Consolidated QandA_TEAS DRFP_12Sep2024.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 383 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W91151-24-R-0030
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army
About this file
This document is the Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) for the Test Engineering and Analysis Services (TEAS) contract. The TEAS contract will provide developmental and operational testing support services to White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico. The DRFP provides detailed instructions for offerors on how to submit proposals, including requirements for technical, management, past performance, and pricing volumes. Key requirements include providing personnel with up to Top Secret clearances, developing a project cost management system, and adhering to specific labor categories and hours in the pricing proposal. The Government is seeking proposals from 8(a) small businesses and will evaluate offerors' recruitment and retention strategies, as well as their approach to managing quality control and continuous process improvement. Proposals are due via email, and the Government anticipates issuing the final RFP in the future.
View the file
Other files
Show all 14
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
TEAS DRFP Consolidated Q&A
| Question # | Subject/Source | Attachment or # RFP/PWS Section | Document Page/Paragraph # | Questions/Comments | Government Response |
| Q.1 | RFP | J | 39 | The list of attachments indicates there is an attachment 12 (Historical Hours). While it states that it is not included in the DRFP, will the Govt provide a copy of this prior to release of the Final RFP to assist with Bid or No Bid Price Evaluation. | Attachment 12 / Technical Exhibit 10 may be made provided (via sam.gov) prior to release of the final RFP, but no firm posting date is available at this time. |
| Q.2 | RFP | L.3.1.1.2 | 49 | Will the Government allow the use of 11x17 pages to accommodate the detailed information required as part of the organizational chart(s)? | Concur. L.3.1.1.2 will be updated to allow 11x17 pages for the organizational chart(s), an exception to requirements at L.2.4.1. |
| Q.3 | RFP & PWS | I & 1.6.8.1 | 12 & 6 | Given the nature of the work described in the PWS and the cybersecurity training and certification requirements under PWS 1.6.8.1, suggest adding DFARS Clause 202.254-7012 to Section I – Contract Clauses. | Concur. DFARS 252.204-7012 will be added to any final RFP issued. |
| Q.4 | RFP | L.2.3 | 47 | Please define how the Government expects “2” digital copies of each volume? | Reference to digital copies at L.2.3 are in error and N/A. To be deleted. |
| Q.5 | RFP | L.3.2.1-L.3.2.2 | 50 | Please confirm the NUMBER of Past Performance citations allowed for major subcontractors. Paragraph L.3.2.2 suggests there are three allowed, however L.3.2.1 suggests the maximum page count is 50, suggesting five citations for subcontractors (in addition to the five for the prime). | L.2.3 and L.3.2.1 are corrected to align with L.3.2.2. |
| Q.6 | Will the government provide the necessary equipement or access to equipement (TPE) as it pertains to transportation requirements in austere conditions such as field exercise or test execution? (Example: HMMWV, 4X4 Trucks, Vans etc.) | As established throughout the PWS and noted specifically in WAOs, the contractor is responsible for transportation. | |||
| Q.7 | To help minimize the cost of overtime, would the prime be able to utilize surge / part time / intern personnel to reduce cost and increase productivity and effective scheduling to meet customer needs? | This is a performance based contract. The Government will not dictate a solution to the requirements and is requesting the offerors propose their best approach to satisfying the requirements of the contract. | |||
| Q.8 | Will the government provide a list of all the Special Access Programs (SAP) to ensure we are hiring the right personnel with the right qualifications to fullfil contract requirements? | The Government is unable to provide the requested information at this time. SAPs and requirments will be identified in mission test plans, and at the appropriate classification level, during the course of the contract. | |||
| Q.9 | What are ths determining factors that constitutes a task order on TEAS vs Mission Support Services contract? | To clarify, there will not be task orders issued under TEAS as it not an IDIQ requirement. TEAS is a supporting contract to WSMR, just as the MSS contract is, and there are instances where the MSS will support that contract scope on a test requirement and the TEAS contract will perform their contract scope on the same test requirement. Both contracts are unique and distinct. | |||
| Q.10 | Is a test schedule (size/duration) available and can the government provide it? | Test Schedules are not available for potential Offeror review that far in advance. While notional schedule data is sometimes provided, funding drives the schedule, and there is often not substantial notice available for advanced planning. | |||
| Q.11 | Are the two key personnel billable positions or do they need to be included in the PMO? | The Key Personnel identified at 1.6.15 of the PWS are subject to the PMO Rate at Attachment 11. | |||
| Q.12 | Is the environmental officer considered billable or part of the PMO? | The Environmental Officer is not currently reflected as a PMO-applicable labor category as historically, this labor category has not been required, due to need. Section L and the Pricing Matrix will be updated to allow Offerors to update the PMO personnel, IAW the Offeror's proposed solution for support. | |||
| Q.13 | Please provide the mix of personnel that need CACs or WSMR access. | Any contractor personnel requiring use of WSMR computers and/or systems will require a CAC. All other personnel will require a WSMR pass. Historically, all TEAS contractor personnel with the exception of part time Access Monitors have required/obtained CACs. | |||
| Q.14 | What are the seniority levels on the WD personnel? | The Government does not anticipate identifying seniority levels for Wage Determination personnel. | |||
| Q.15 | Draft RFP | L.2.2 & L.2.4 | 47 - 48 | "Section L.2.2 states completed proposals should be submitted to the following email address: |
usarmy.jbsa.acc-micc.mbx.tsc-div3@army.mil
| However, section L.2.4 states proposals should be provided on CDs or DVDs. Please clarify how proposals are to be submitted and the number of required copies of each proposal volume." | See response to Q.4. Reference to digital copies deleted. Email proposals shall be required in any final RFP. | |||||
| Q.16 | Draft RFP | L.2.5 & L.3.1.1.1 | 48 - 49 | Section L.2.5, second paragraph indicates each volume should have a Table of Contents, a Summary Section, and a Narrative Discussion. Section L.3.1.1.1 seems to be calling for an Executive Summary which seems redundant to the Summary Section. Can you clarify if Volume I should have both a Summary Section as well as an Executive Summary? | The Government finds the requirement as written is NOT redundant. The Summary Section shall address the entirety of the proposal volume while the Executive Summary in question (L.3.1.1.1) is specific to the Program Management subfactor, and thus, would apply specifcally to that subfactor and what is proposed by the Offeror within its Program Management approach. | |
| Q.17 | Draft RFP | L.5.2 | 59 | Section L.5.2 states offerors should identify two individuals designated for ASSIST2Industry access in our “cover letter”. This is the only mention in the DRFP of a requirement for a cover letter. Can you clarify if a cover letter is required and, if so, should it be submitted separate from the four (4) required volumes identified in Section L.2.3 | L.5.2 will be corrected to remove reference to a cover letter, but rather state the Offeror's individuals/POC for ASSIST correspondence shall be included in the Summary Section of Volume IV. | |
| Q.18 | Draft RFP | Section L.3.1.3.1 | L.3.1.3.1 In detailing the Offeror’s approach to phase-in, at a minimum, the Offeror shall include…Question, Will the government provide a current schedule of events as planned in January – March 2025? | See response to Q.10. | ||
| Q.19 | Draft RFP | Section L.3.2.7 | L.3.2.7 Section 5: Past Performance Questionnaire. Are CPARs required or in lieu of the Questionaire? Or is just the questionaire required? | Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) are required and the Offeror shall follow the instructions set forth at L.3.2.7 AND L.3.2.7.1. The Government's review of CPARS data is separate/distinct from the PPQs. | ||
| Q.20 | What equipment will the Contractor need to provide? | Offerors shall refer to Section 4 of the PWS for Contractor Furnished Items and Responsibilities. | ||||
| Q.21 | RFP | Section I | 14 | Given that this is an 8(a) set aside, we believe this is included in error. | Concur. Clause will be deleted. | |
| Q.22 | RFP | Section L.3.1.1.3 | 48 | Will the Government allow Key Personnel resumes to be submitted outside of page count? | Concur and will exclude resumes from page count limitations. | |
| Q.23 | RFP | Section L.3.1.1.5 | 48 | If provided by offerors, screen shots may not comply with font size/type requirements due to the design of their chose system. | Concur. L.3.1.1.5 updated to add, "If screen shots are utilized, the originating system native font and size is acceptable and thus, an exception to the proposal requirements at L.2.4.2 above applies. Additionally, screen shots, but NOT the associated narrative, are excluded from the page limitations at L.2.3 above. Accordingly, Offerors shall NOT include narrative information on screen shot pages." | |
| Q.24 | RFP | Section L.3.1.1.5 | 48 | Given the depth of requirements identified in Technical Exhibit 9 and PWS 4.12, Fully robust systems, as requested by the Government, will take multiple pages to present visually and explain functionally. | See response to Q.23. | |
| Q.25 | RFP | Section L.3.2.1 | 50 | L.3.2.1 states that up to 5 references for the prime offeror and up to 3 references for major subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or JVs are allowable. In accordance with 13 CFR §125.8, in the case of an All Small Mentor Protégé Joint Venture, a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. | See response to Q.5. | |
| Q.26 | RFP | Section L | TE 10 | TE10 is referenced in multiple places in the RFP but was not provided with the DRFP. | Section J identified that Attachment 12 was "not included in the DRFP." Additionally, see response to Q.1. | |
| Q.27 | RFP | Sections L.3.3.4.1 & L.3.3.3.4.5 | 54 & 56 | Please confirm if offerors are allowed to deviate from the hours/labor categories shown in TE10. | L.3.3.4.1 provides the historical data only. This is a Performance Based Contract and Offerors shall propose their best approach to fulfill the requirements of this contract. The reference to L.3.3.3.4.5 is unable to be addressed as that paragraph is not in the DRFP. | |
| Q.28 | RFP | Sections L.3.2.1 & L.3.2.2 | 51 | Would the Government please confirm the total number of Past performance citations allowed for major subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or JV partners as Section L.3.2.1 indicates five (5) and Section L.3.2.2 indicates three (3). | See response to Q.5. Up to five (5) prime and up to three (3) major subcontractors/teaming/JV partners, as corrected. | |
| Q.29 | RFP | Section L.3.2.1 | 51 | For the maximum page limitation of past performance information, does this include or exclude the summaries describing the role of each entity (offeror, subcontractors, teaming partners, JV partners)? | The established page limitations INCLUDE the role(s) performed. No change. | |
| Q.30 | RFP | Sections L.2.2-L.2.2.2, L.2.3, and L.2.4.3 | 48 | L.2.2 states "..proposals are to be submited electronically to the following email…", L.2.2.1-L.2.2.2 provide guidance on how to submit proposal documents via email. L.2.3 states in the table that Digital Copies are to be provided for all proposal documents. L.2.4.3 states the proposal is to be compressed and …to be provided on CDs or DVDs. | See response to Q.4. In addition, L.2.4.3 corrected to remove reference, "and provded on CDs or DVDs." Email submission is required. | |
| Q.31 | RFP | Section L.2.4.1 | 48 | Page siize is defined as 8.5 x11. Will the Government allow the use of 11x17 pages for lasrge graphics, tables and/or spreadsheets? | No, with the exception of Organizational Charts as addressed in the response to Q.2. | |
| Q.32 | RFP | Section L.2.4.2 | 48 | L.2.4.2 states "…...Tables and illustrations may use a font size no less than 12-point and may be produced in landscape mode." Would the Government allow the use of 10 font size for tables and illustrations due to the 50 page count limitation? | No change to established font size requirements is anticipated. | |
| Q.33 | RFP | Section L.3.1.1.1 and PWS | 49 | L.3.1.1.1 states "...overall management approach while operating in a developmental testing environment." The PWS details providing support to operational and developmental tests in numerous requirements. | L.3.1.1.1 updated to require (change in bold), "The Program Management section shall include an Executive Summary discussing the overall management approach while operating in an operational and developmental testing environment." | |
| Q.34 | PWS | PWS_Technical Exhibit 6_CDRLs | TE 6 CDRLs | Document opens to a PDF warning message | Acknowledged. An updated "7. PWS_Technical Exhibit 6_CDRLs" file will be posted to the DRFP notice at sam.gov. | |
| Q.35 | RFP | Section L.3.2.4.1 | 52 | Would the Government confirm that IAW Section L.3.2.4.1 that it requires all schedule deviations (contract modifications) listed even if they were Government directed? | Confirmed, even if Government directed. | |
| Q.36 | RFP | Section L.3.2.3 & L.3.2.8 | 51-53 | Would the Government confirm that the Contract Description information required per Section L.3.2.3 in regard to performance as a Subcontractor should not be provided ("provide the name of the prime contractor and POC within the prime contractor organization [name, and current address, email address, and telephone number]") if the situation described in RFP Section L.3.2.8 exists, and that the Offeror should provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs even though the Offeror does not have privity to this information. | Yes. | |
| Q.37 | PWS | PWS 1.6.4 and 1.6.15 | 6&7 | Are the PM or Deputy PM expected to be available on those Fridays identified as non-work days (Required Day Off)? | Adjusted requirement/sentence within 1.6.15 (changes in bold): The PM or Deputy PM shall be available between core hours, 0700-1630, Monday through Thursday and alternating Fridays, except Federal holidays or when the Government facility is closed for administrative reasons. | |
| Q.38 | PWS | PWS 1.6.4 | 4 | Please confirm core hours timeframe as two different end times as provided | Corrected second core hours reference at 1.6.4 as shown (change in bold): At a minimum, the Contractor is responsible for conducting business between the core hours, 0700 – 1630, except Federal holidays or when the Government facility closes due to local or national emergencies, administrative closings, or similar Government directed facility closings. | |
| Q.39 | PWS | PWS 1.6.15 | 8 | Is a top-secret clearance necessarily needed for the key personnel? | Yes. Requirement for T/S clearance remains unchanged. | |
| Q.40 | PWS | PWS 1.7.4 | 17 | There is no previous section that lists Mission Essential Contractor Services | PWS 1.7.4 is Contract Telework Plan requirements identifying what mission essential contractor services can be performed remotely, and what services cannot be performed remotely. There is no separate section to specify Mission Essential Contractor Services beyond the services stated in relation to what can/cannot be performed remotely by the Contractor. | |
| Q.41 | PWS | PWS 4.2 | 19 | Some employees require a top-secret clearance. | Concur. PWS 4.2 updated to: "The Contractor’s employees, performing work in support of this contract shall have been granted a TOP SECRET or SECRET security clearance, as applicable and required by the Government, from the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office. | |
| Q.42 | PWS | PWS 4.12.1.2 | 22 | Is the contractor to track charges by project or project support codes as listed in PWS 4.12.2 (page 23). | PWS 4.12.1.2 clarified (add in bold), "The Contractor shall track charges by project Project Support Code (PSC) as established at 4.12.2 against the Government's funded obligations in order to ensure invoices do not exceed available funding." | |
| Q.43 | TECHNICAL EXHIBIT | 7.5 TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 5 | 55 | General question: MT-01 is the only one that calls out a WAO team lead specifically stated requirements for the WAO lead (i.e. WAO Lead must possess). Assumption, all other WAOs will have a team lead. Are there specific requirements (i.e. education or experience) for these team leads (minus PM-01)? | No, WAOs do not require a Lead. MT-01 will be updated to remove the "WAO Lead" requirements as specified in the DRFP, TE #5. | |
| Q.44 | DRFP | Section D | 8 | Section D is missing | Section D is N/A - not anticipated final RFP will establish a Section D as N/A. | |
| Q.45 | DRFP | Section H | 12 | Section H is missing | Section H is N/A - not anticipated final RFP will establish a Section H as N/A. | |
| Q.46 | DRFP | 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract | 12 | Should this state "shall not exceed 66 months" instead of 60 months? Base Year + 4 OY + 6 months | FAR 52.217-9 is correct as established. The 6 months tied to FAR 52.217-8 is not applicable/incorporated into the contract term of 60 months. | |
| Q.47 | RFP and PWS | RFP 52-222-49 Service Contract Labor Standards | RFP p 28 & 58 and PWS p 1 | RFP 52-222-49 states, “….place of performance was unknown when the solicitation was issued.” However, Section L.3.3.4.8 states Dona County, NM and PWS 1.0 states WSMR, NM. Request the Government provide the applicable Wage Determination. | Clause incorporated in error and to be removed. Dona Ana County, NM is correct. | |
| Q.48 | RFP | L.2.2, L.2.3, and L.2.4.3 | 47 and 48 | L.2.2 states proposals “shall be submitted electronically to the following email address:…” However, the table in L.2.3 lists 2 digital copies per volume and L.2.4.3 states proposals are “provided on CDs or DVDs.” Please clarify how proposals will be submitted. | See response to Q.4 and Q.30. | |
| Q.49 | RFP | L.2.4.2 | 48 | L.2.4.2 states, “Tables and illustrations may use a font size no less than 12-point and may be produced in landscape mode.” The amount of data required for some illustrations, such as organizational charts, it is difficult to include all required information at 12 pt font. Would the Government consider allowing 10 pt font for graphics, tables and illustrations? | 12-pt font requirement shall remain. 11X17 page format, however, will be authorized for organizational charts. | |
| Q.50 | RFP | L.2.4.3 | 48 | L.2.4.3 states, “All proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e., doc, xls, ppt, etc., and provided on CDs or DVDs.” However, it goes on to state, “Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files.” Please clarify if files are to be submitted in their native format or as PDF files. | Corrected L.2.4.3 to reflect both the native and PDF file submission (with a note that in the event the native and PDF file differs, the Government will evaluate the PDF file content). | |
| Q.51 | RFP | L.2.5 | 48 | RFP states, “Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion.” We request the Title Page, Table of Contents, List of Exhibits, Summary Sections, and Acronym List be excluded from page count. These documents are provided for ease of evaluation and are not part of the evaluated content. Will the Government exclude these documents from page count? | L.2.5 updated to reflect the Title Page (added) and Table of Contents are both excluded from the page limitations at L.2.3. All other proposal content is subject to the page limitations -- unless expressly stated elsewhere. | |
| Q.52 | RFP | L.3.1.1-L.3.1.1.5 | 49 | L.3.1.1 states. “…organizational and management structure, to include major subcontractor, teaming partners, and / or Joint Venture (JV) relationships, key personnel qualifications, quality control process and procedures, cost management system, and continuous process improvement methods.” However, there is no mention of QC or QPI in sub sections L.3.1.1.1 through L.3.1.1.5. What are the QC and CPI requirements and where in Volume 1 should we include these narratives? | L.3.1.1.2 updated to include "managing quality control." | |
| Q.53 | RFP | Section L.3.1.1.3 | 49 | Recommend that the resumes be limited to three pages each and be excluded from the volume page count. Will the Government exclude resumes from page count? | See response to Q.22. | |
| Q.54 | RFP | Section L.3.1.1.5 | 49 | The RFP states that offerors may demonstrate their PCMS through “direct, read-only link to the Offeror’s web-based systems” or through “screenshots.” We highly recommend the Government require offerors to provide a link to a website where the Government can evaluate the system in real time. Many offerors can create “screen shots” of a system but it does not necessarily demonstrate they have a functioning system already developed and ready for execution on Day One. Having a link to a real system will ensure the offeror can deliver what they promise in the proposal. Will the Government consider requiring websites and not just allow screenshots of the PCMS? | The Government appreciates the potential offeror recommendation, but anticipates the ability to substantiate a capable PCMS may be met with screenshots and applicable supporting narrative. | |
| Q.55 | RFP | L.3.1.1.2 and L.3.2.3 | 49 and 51 | The requirement in Volume I to include functional and supervisory lines of control, roles and responsibilities and types and number of people assigned in the proposed organization chart will be very difficult to do on an 8.5x11 page. Would the Government consider allowing 11x17 pages for graphics? If so, recommend the 11x17 be counted as one page. | See response to Q.2. Each 11X17 page will count as one-page toward the page limitation requirement specified. | |
| Q.56 | RFP | L.3.1.2 and M.5.2.2.1 | 50 and 75 | M5.2.2.1 states, “The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recruitment and retention strategies (salary, fringe benefits, etc.)” this implies salary and fringe benefits must be detailed in Subfactor Two. There is no requirement in L.3.1.2 to discuss salary and typically cost specifics are not permitted outside the Cost Volume. Please clarify if salary is to be included in our Subfactor Two response and where we are to include it. | Offerors shall NOT provide cost data within M.5.2.2.1 but are requested to provide their approach and understanding of the strategies and methodologies the offeror will have in place to recruit AND retain QUALIFIED personnel (L.3.1.2.1). The narrative can address the strategies and methodoligies employed to determine the salary and benefits of their employees without mentioning cost data. | |
| Q.57 | RFP | L.3.2.7 and L.3.2.8 | 53 | Both L.3.2.7 and L.3.2.8 headings are “Section 5”, believe L.3.2.8 Submissions should be Section 6. Please confirm and update accordingly. | Concur. L.3.2.8 corrected to "Section 6." | |
| Q.58 | RFP | Pricing Instructions L.3.3-L.3.3.4.8 | 53-58 | Did not see any instructions on proposed costs for ODCs. Are offerors to assume that the plug number provided in the Attachment 11 Pricing Matrix are to be used by all offerors? | Yes, as ODCs are COST. CLIN 0002 at page 2 states, "Offerors are not to propose a cost when submitting proposals." | |
| Q.59 | RFP | L.3.3.4.1 – L3.3.4.1.3 | 55-56 | We recommend that the Government provide all offerors with the required labor categories and hours to propose and to not allow any deviation. Many offerors will game the system and bid unreasonable staffing solutions in order to win on price. It also makes the Government vulnerable post award as companies frequently protest over evaluation of differing staffing solutions. For ease of evaluation, providing the level of effort requirements benefits the Government in assessing the true value of each offeror. | NO change to the RFP. This is a Performance Based Contract and the Government does not provide approaches or solutions to meet the Requirement. Each offeror is required to propose their best approach to meeting the requirements of the contract while ensuring their proposed costs are realistic. A cost realism analysis will be performed per (L.3.3.4, M.5.4.2, and M.5.4.4.1). Any offeror that has unbalanced pricing or does not support their approach with the appropriate cost may be deemed ineligable for the award. | |
| Q.60 | RFP | M.5.2.2.1 | 75 | The statement about evaluation of Compensation Plan for Professional Employees is found under the evaluation of Subfactor Two (M.5.2.2 Recruiting and Retention of Technical Expertise), implying this is where the Government expects to find it. Typically, Compensation Plan for Professional Employees has cost data in it, which restricts it from the Technical Volume and is usually placed in the Cost Volume. Will the Government please clarify which volume the Compensation Plan should be included. We recommend Volume 3 Cost/Price. | There was no implication the Offeror's Compensation Plan for Professional Employees would be evaluated under the Technical proposal. M.5.2.2.1 expressly states the strategies for recruitment and retention to be evaluated and methodoligies in alignment with/beyond the Plan are separate/distinct from the evaluation occuring at FAR 52.222-46. A clarifcation was added to M.5.2.2.1 to state the Plan is evaluated under Volume III. | |
| Q.61 | TE | TE #8 | TE | TE #8 includes only ADPE. Is there other GFE/GFP/GFV on the contract? Please clarify and provide listing if there are any. | No. | |
| Q.62 | PWS | Numerous PWS paragraphs | Numerous pages | While “instrumentation” is repeatedly listed throughout the PWS, it is unclear if the contractor has a responsibility to transport, set-up, calibrate, operating, maintain or tear down instrumentation. Please clarify if the contractor is responsible for instrumentation, and if so, please provide a GFE Instrumentation list. | No, the TEAS Contractor is NOT responsible for instrumentation. This is a function/requirement under the MSS contract. | |
| Q.63 | PWS | 4.6 | 20 | PWS 4.6 states “Contractor shall price all vehicle costs (lease costs, operation, fuel, maintenance, depreciation, insurance, and other costs) into the Contractor’s price proposal.” However, no historical vehicle data has been provided. Please provide historical vehicle usage for the last two years to include type (car, van, SUV or truck), size (½-ton, ¾-ton, 9-pass), number of each type rented, average days vehicles were rented, and average monthly mileage. | PWS 4.6 updated to remove requirement for Contractor to price all vehicle costs. Costs are subject to CLIN 0002/ODCs at DRFP. The Base Fleet is 20 trucks (both 3/4 and 1/2 ton). Other vehicle requirements (type, quantity, etc.) will be determined by mission requirements. Customer provided high level historical data for June 2022-June 2023 at labeled tab. | |
| Q.64 | PWS | PWS 4.6.1 & 4.7 | 20 | Is the contractor responsible for pricing operation, fuel (PWS 4.7), maintenance, insurance cost for NTV? If so, please provide historical NTV usage for the last two years to include NTV type, size (½-ton, ¾-ton, 9-pass), and number of each type. | Fuel and NTV costs are subject to reimbursement via CLIN 0002. High level historical data provided via response to Q.63. | |
| Q.65 | PWS and Attachment 11 Pricing Matrix | PWS 4.6, 4.6.1, 4.7 | 20 | It is not clear where vehicle rental, lease, operation, fuel, maintenance, depreciation, insurance and other vehicle costs are to be placed in the Pricing Matrix. Please clarify where these costs are to be included. | See response to Q.63. "Plug number" utilized and costs subject to reimbursement via CLIN 0002. | |
| Q.66 | PWS – TE | PWS 7.2/ TE #3 | 50 | In TE #3, under Fort Bliss, TX, there is an entry for “Integration Motor Pool” and “Snake Pit (Motor Pool)”. Are these the only two locations where the contractor can place rented/GFE NTV vehicles when not in active use? This is a significant distance from where the contractor’s personnel are on WSMR main post. Please clarify if this assumption is correct. | Parking is at WSMR. |
TE #3 has been updated to remove all locations at Fort Bliss, TX.
Q.63
| 6/6/22 | 34 | |
| 7/7/22 | 31 | |
| 8/8/22 | 42 | |
| 9/9/22 | 42 | |
| 10/10/22 | 25 | |
| 11/11/22 | 11 | |
| 12/12/22 | 11 | |
| 1/13/23 | 11 | |
| 2/14/23 | 12 | |
| 3/15/23 | 41 | |
| 4/16/23 | 33 | |
| 5/17/23 | 36 | |
| 6/18/23 | 36 | |
| Note: 20 additional vehicles per month are in base rental fleet supporting long term customer support at Launch Complex and 901 area sites. |
TEAS Vehicle Rentals JUN22 - JUN23
44718 44749 44781 44813 44844 44876 44907 44939 44971 45000 45032 45063 45095 34 31 42 42 25 11 11 11 12 41 33 36 36
Questions Tenaxtech
| Mark DiBerardino |
| mdiberardino@tenaxtech.com |
| 443.506.1693 |
Questions WFSS Inc
| Chris Brough | |||
| WFSS Inc. | |||
| 915-443-3735 | |||
| brough.christopher@wfssinc.com | |||
| TEAS Questions---STEEL POINTE MISSION SOLUTIONS | |||
| Question No. | Document in Draft RFP Files | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | Will the government provide the necessary equipement or access to equipement (TPE) as it pertains to transportation requirements in austere conditions such as field exercise or test execution? (Example: HMMWV, 4X4 Trucks, Vans etc.) | ||
| 2 | To help minimize the cost of overtime, would the prime be able to utilize surge / part time / intern personnel to reduce cost and increase productivity and effective scheduling to meet customer needs? | ||
| 3 | Will the government provide a list of all the Special Access Programs (SAP) to ensure we are hiring the right personnel with the right qualifications to fullfil contract requirements? | ||
| 4 | What are ths determining factors that constitutes a task order on TEAS vs Mission Support Services contract? | ||
| 5 | Is a test schedule (size/duration) available and can the government provide it? | ||
| 6 | Are the two key personnel billable positions or do they need to be included in the PMO? | ||
| 7 | Is the environmental officer considered billable or part of the PMO? | ||
| 8 | Please provide the mix of personnel that need CACs or WSMR access. | ||
| 9 | What are the seniority levels on the WD personnel? | ||
| 10 | Draft RFP, 47 - 48, L.2.2 and L.2.4 | "Section L.2.2 states completed proposals should be submitted to the following email address: |
usarmy.jbsa.acc-micc.mbx.tsc-div3@army.mil
However, section L.2.4 states proposals should be provided on CDs or DVDs. Please clarify how proposals are to be submitted and the number of required copies of each proposal volume."
| 11 | Draft RFP, 48 - 49, L.2.5 and L.3.1.1.1 | Section L.2.5, second paragraph indicates each volume should have a Table of Contents, a Summary Section, and a Narrative Discussion. Section L.3.1.1.1 seems to be calling for an Executive Summary which seems redundant to the Summary Section. Can you clarify if Volume I should have both a Summary Section as well as an Executive Summary? |
| 12 | Draft RFP, 59, L.5.2 | Section L.5.2 states offerors should identify two individuals designated for ASSIST2Industry access in our “cover letter”. This is the only mention in the DRFP of a requirement for a cover letter. Can you clarify if a cover letter is required and, if so, should it be submitted separate from the four (4) required volumes identified in Section L.2.3 |
| 13 | Draft RFP, Section L.3.1.3.1 | L.3.1.3.1 In detailing the Offeror’s approach to phase-in, at a minimum, the Offeror shall include… Question, Will the government provide a current schedule of events as planned in January – March 2025? |
| 14 | Draft RFP, Section L.3.2.7 | L.3.2.7 Section 5: Past Performance Questionnaire. Are CPARs required or in lieu of the Questionaire? Or is just the questionaire required? |
| 15 | What equipment will the Contractor need to provide? | |
| 16 | ||
| 17 |
Questions Trideum
| Kenny Hill | |||||
| khill@trideum.com | office 256.704.6100, Ext 619 | mobile 915.543.0496 | |||||
| Question Number | PWS/RFP Section | PWS/RFP Page | PWS/RFP Requirement | Question/Comment | Recomendation |
| 1 | RFP Section I | 14 | The RFP includes FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. | Given that this is an 8(a) set aside, we believe this is included in error. | Please confirm that a Small Business Subcontracting Plan per FAR 52.219-9 is not required. |
| 2 | RFP Section L.3.1.1.3 | 48 | Key Personnel Resumes | Will the Government allow Key Personnel resumes to be submitted outside of page count? | Recommend allowing the Key Personnel resumes to be provided outside of page count. |
| 3 | RFP Section L.3.1.1.5 | 48 | Contractor Project Cost Management System | If provided by offerors, screen shots may not comply with font size/type requirements due to the design of their chose system. | Please confirm that screenshots are allowed to be in their native font/format, with text that is legible (no size requirements). |
| 4 | RFP Section L.3.1.1.5 | 48 | Contractor Project Cost Management System | Given the depth of requirements identified in Technical Exhibit 9 and PWS 4.12, Fully robust systems, as requested by the Government, will take multiple pages to present visually and explain functionally. | Recommend allowing offerors to provide screen shots of their project cost management system outside of page count. |
| 5 | RFP Section L.3.2.1 | 50 | Prime past performance | L.3.2.1 states that up to 5 references for the prime offeror and up to 3 references for major subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or JVs are allowable. In accordance with 13 CFR §125.8, in the case of an All Small Mentor Protégé Joint Venture, a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. | Recommend that the requirements for past performance be revised to state, “up to 5 references for the prime offeror (including All Small Mentor Protégé joint ventures as well as individual joint venture partners) and up to 3 references for major subcontractors or teaming partners.” |
| 6 | RFP Section L | Technical Exhibit 10 | TE10 is referenced in multiple places in the RFP but was not provided with the DRFP. | Please provide TE10. | |
| 7 | RFP Section L.3.3.4.1 and L.3.3.3.4.5 | 54 & 56 | Technical Exhibit 10 | Please confirm if offerors are allowed to deviate from the hours/labor categories shown in TE10. | |
| 8 | RFP Sections L.3.2.1 and L.3.2.2 | 51 | L.3.2.1-"This volume shall not exceed 25 pages of offeror / prime past performance information plus five pages for each major subcontractor, teaming partner, and / or JV partner, with a maximum of five (thus, a maximum allowable page limitation of 50 pages)." L.3.2.2-"Offerors shall submit up to five (5) Government contracts for the prime offeror and up to three (3) from major subcontractors, teaming partners, and / or JVs..." | Would the Government please confirm the total number of Past performance citations allowed for major subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or JV partners as Section L.3.2.1 indicates five (5) and Section L.3.2.2 indicates three (3). | Recommend giving the offerors a choice of up to five (5) Prime PP, and up to five (5) Sub PP. |
| 9 | RFP Section L.3.2.1 | 51 | L.3.2.1-"This volume shall include a summary describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and / or JV." | For the maximum page limitation of past performance information, does this include or exclude the summaries describing the role of each entity (offeror, subcontractors, teaming partners, JV partners)? | Recommend one (1) additional page per past performance offeror, subcontractors, teaming partners, JV partners summary be added to the Volume. </= 58 pages total. |
| 10 | RFP Sections L.2.2-L.2.2.2, L.2.3, and L.2.4.3 | 48 | Proposal Submission Requirements | L.2.2 states "..proposals are to be submited electronically to the following email…", L.2.2.1-L.2.2.2 provide guidance on how to submit proposal documents via email. L.2.3 states in the table that Digital Copies are to be provided for all proposal documents. L.2.4.3 states the proposal is to be compressed and …to be provided on CDs or DVDs. | Please confirm that all proposal files are to be provied electronically via email. |
| 11 | RFP Section L.2.4.1 | 48 | Page Format, Size, Packaging | Page siize is defined as 8.5 x11. Will the Government allow the use of 11x17 pages for lasrge graphics, tables and/or spreadsheets? | Recommend allowing the use of 11x17 pages for large graphics, tables and/or spreadsheets. |
| 12 | RFP Section L.2.4.2 | 48 | Size | L.2.4.2 states "…...Tables and illustrations may use a font size no less than 12-point and may be produced in landscape mode." Would the Government allow the use of 10 font size for tables and illustrations due to the 50 page count limitation? | Recommend allowing the use of 10 font size for tables and illustrations due to the 50 page count limitation. |
| 13 | RFP Section L.3.1.1.1 and PWS | 49 | Executive Summary | L.3.1.1.1 states "...overall management approach while operating in a developmental testing environment." The PWS details providing support to operational and developmental tests in numerous requirements. | Please clarify if support is only for Developmental or operational and developmental tests |
| 14 | PWS_Technical Exhibit 6_CDRLs | TE 6 CDRLs | Document opens to a PDF warning message | Please provide TE 6 CDRLs | |
| 15 | RFP Section L.3.2.4.1 | 52 | RFP Section L.3.2.4.1 states: "For any contracts that did not / do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The Offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary." | Would the Government confirm that IAW Section L.3.2.4.1 that it requires all schedule deviations (contract modifications) listed even if they were Government directed? | Recommend not requiring a listing of Government directed schedule deviations and any resulting contract modifications. |
| 16 | RFP Section L.3.2.3 & L.3.2.8 | 51-53 | RFP Section L.3.2.3 states: "1. Offeror / Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and POC within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, email address, and telephone number)." |
| RFP Section L.3.2.8 states: "Offerors are discouraged from providing POC information from another contractors’ facility in the case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above." | Would the Government confirm that the Contract Description information required per Section L.3.2.3 in regard to performance as a Subcontractor should not be provided ("provide the name of the prime contractor and POC within the prime contractor organization [name, and current address, email address, and telephone number]") if the situation described in RFP Section L.3.2.8 exists, and that the Offeror should provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs even though the Offeror does not have privity to this information. | |||||
| 17 | PWS 1.6.4 and 1.6.15 | 6&7 | 1.6.4. Hours of Operation (Mountain Time): | |||
| The majority of the WSMR workforce (both Civilian and Contractor) operate under a compressed work schedule consisting of four 9-hour days with core hours between 0700 – 1630 Monday thru Thursday and one 8-hour day on either the first or second Friday of the pay period with the alternate Friday as a non-workday while 1.6.15. Key Personnel states The PM or Deputy PM shall be available between 0700 and 1630, Monday through Friday except Federal holidays or when the Government facility is closed for administrative reasons | Are the PM or Deputy PM expected to be available on those Fridays identified as non-work days (Required Day Off)? | Recommend specifying section 1.6.15 to state the PM or Deputy PM to be available on Fridays not identified as non-workdays IAW published work schedule. | ||||
| 18 | PWS 1.6.4 | 4 | 1.6.4 The majority of the WSMR workforce (both Civilian and Contractor) operate under a compressed work schedule consisting of four 9-hour days with core hours between 0700 – 1630 Monday thru Thursday and one 8-hour day on either the first or second Friday of the pay period with the alternate Friday as a non-workday. At a minimum, the Contractor is responsible for conducting business between the core hours, 0700 – 1530 | Please confirm core hours timeframe as two different end times as provided | Recommend adjusting second instance of "core hours" from 1530 to 1630. | |
| 19 | PWS 1.6.15 | 8 | 1.6.15 under qualifications for key personnel: U.S. Citizens who possess or are able to obtain and maintain a top-secret level clearance in accordance with DoD regulations. | Is a top-secret clearance necessarily needed for the key personnel? | Recommend changing top-secret to secret | |
| 20 | PWS 1.7.4 | 17 | The Contractor shall describe how it will continue to perform the mission essential Contractor services listed above, Mission Essential Contractor Services, during periods of crisis | There is no previous section that lists Mission Essential Contractor Services | Recommend adding a section/listing that specifically calls out Mission Essential Contractor Services | |
| 21 | PWS 4.2 | 19 | The Contractor’s employees, performing work in support of this contract shall have been granted a SECRET security clearance from the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office | Some employees require a top-secret clearance. | Recommend adjusting to read "secret or top-secret clearance as required by the Government." | |
| 22 | PWS 4.12.1.2 | 22 | The Contractor shall track charges by project against the Government’s funded obligations | Is the contractor to track charges by project or project support codes as listed in PWS 4.12.2 (page 23). | Provide more fidelity on definition of "project"; if it is to mean project support codes then recommend adjusting wording to "Contractor shall track charges by project support code, as outlined in 4.12.2, against the Government's funded obligations | |
| 23 | 7.5 TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 5 | 55 | General question: MT-01 is the only one that calls out a WAO team lead specifically stated requirements for the WAO lead (i.e. WAO Lead must possess). Assumption, all other WAOs will have a team lead. Are there specific requirements (i.e. education or experience) for these team leads (minus PM-01)? | |||
| 24 | DRFP Section D | 8 | Section D | Section D is missing | Please provide Section D | |
| 25 | DRFP Section H | 12 | Section H | Section H is missing | Please provide Section H | |
| 26 | DRFP | 12 | 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract | Should this state "shall not exceed 66 months" instead of 60 months? Base Year + 4 OY + 6 months | Recommend changing to "66 months" |
Questions AGS
| Susie Ortega |
| Proposal Manager |
| AGS Solutions, LLC |
| Direct: 805.288.7387 | ||||
| Cell: 805.218.5649 | ||||
| Question # | Source Document | Section Number | Page Number | Question |
| 0.+DRFP_W91151-24-R-0030_27Aug2024 | ||||
| 1 | RFP and PWS | RFP 52-222-49 Service Contract Labor Standards | RFP p 28 & 58 and PWS p 1 | RFP 52-222-49 states, “….place of performance was unknown when the solicitation was issued.” However, Section L.3.3.4.8 states Dona County, NM and PWS 1.0 states WSMR, NM. Request the Government provide the applicable Wage Determination. |
| 2 | RFP | L.2.2, L.2.3, and L.2.4.3 | 47 and 48 | L.2.2 states proposals “shall be submitted electronically to the following email address:…” However, the table in L.2.3 lists 2 digital copies per volume and L.2.4.3 states proposals are “provided on CDs or DVDs.” Please clarify how proposals will be submitted. |
| 3 | RFP | L.2.4.2 | 48 | L.2.4.2 states, “Tables and illustrations may use a font size no less than 12-point and may be produced in landscape mode.” The amount of data required for some illustrations, such as organizational charts, it is difficult to include all required information at 12 pt font. Would the Government consider allowing 10 pt font for graphics, tables and illustrations? |
| 4 | RFP | L.2.4.3 | 48 | L.2.4.3 states, “All proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e., doc, xls, ppt, etc., and provided on CDs or DVDs.” However, it goes on to state, “Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files.” Please clarify if files are to be submitted in their native format or as PDF files. |
| 5 | RFP | L.2.5 | 48 | RFP states, “Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion.” We request the Title Page, Table of Contents, List of Exhibits, Summary Sections, and Acronym List be excluded from page count. These documents are provided for ease of evaluation and are not part of the evaluated content. Will the Government exclude these documents from page count? |
| 6 | RFP | L.3.1.1-L.3.1.1.5 | 49 | L.3.1.1 states. “…organizational and management structure, to include major subcontractor, teaming partners, and / or Joint Venture (JV) relationships, key personnel qualifications, quality control process and procedures, cost management system, and continuous process improvement methods.” However, there is no mention of QC or QPI in sub sections L.3.1.1.1 through L.3.1.1.5. What are the QC and CPI requirements and where in Volume 1 should we include these narratives? |
| 7 | RFP | Section L.3.1.1.3 | 49 | Recommend that the resumes be limited to three pages each and be excluded from the volume page count. Will the Government exclude resumes from page count? |
| 8 | RFP | Section L.3.1.1.5 | 49 | The RFP states that offerors may demonstrate their PCMS through “direct, read-only link to the Offeror’s web-based systems” or through “screenshots.” We highly recommend the Government require offerors to provide a link to a website where the Government can evaluate the system in real time. Many offerors can create “screen shots” of a system but it does not necessarily demonstrate they have a functioning system already developed and ready for execution on Day One. Having a link to a real system will ensure the offeror can deliver what they promise in the proposal. Will the Government consider requiring websites and not just allow screenshots of the PCMS? |
| 9 | RFP | L.3.1.1.2 and L.3.2.3 | 49 and 51 | The requirement in Volume I to include functional and supervisory lines of control, roles and responsibilities and types and number of people assigned in the proposed organization chart will be very difficult to do on an 8.5x11 page. Would the Government consider allowing 11x17 pages for graphics? If so, recommend the 11x17 be counted as one page. |
| 10 | RFP | L.3.1.2 and M.5.2.2.1 | 50 and 75 | M5.2.2.1 states, “The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recruitment and retention strategies (salary, fringe benefits, etc.)” this implies salary and fringe benefits must be detailed in Subfactor Two. There is no requirement in L.3.1.2 to discuss salary and typically cost specifics are not permitted outside the Cost Volume. Please clarify if salary is to be included in our Subfactor Two response and where we are to include it. |
| 11 | RFP | L.3.2.7 and L.3.2.8 | 53 | Both L.3.2.7 and L.3.2.8 headings are “Section 5”, believe L.3.2.8 Submissions should be Section 6. Please confirm and update accordingly. |
| 12 | RFP | Pricing Instructions L.3.3-L.3.3.4.8 | 53-58 | Did not see any instructions on proposed costs for ODCs. Are offerors to assume that the plug number provided in the Attachment 11 Pricing Matrix are to be used by all offerors? |
| 13 | RFP | L.3.3.4.1 – L3.3.4.1.3 | 55-56 | We recommend that the Government provide all offerors with the required labor categories and hours to propose and to not allow any deviation. Many offerors will game the system and bid unreasonable staffing solutions in order to win on price. It also makes the Government vulnerable post award as companies frequently protest over evaluation of differing staffing solutions. For ease of evaluation, providing the level of effort requirements benefits the Government in assessing the true value of each offeror. |
| 14 | RFP | M.5.2.2.1 | 75 | The statement about evaluation of Compensation Plan for Professional Employees is found under the evaluation of Subfactor Two (M.5.2.2 Recruiting and Retention of Technical Expertise), implying this is where the Government expects to find it. Typically, Compensation Plan for Professional Employees has cost data in it, which restricts it from the Technical Volume and is usually placed in the Cost Volume. Will the Government please clarify which volume the Compensation Plan should be included. We recommend Volume 3 Cost/Price. |
| 8.+PWS_Technical+Exhibit+8_ADPE+List_as+of+13Aug2024 | ||||
| 15 | TE | TE #8 | TE #8 includes only ADPE. Is there other GFE/GFP/GFV on the contract? Please clarify and provide listing if there are any. | |
| 1.+DRFP_Attachment+1_PWS | ||||
| 16 | PWS | Numerous PWS paragraphs | Numerous pages | While “instrumentation” is repeatedly listed throughout the PWS, it is unclear if the contractor has a responsibility to transport, set-up, calibrate, operating, maintain or tear down instrumentation. Please clarify if the contractor is responsible for instrumentation, and if so, please provide a GFE Instrumentation list. |
| 17 | PWS | 4.6 | 20 | PWS 4.6 states “Contractor shall price all vehicle costs (lease costs, operation, fuel, maintenance, depreciation, insurance, and other costs) into the Contractor’s price proposal.” However, no historical vehicle data has been provided. Please provide historical vehicle usage for the last two years to include type (car, van, SUV or truck), size (½-ton, ¾-ton, 9-pass), number of each type rented, average days vehicles were rented, and average monthly mileage. |
| 18 | PWS | PWS 4.6.1 & 4.7 | 20 | Is the contractor responsible for pricing operation, fuel (PWS 4.7), maintenance, insurance cost for NTV? If so, please provide historical NTV usage for the last two years to include NTV type, size (½-ton, ¾-ton, 9-pass), and number of each type. |
| 19 | PWS and Attachment 11 Pricing Matrix | PWS 4.6, 4.6.1, 4.7 | 20 | It is not clear where vehicle rental, lease, operation, fuel, maintenance, depreciation, insurance and other vehicle costs are to be placed in the Pricing Matrix. Please clarify where these costs are to be included. |
| 20 | PWS – TE | PWS 7.2/ TE #3 | 50 | In TE #3, under Fort Bliss, TX, there is an entry for “Integration Motor Pool” and “Snake Pit (Motor Pool)”. Are these the only two locations where the contractor can place rented/GFE NTV vehicles when not in active use? This is a significant distance from where the contractor’s personnel are on WSMR main post. Please clarify if this assumption is correct. |
image1.png image2.png image3.png image4.png image5.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .