scale. Are these the current labor categories being performed on the contract. Does the government have an expectation that these are the labor catagoreis that will be bid? | These are labor categories historically used on the current contract. The Government expects the vendor to use appropriate labor categories that will satisfy the requirements in each individual task order. |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | BLS-17-3023/Electronic Engineer Technician | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 01410/Supply Technician/ Logistic Specialist II | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 14043/Computer Operator III | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 14044/Computer Operator IV | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | IEWTD- Fort Huachuca | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 30085/Electronic Engineer V | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 23183/Electronic Tech, Maint III | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 05190/Motor Vehicle Mechanic | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 30083/ Engineering Technician III | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 30084/ Engineering Technician IV | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| 35 | Will the Government provide a plug number for fixed estimate for Travel and/or material /purchasing requirements? | See question #22 | |
| 36 | OCONUS travel will be required…is there a difference in CONUS vs OCONUS rates? | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. | |
| 37 | Will the Government allow use of Sub Contractor's TC clearance until Primes clearance is up graded from Secret to Top Secret? | See PWS section C.1.6.7.3. | |
| 38 | One question I hope you will address now or during the industry day is your plan on Facility Clearances. BluePath’s principals all have DOD TS and DOE Q clearances and BluePath has a DOE “Q” FCL. Our Mentor has been doing TS/SCI work for decades. However, we have not yet had the opportunity to get our TS FCL (though by applicable regulations our DOE Q FCL is reciprocal with a DOD TS FCL). Also our MP/JV SURVPATH does not have an FCL. Many SB, 8(a)’s, and MP/JV’s face the chicken and egg FCL issue. Making an FCL an upfront requirement would limit competition including unfortunately us. It would be great if your strategy were to sponsor the winner for the FCL should they currently lack it as this is the number one concern we have with bid/no bid on this requirement. | PWS section C.4.2. requires secret facility clearance. C.1.6.7.3. defines timelines. | |
| Second set of questions received on 25 Nov 19 | |||
| 39 | General | When does the Government expect to complete requirments analysis and project a formal timeline for solicitation?Recommend that the goverment publish a more substantial acquisition timeline due to the complexities of this effort. | See question #22 |
| 40 | General | Will the Government release a complete Draft RFP to include Sections L and M and what is the aniticipated date?Industry highly recommends the government release a draft RFP. This will provide industry the opportunity to submit questions, comments and recommendations to help ensure the solicitation is thoroughly understood and the government receives quality proposals, as well as, reduces amount of questions and delays upon release of the final RFP. | See question #22 |
| 41 | General | Does the Government intend to schedule a pre-solicitaiton conference prior to the release of the final RFP?The government should consider a presolicitation conference to allow discussion and establish a clear understanding of government requirements, and potential issues. This will reduce risk to delays in the procurement process. | See Question #23 |
| 42 | General | When is Final RFP estimated to be released for the OTC TTSS Support effort?Recommnend the Government publish a more detailed acquisition timeline. | See question #22 |
| 43 | General | What is the projected award date for the OTC TTSS procurement? | See question #22 |
| 44 | General | Given the complexity of the requirements, including those from Fort Huchuca IEWTD, are there specific innovations, technologies, or solutions that might be appropriate for the OTC TTSS Support tasks (in the Management / Technical innovations section)? | See Question #26 |
| 45 | General | Are all employees assigned to this contract required to have security clearances on day one of the contract? Recommend the Government designate which positions require clearances on day one and if all positions required for this contract require clearances. | See Question#28 |
| 46 | General | Program Management is currently missing and not addressed within the PWS. As an 8(a) Small Business Set-Aside, Program Management represents one of the biggest risks to program success and how well the offeror plans for and executes management across geographically separate locations between Fort Hood, Texas and Fort Huachuca, Arizona and will indicate likelihood of program and mission success based on overall PM structure, innovative processes and integration across all PWS requirements. It is important to know the completeness, feasibility, and innovativeness of the offeror’s approach for program organization/staffing, risk management, subcontractor management, recruiting, retention, and transition while meeting the PWS requirements with minimal risk, innovative techniques, and cost/schedule/performance effectiveness. Recommend Program Management be added as a specific requirement within the PWS, and included as a relatively higher level of importance evaluation factor within the solicitation. Specifically, it is important to know the completeness, feasibility, and innovativeness of the offeror’s management approach, their Program Management and infrastructure maturity and use of Management Information Systems and processes in order to manage, track and report contract cost, schedule and performance deliverables, program organization/staffing, risk management, subcontractor management, recruiting, retention, and transition while meeting the PWS requirements with minimal risk, innovative techniques, and be able to measure cost/schedule/performance effectiveness. | The evaluation criteria will be presented in Sections L&M of the solicitation. |
| 47 | General | Given the information presented during the OTC-TTSS Industry Day by the Government, and the specific presentation provided by the OTC Chief of Staff, the requirement for a faster, more agile, quicker decision making, mission effective, precision testing, ability to shape testing early and the ability to invest in common test and training environments more cost effectively are the most important and critial areas for success of OTC and the OTC TTSS contract. Given the importance of these factors for the success of OTC - TTSS, will there be a detailed technical and management volume that specifically includes innovation and demonstration of efficiencies within a management, technical and staffing solution? Recommend the Government include innovation and demonstration of efficiencies in processes, systems, and tools within an Offeror's Management, Technical, and Staffing solutions within their proposal. | See question#46 |
| 48 | Will the Government apply a color rating and specifically a risk factor to evaluate the technical and management volumes? Recommend the Government apply a color rating and specifically a risk factor to evaluate the technical and management volumes of Offeror's proposals. | See question#46 | |
| 49 | General | Will the Government evaluate Past Performance as an Evaluation Factor within Offeror's proposals, and will the Government evaluate and assess the relative risks for likelihood of success of the Prime contractor's past performance? Recommend the Government assess and evaluate Past Performance of the relative risks associated with the Prime Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by the Offeror's record of past performance. Assessing and evaluation of Past Performance and providing both a risk and confidence rating in determining risk and confidence in performing the work is important to consider, specifically due to the requirements of an 8a Small Business Set-Aside competition and Limitation of Subcontracting requirements. Recommend the Government’s intent should be to assess and identify those Prime contractors whose relevant and recent past performance represents the lowest performance risk in providing beneficial solutions to the requirements in the execution of Task Orders. We recommend the Government evaluate the Offeror’s past performance and assign a past performance risk rating, for each past performance submission they provide. We also recommend a past performance confidence rating be assigned specifically for the Offeror's Past Performance. | See question#46 |
| 50 | Applicable publications in Part 6 | The Governement has provided a set of of references and documents with links that do not work or publications that are not available from publicly accessible websites.Recommend the Government establish a library (possibly using the AMRDEC SAFE) that contains all appropriate materials, references and links that are functional. | See question #30 |
| 51 | General for CDRLs | The Government references CDRLS throughout the PWS whereby the overall response and associated costs for the work can be substantial. However none of the referenced CDRLs were provided in the documentation.Recommend the Government provided as detailed a draft RFP as possbile to include Sections L and M and a comprehensive Section K with associated CDRLs. | CDRLS and DIDs will be provided as part of the draft RFP which will be published on beta.SAM.gov |
| 52 | C.1.6.27 | The requirement of 5 years experience in Operational Test and Evaluation is unfairly restrictive, and favors the current workforce and incumbent team. The requirements do not allow for other equivalent military and/or civilian expertise to be infused into the operational test organization. The requirement of 5 years OT experience would eliminate many highly qualified personnel from working in the organization and limit potential innovation and/or best practices.Recommend the Government revise the job descriptions to include education and experience that is directly relevant to operational test activities and not specifically limited to what appears to be an encumbent advantage. | See Question #1 |
| 53 | C.1.6.27; TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | Descriptions of labor categories in the PWS and asscociated attachment are not consistent and different enough to cause confusion.Recommend the Government provide full labor category descriptions along with appropriate substitution criteria and eliminate inconsistencies between the written PWS text and spreadsheets. | See Question #2 |
| 54 | C.1.6.34 (Phase In/Phase Out Period) | PWS Section C.1.6.34.2. Phase-Out states: "The Contractor shall submit a 30 calendar day Phase-out Plan with its proposal." While a Phase Out Plan is important to the overall transition and close-out out of the incumbent contractor to the incoming contractor, a transition Phase-Out Plan requirement is three to five years in the future (depending on the period of performance), and is not an important factor for evaluating the capabailities and abilities of an incoming contractor's risk to transition and begin execution and performance of work. Having offerors develop and submit a Phase Out Plan with their proposals will take additional page count and focus away from what is most important in the Government's evaluation of offerors in the Management and Technical abilities of offerors to Phase-In and perform the work, and requires the Government to spend additional time in evaluation of Offerors proposals. Recommend PWS sub-paragraph C.1.6.34.2. Phase-Out be amended and remove the language: "The Contractor shall submit a 30 calendar day Phase-out Plan with its proposal." Recommend the PWS C.1.6.34.2. Phase-Out subparagraph be amended to the following: The Contractor shall develop and submit a 30 calendar day Phase-out Plan to the Government 90 days prior to the end of the contracts' period of performance. | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. |
| 55 | C.1.6.34 (Phase In/Phase Out Period) | Will the Government evaluate the Phase-In Plan as a factor or subfactor within Offeror's proposal, and will there be a color rating along with a specific risk factor to evaluate the Phase-In / Transition Plan?Recommend applying a color rating and risk factor to evaluate Offeror's Phase-In / Transition Plan within their proposal. | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. |
| 56 | C.5.1.1 | The Government addresses the Task Authorization Request (TAR) and Task Implementation Plan (TIP) throughout the PWS, but does not describe the associated process or workflow in the PWS.Recommend the Government provide a representative (or sample) workflow process as well as examples of the format for the TIP/TAR as part of the PWS or as an annex. | See question #3 |
| 57 | C.5.1.1.3.8 | This paragraph indirectly implies that the contractor will have to provide surge support as part of its proposed solution.Recommend the Government clarify the surge requirements either through actual or sample workload estimates based on prior information or a notional schedule of events. | See question #4 |
| 58 | C.5.1.13 | Will the Government provide detailed information on unique software developed for this effort include but not limited to software languages, licensing requirements, operating systems, current status of the software. Also is there an ATO for all fielded components to include approved documentation for continued operational support? | See question #5 |
| 59 | C.5.1.13 | For software developed by outside organizations such as PEO STRI (OneSAF for example), does the government intend to be co-developers of the software as is the usual policy for programs like OneSAF? | See question #6 |
| 60 | C.5.1.13 | Does the Government intend that all software design and development be done on government site? In other words, do contractors have the opportunity to do off-site development in conjunction with other devlopement activities. This could potentially save resources and provide the opportunity to capitalize on expertise that is not necessary resident with OTC. | See question #7 |
| 61 | C.5.1.17.4 | The Government requires the contractor to interface with training systems and tools throughout the scope of the PWS, but only mentions tools used predominantly in testing and experimentation. What are the tools and capabilities required to be used, especially for operational tests in the LVC environment. Recommend that the Government provide a comprehensive list of tools and capabilities (possibly as an annex), along with requisite levels of knowledge and experience. For example, what level of experience is required to use/manage IEWTPT during an exercise. Is it srtictly operator level knowledge as it would be in the field or will it require more extensive knowledge like that of the developer? | See Question #8 |
| 62 | C.5.1.24.3. | Will the Government clarify the requirement for an annual equipment/material inventory? The government is requesting two reports, and based on the timing, there is a potential for providing dated information based on the difference between end of year and Period of Performance. "The Contractor shall conduct an annual inventory of all incidental property provided in TE C and provide a copy to the COR no later than thirty (30) days prior to end of each period of performance year, and ninety (90) days prior to the end of the period of performance IAW CDRL A017, and TE Z, Annual Incidental Property Inventory". Recommend that the Government provide consistent guidance for reporting. | See Question #9 |
| 63 | C.5.1.24.3. & C.5.1.24.4 | The requirements for reporting are in conflict. In Section 24.3 the Government is asking for the report ninety (90) days prior to the end of the Period of Performance. In Section 24.4 the government is asking for the report to be submitted to the COR thirty (30) days prior to end of each period of performance. Recommend that the Government provide consistent guidance for reporting. | See Question #9 |
| 64 | C.5.1.25 and C.5.3.2.1.5.6. | The high level requirements in PWS Section 5.1.25 state that the contractor will use government TMDE facilities for calibration. However in the Fort Huachuca specific task the government requires the contractor to perform the TMDE maintenance to include calibration, but then also suggest that it use the government TMDE facilities. These paragraphs and sections appear to be in conflict. | See Question #11 |
| 65 | C.5.1.5. and C.5.1.1.3.2 | The Government requests the contractor provide cybersecurity and information management support in PWS Section C.1.5. It implies just RMF for systems that the are provided in the contract. However Section C.5.1.1.3.2 states that "the contractor shall provide protection from electronic threats and recovery from physical and electronic security breaches". The requirement in test support suggesst that the contractor is running the networks for the test as well. Additionally Sections C.5.3.2.1.1.6 and C.5.3.2.1.4.16 also have undetermined cyber tasks. Will the Gvernment clarify responsibilities for cyber related tasks, between the contractor and Government, specifically the responsibilities of the OTC G6 , as well as other government entities and installations vice the contractor. | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. |
| 66 | C.5.2.1.1 | This is the only paragraph in which the government mentions risk reduction activities. Is risk reduction as formal program activity required for this contract?Recommend that the Government provide guidance on Risk Management activities required by the contractor. | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. |
| 67 | C.5.2.1.1 | The Government is requesting integration effort on various networks which are not specified. This is very open ended as network complexity and classification can significantly affect the cost of this work. Recommend the Government provide the current networks that are used in support of the ATEC Technology Integration Center. | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. |
| 68 | C.5.3. | The Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Test Directorate (IEWTD) is currently supported by a Jacobs support contract. How will the government deconflict the transition from Jacobs to the awardee, and when is the timeline that the government expects to execute the transition? Recommend that the Government clarify transition and timeline for IEWTD. | See Question #16 |
| 69 | C.5.3 (Fort Huachuca Specific Tasks - Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Test Directorate (IEWTD)) and C.1.6.34 (Phase In/Phase Out Period) | Given the two distinct requirements and current separate contracts and their periods of performance between the OTC TTD (FT Hood) and IEWTD (FT Huachuca), it is unclear of the timeframe for the phase-in and executions of the PWS paragraph C5.3 (Fort Huachuca Specific Tasks - Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Test Directorate (IEWTD) requirements. Will the Government please clarify the timeframe of the current IEWTD contract tasks ending and the phase in and transition to the new consolidated OTC TTSS contract. | See Question #15 |
| 70 | C.5.3. | The level of complexity of IEWTD is significant and while there are some similar tasks, there are significantly different tasks such as Motor Pool and Vehicle Maintenance mentioned in the PWS. Based on the current PWS it is unclear the scope of many of these tasks, the conditions or locations of the facilities. To date there has been no mention of a visit to the Fort Huachuca facilities. It will be difficult to gauge the level of support and or associated task without seeing the facilities, and equipment. Recommend that the Government an industry day at Fort Huachuca | See Question #16 |
| 71 | C.5.3.2.1.5.13. | What is the list of tools that the contractor must provide that is not provided in GFP to meet the requirements of C.5.3.2.1.5.6? Recommend that the Government provide a comlete list (in an annex) of tools that the contractor must provide as part of their performance on this contract. | See question #17 |
| 72 | C.5.3.2.1.6.1.2. | Does this paragraph only apply to the Fort Huachuca site? Likewise will there be multiple COR's for this contract? Recommend that the Government clarify performance coordination meetings, and standardize them for consistency of reporting and contract performance. | See question #19 |
| 73 | C.5.3.2.1.6.1.2.1. | With respect to the requirements for performance meetings, will the Government please clarify what it means by first 30 days of the contract. It is unclear if this is based on award date, kick-off, or full operating capability after transition.Recommend that the Government state meetings to begin after FOC, as the transition plan would have its own meetings | See question #19 |
| 74 | TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | In the Tab Annual Labor Hours, the Government shows annual hours as 2080, and then productive hours as 1672. The government is stating that an FTE is equivalent to 1672 hours per year. This is below the Government estimation for Government employees of 1740, and significantly lower than the usual FTE of 1880 and or 1920.Will the Government please clarify the overall definitition of an FTE with respect to this contract. Recommend that the government identify minimum hours for what constitutes an FTE, as well as identify expectations for part time work force. This will allow for a more realistic cost estimation and allow a fair comparison of overall pricing. | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. |
| 75 | TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | Will the government provide historical performance data by LCAT hours, locations and surge requirements?Recommend government provide historical data LCAT hours, locations and surge requirements | See question #32 |
| 76 | TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | Given the requirements of C.5.1.5. and C.5.1.1.3.2, the Government may not have sufficeintly identified all the certifications, as well as the correct IAT/IAM levels.Recommend that the Cyber Security Lead/Information Security Analyst II be a min of an IAT Level III as well as a IAM Level III ; additionally, recommend that the government move to IAT level for specific LCATS instead of calling out specific certifications such as security +. Designation of Cyber Security personnel generally means having attained and IAT or IAM level of expertise and credentially. Personnel with just Security+ are not qualified or certified to operate on Government MIS. | The Government's response to this Industry question will be published on beta.SAM.gov. |
| 77 | TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | The various labor categories appear to be direct extracts from the Wage Determination Scale. Are these the current labor categories being performed on this contract? LCATs in question are listed below.Does the Government have an expectation that these are the labor catagoreis that will be bid? | See question #34 |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | BLS-17-3023/Electronic Engineer Technician | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | BLS-17-3023/Electronic Engineer Technician | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 01410/Supply Technician/ Logistic Specialist II | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 14043/Computer Operator III | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 14044/Computer Operator IV | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | IEWTD- Fort Huachuca | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 30085/Electronic Engineer V | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 23183/Electronic Tech, Maint III | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 05190/Motor Vehicle Mechanic | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 30083/ Engineering Technician III | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | WD 30084/ Engineering Technician IV | These are the current labor categories working on the contract | |
| 78 | General | Does the Government intend to schedule an additional Industry Day or a pre-solicitation conference prior to the release of the final RFP?Recommend the government consider a presolicitation conference. Allowing a free discussion of requirements will provide industry a better understanding of the government requirements and intent and address potential issues. This will serve to reduce the risk of delays in the procurement process. | See Question #23 |
| 79 | General | When does the Government expect to complete analysis of requirements and provide a timeline projection for the solicitation?Due to the complexity of this effort, recommend the government publish a more substantive acquisition timeline. | See question #22 |
| 80 | General | Does the Government anticipate the release a Draft RFP and if so what is the anticipated date? Will the draft RFP include Sections L and M?Recommend the government release a draft RFP. This will provide industry the opportunity to submit comments and recommendations and serve to ensure the solicitation is thoroughly understood. This will aid in the preparation of quality proposals and may reduce the amount of questions (and potential delays) upon release of the final RFP. | See question #22 |
| 81 | General | When does the Government estimate/anticipate the Final OTC TTSS RFP to be released? | See question #22 |
| 82 | General | What is the projected award date for the OTC TTSS? | See question #22 |
| 83 | General | Does the government require all employees assigned to this contract to have security clearances on the first day of the contract? Recommend the Government designate which personnel positions require security clearances on their first day and if all personnel positions required for this contract require clearances. | See Question#28 |
| 84 | General | Due to the complexity of the requirements, both at Ft. Hood and at Fort Huachuca Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Test Directorate (IEWTD), can the government provide further description of specific innovations, technologies, or solutions that might be appropriate for the support tasks (Management / Technical innovations section) ? | See Question #26 |
| 85 | General, C5.1 and C.5.3 | In Section C.5.1, the Government states tasks that are common for all locations. However, the tasks in Section C.5.3 for Ft. Huachuca IEWTD seem to duplicate, or conflict with elements of section C.5.1. Does the Government intend to release separate task orders to support Ft. Hood and Ft. Huachuca? There appear to be differences in processes and tasks and it will be challenging to achieve substantive efficiencies between the two primary locations. This may result in additional cost to the government due to different, duplicative, and less efficient processes. Recommend the Government state its intent more clearly, specifically for the common task between Ft. Hood and Ft. Huachuca. | See Question #29 |
| 86 | General | Program Management (PM) is not addressed within the PWS. As an 8(a) Small Business Set-Aside offering, PM probably represents one of the most significant risks to program success. Due to this offering requiring management across two geographically separate locations, program and mission success will rely heavily on the overall PM structure, innovative processes employed and integration across all PWS requirements. It is important to know the completeness, feasibility, and innovativeness of the offeror’s approach for program organization/staffing, risk management, subcontractor management, recruiting, retention, and transition while meeting the PWS requirements with minimal risk, innovative techniques, and cost/schedule/performance effectiveness. Recommend a specific requirement for Program Management (PM) be added within the PWS. Suggest this be included as a higher level of importance factor for evaluation within the solicitation. It's important for the government to know the feasibility, completeness, and level of innovation of the offeror’s management approach, their Program Management and use of Management Information Systems (MIS) . Their processes in managing, tracking, and reporting contract cost, schedules and performance deliverables, organization, risk management, subcontractor management, recruiting, etc. while achieving the PWS requirements with minimal risk and to be able to measure cost/schedule/performance effectiveness. | See question #46 |
| 87 | General | Information presented by the government during the OTC TTSS Industry Day, and specifically the OTC Chief of Staff presentation, the requirement for a faster, more agile, quicker decision making, mission effective, precision testing, ability to shape testing early and the ability to invest in common test and training environments more cost effectively are the most important and critical areas for success of OTC and the OTC TTSS contract. Given the importance of these factors for the success of OTC TTSS, will there be a detailed technical and management volume that specifically includes innovation and demonstration of efficiencies within a management, technical and staffing solution? Recommend the Government include demonstration of efficiencies in processes, systems, and tools within an Offeror's Management, Technical, and Staffing solutions within their proposal. | See question #46 |
| 88 | General | Does the Government anticipate using the prime contractor's past performance as an evaluation factor within an offeror's proposals? Does the Government intend to evaluate and assess the relative risk or likelihood of success of the prime's past performance? Recommend the Government assess and evaluate Past Performance of the relative risks associated with the Prime Officer's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by the Offeror's record of past performance. Assessing and evaluation of Past Performance and providing both a risk and confidence rating in determining risk and confidence in performing the work is important to consider, specifically due to the requirements of an 8a Small Business Set-Aside competition and Limitation of Subcontracting requirements. Recommend the Government’s intent should be to assess and identify those Prime contractors whose relevant and recent past performance represents the lowest performance risk in providing beneficial solutions to the requirements in the execution of Task Orders. We recommend the Government evaluate the Offeror’s past performance and assign a past performance risk rating, for each past performance submission they provide. We also recommend a past performance confidence rating be assigned specifically for the Offeror's Past Performance. | See question #46 |
| 89 | Applicable publications in Part 6 | The provided references and documents have links that do not function and publications which are not available from publicly accessible websites. Recommend the Government establish a OTC TTSS library that contains all appropriate materials, references and links that function. | See question #30 |
| 90 | General: CDRLs | The Government references CDRLS throughout the PWS where the overall response and associated costs for the work can be substantial however, none of the CDRL's referenced appear to be provided in the documentation. Recommend the Government provide a detailed a draft RFP (to include Sections L and M) and an all inclusive Section K complete with all associated CDRLs. | See question #51 |
| 91 | C.1.6.27 | The requirement for 5 years experience in Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) seems unfairly restrictive, and seems to favor the incumbent and its workforce. The requirements do not allow for other equivalent military and/or civilian expertise to be infused into the operational test organization. The requirement of 5 years OT experience would eliminate many highly qualified personnel from working in the organization and may serve to limit potential innovation and/or best practices. Recommend the Government revise the job descriptions to include education requirements and work experience that is directly relevant to OT&E test activities. This would avoid what currently appears to be an unintentional advantage for the incumbent. | See Question #1 |
| 92 | C.1.6.27; TTSS_Labor_Categories_3_Nov_19.xlsx | Labor category descriptions within the PWS and its associated attachment are inconsistent and differ enough to cause confusion. Recommend the Government provide complete labor category descriptions and provide acceptable substitution criteria and eliminate inconsistencies that currently exist between the PWS text and spreadsheets. | See question #2 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .