W9115124R0030_RFIs_posted 08Nov2024.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 38 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Test Engineering and Analysis Services (TEAS)
- Solicitation number
- W9115124R0030
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army
About this file
This document is a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Test Engineering Analysis Services (TEAS) contract, an 8(a) set-aside requirement to be awarded as a Best Value Tradeoff Source Selection. The contract will be a Cost-Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract with Firm Fixed Price, Cost, and CPFF Contract Line Item Numbers. The period of performance includes a 30-day phase-in, 11-month base period, and four 1-year option periods. Offerors must submit proposals by November 26, 2024 at 3:00 PM EST per the instructions provided. The contract is being issued by the Department of the Army, Military Installation Contracting Command (MICC) - Theater Support Center. The RFP provides detailed requirements and instructions for preparing and submitting proposals, including formatting, page limitations, past performance, staffing, and cost/pricing details.
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
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
| No. | RFP Para. Reference | RFI | Government Response | Pending Amendment Action? |
| 1 | L.3.3.2 | All Offerors must provide evidence of an adequate accounting system within 7 days of the RFP issuance. The instructions mention that if the Offeror’s accounting system, a joint venture’s system, or a subcontractor’s accounting system has not been reviewed by the DCAA, additional information must be submitted. Could you please confirm if it is mandatory to include the joint venture or subcontractor’s accounting system information in addition to the Prime Offeror’s submission? | See L.3.3.2, #6. The following information shall include: 6. Whether it will be an Offeror (Prime), Joint Venture, or a Subcontractor. RFP remains unchanged. | No |
| 2 | L.3.2 | As the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has ruled in favor of allowing the evaluation of experience to consider past performance information regarding affiliated companies, will the Government allow it so long as meaningful involvement is demonstrated? |
This opportunity being 8(a) set-aside, many 8(a) companies frequently reference the experience of their more mature sister companies. Please confirm that sister company experience is allowed for the prime 8(a) offeror.
| As further support of this, the federal Government has submitted in its National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (TITLE VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters, Subtitle F—Small Business Matters, SEC. 865. Consideration of the Past Performance of Affiliate Companies of Small Business Concerns: Not later than July 1, 2024, the Secretary of Defense shall amend section 215.305 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (or any successor regulation) to require that when small business concerns bid on Department of Defense contracts, the past performance evaluation and source selection processes shall consider, if relevant, the past performance information of affiliate companies of the small business concerns. | DFARS has not been updated to reflect this change. The language in the referenced NDAA did not account for the CFR language that addresses the affiliate exemption when determining size for entity-owned 8(a) companies. When determining the size of an entity-owned 8(a) company, SBA does not consider other entities with common ownership to be affiliates. Accordingly, entity-owned 8(a) Program companies cannot automatically utilize their network of affiliate resources for a proposal (past performance or otherwise), absent a JV or teaming arrangement. The RFP, specifically section L.3.2 will remain, unchanged. | No | ||
| 3 | L.2.4.1 and L.2.5.1 | L.2.4.1 and L.2.5.1 have conflicting requirements. L.2.4.1 states, “All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer.” However, L.2.5.1 states, “Company logos, pictures or information otherwise that provide company identification or personnel shall NOT be included in Volume I.” Recommend the Government remove L.2.5.1 and Volume I NOT BE sanitized. If the volume must be sanitized, it would be very difficult for offerors to validate successes on other contracts with proposed tools, processes, and procedures, which impacts our ability to gain a “strength and/or significant strength.” Without strengths, it will also be difficult for evaluators to differentiate between offerors and make an informed award decision. | L.2.4.1 is in error and will be corrected to remove the "company name" reference within the header/footer, as noted. Providing a sanitized proposal does not limit an Offeror's ability to propose solutions they find "proven" on prior acquisition efforts and potentially be assigned proposal strengths or significant strengths, as applicable. L.2.4.1 is pending amendment, as noted. Additionally, L.2.5.1 will be amended to clarify sanitization requirements for Volume I, as follows: |
| Volume I and contents within proposal pages (to include screen shots and/or read-only link data in support of L.3.1.1.5), including appendices, Table of Contents, Title Pages, Glossary, Dividers/Tabs, Blank pages and throughout the digital copies of the Technical / Mission Capability Volume of the proposal shall not contain company logos and/or names, pictures or any information that indicates the Offeror’s (to include all team members) identification or personnel. The Technical / Mission Capability Volume shall not contain any pictures that identify Offeror personnel or Government personnel. No quotes or statements made by Government personnel in prior acquisition efforts shall be contained within Volume I of the Offeror’s proposal. Each proposal Volume (I-Technical / Mission Capability, II- Past Performance, III-Cost / Price, IV- Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations) shall be submitted as a separate Volume file, and IAW instructions at L.2.2 and its subparts. | Yes | ||||
| 4 | L.2.4.2 | L.2.4.2 states “Tables and illustrations may use a font size no less than 12-point…” Given that the Government requires no less than 12-point font in tables and illustrations, that will greatly increase the size of our typical tables and illustrations. Would the Government consider increasing the page limitations to 60 pages to accommodate the larger graphics? | No change to font size or adjustment to page limitations for this purpose will take place. Offerors shall propose a solution IAW the Government's requirements. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 5 | L.2.4.3 | 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.” However, it goes on to state, “In addition, each file shall be converted to a read-only PDF (note, in the event the native and PDF file differ, the Government will utilize the PDF file for evaluation).” Please clarify if files are to be submitted in their native format or as PDF files. | Files shall be submitted in their native format and, "in addition" via a PDF. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 6 | L.2.5.1 | L.2.5.1 states, “Finally, no quotes or statements made by Government personnel in prior acquisition efforts shall be contained in Volume I.” This restriction makes it unclear how we are to provide proofs that our proposed tools, processes or procedures were successful and the Government found them highly valuable. We recommend the Government allow customer quotes and commendations on relevant programs be allowed. This provides further validation to the Government that the offeror not only has experience managing a contract similar to TEAS but also the offeror has performed the work well, as documented by their customer. Will the Government allow customer quotes to be included? If not, please clarify how best to validate our claims. | Quotes and statements made by Government personnel for an Offeror's prior acquisition efforts shall NOT be contained in Volume I (there is no prohibition for this information in Volume II, where Offeror past performance is demonstrated). The absence of quotes (from Government personnel) within Volume I does not limit an Offeror's ability to demonstrate a proposal solution meets/exceeds the Government's requirement. However, the Government reminds all Offerors to follow the instructions as provided in Section L as to what information to provide in the appropriate volume, and to provide it’s best approach to meet the requirements of the proposed contract. See response to RFI 3 above for pending amendment to L.2.5.1. | Yes | |
| 7 | L.2.5.1 | L.2.5.1 states, “Finally, no quotes or statements made by Government personnel in prior acquisition efforts shall be contained in Volume I.” We highly recommend the Government remove this restrictive language. If not, please confirm this restriction ONLY applies to Volume 1 and citing quotes from Government personnel is permitted in other volumes. | The proposal instruction for sanitization shall remain, but see response to RFI 3 for pending amendment to L.2.5.1. The restriction of "no quotes or statements…" applies to Volume I only. | Yes | |
| 8 | L.2.5.1 | By requiring a sanitized proposal as dictated in L.2.5.1, there is no obvious advantages to the Government and poses several issues with evaluation and award. Firstly, without company name and information that could substantiate the offeror’s claims could make it impossible to determine if an offeror is truly capable of performing the work. Secondly, it could easily lead to a post-award protest. If an offeror states they are performing similar work on a specific program and identifies that program by name, it would be easy to then identify the offeror. Under L.2.5.1, this offeror would be ineligible for award, even the simple phrase “as we are now doing” can reveal the incumbent or other bidder. Thirdly, this new requirement added in the final RFP with a 30-day response means most offerors have already developed draft responses, so sanitizing the proposal at this stage will be very time consuming and likely references will be missed – making many of your offerors’ proposals unawardable. We highly recommend the L.2.5.1 restrictions be removed. | Requiring and subsequently evaluating sanitized proposals is appropriate to ensure the integrity of the source selection process and evaluator objectivity strictly to the contents of each proposal. Proposal information shall stand on its own, and an Offeror should be able to substantiate claims without identifying their entity or making any reference to a prior contract/prior program. It's acknowledged this requirement wasn't specified in the DRAFT RFP (conducted IAW FAR 15.201), but , as with all DRAFT documents, all content is subject to change pending the final document. L.2.5.1 pending amendment per RFI 3 response. | Yes | |
| 9 | L.2.5.1 and L3.1.1.5 (should be L.3.1.1.2) | The L.2.5.1 restrictions on identifying the bidders makes it unclear how we can comply with the L.3.1.1.2 requirement of “demonstrating teaming arrangements.” Furthermore, M.5.2.1.2 states, “Government will evaluate the offeror’s adequacy and feasibility of the proposed organizational chart with the types and number of people and rationale for the organizational structure and the portion of work to be performed by each entity (e.g., Offeror, major subcontractors, and/or members of joint ventures or LLC).” Please clarify how to demonstrate teaming arrangements and work to be performed by each entity with the L.2.5.1 restriction. Recommend the L.2.5.1 restrictions be removed. | Organizational charts, roles, teaming arrangements, etc. are all able to be detailed and described without specifically identifying a company name(s). An Offeror may utilize naming conventions such as Team Member 1, Subcontractor 1 and associate roles/responsibilities accordingly. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 10 | L.2.5.2 | L.2.5.2 states “Each Volume of the proposal shall consist of a Title Page (excluded from page limitations at L.2.3), Table of Contents (excluded from page limitations at L.2.3), Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion.” Kindly request the 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? | The Government concurs to exclude the Summary Section and List of Exhibits and Acronym List, as applicable from the page limitations. L.2.5.2 will be amended accordingly. | Yes | |
| 11 | L.2.5.2 | This paragraph states “Each Volume of the proposal shall consist of a Title Page (excluded from page limitations at L.2.3), Table of Contents (excluded from page limitations at L.2.3), Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion.” Since the summary section is not a part of the Narrative discussion, is it excluded from page count (assuming the 50-page limitation is referring to just the Narrative discussion)? | See response to RFI 10 above. The Summary Section is pending page amendment to exclude from the page count limitations. | Yes | |
| 12 | L.2.5.2 and L.3.1.1.1 | L.2.5.2 states “Each Volume of the proposal shall consist of a Title Page (excluded from page limitations at L.2.3), Table of Contents (excluded from page limitations at L.2.3), Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file.” An abstract is defined as “a short summary of a completed document”. How does the information in the brief abstract in the Summary Section differ from that required by the Executive Summary in L.3.1.1.1 in the Narrative discussion? | An Offeror's Summary Section may include elements of the Executive Summary as defined at L.3.1.1.1, but the Summary Section is not necessary limited to the specific elements identified to the Executive Summary. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 13 | L.3.1.1.1, M.5.2.1.1 | L.3.1.1.1 states, “The discussion shall include the governance, alignment, communication, and improvements….” However, M.5.2.1.1 states the Government will evaluate “governance, alignment, communication, improvements and innovation.” L.3.1.1.1 excludes innovations. Please clarify if Innovations should be included in our response. | L.3.1.1.1 will be amended to include "innovations" as appropriate. | Yes | |
| 14 | L.3.1.1.2, M.5.2.1.2 | L.3.1.1.2 states, “The Offeror shall detail its organizational and management structure in an organizational chart(s), demonstrating teaming arrangements, functional and supervisory lines of control, and roles and responsibilities…” However, M.5.2.1.2 states, “The Government will evaluate the offeror’s adequacy and feasibility of the proposed organizational chart with the types and number of people and rationale…” Adding number and types of personnel, in addition to teaming arrangements, functional and supervisory lines of control and roles and responsibilities, while adhering to the 12-point font requirement will make this chart very tight and unreadable, even on 11 x 17 paper. Kindly request number and type of personnel be removed from the organizational chart. | M.5.2.1.2 doesn't require an Offeror to include the "types and number of people" within the chart itself as it may be identified in the associated narrative (as stated in L.3.1.1.2) and linked/referenced to the chart, as appropriate. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 15 | L.3.2.1 | L.3.2.1 states, “This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts and shall be organized into sections as outlined below. 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 three (thus, a maximum allowable page limitation of 40 pages).” Four of the six sections (Section 3: Subcontracts, Section 4: New Corporate Entities, Section 5: PP Questionnaire and Section 6: Submissions) are not contract specific and will contain information from both the prime and major subcontractors. Please clarify if these are excluded from the 25-page limitation for primes. | L.3.2.5 Section 3: Information provided in this Section will be excluded from the page limitations at L.3.2.1, but response to L.3.2.5 shall not exceed 5 pages. Amendment to L.3.2.5 pending to clarify. |
L.3.2.6 Section 4: New Corporate Entity past performance requires the same data (L.3.2.3 and L.3.2.4) as other past performance and as such, there is no exception to page limitations. However, in the case of a New Corporate Entity, Letter of Commitment as required at L.3.2.6 will be excluded from page limitations. Amendment to L.3.2.6 pending to clarify.
| L.3.2.7 Section 5: Past Performance Questionnaires are excluded from the page count limitations. Amendment to L.3.2.7 pending to clarify. | Yes | ||||
| 16 | L.3.2.1 | L.3.2.1 states, “This volume shall include a summary describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and / or JV. The summary shall also include a reference to the past performance contracts cited for each team member and the associated tasks from the PWS represented by each cited contract.” The required summary is not contract specific and will contain information from both the prime and major subcontractors. Please clarify if the summary is excluded from the 25-page limitation for primes. | L.3.2.1 will be amended, stating the required summary is excluded from the page limitations. | Yes | |
| 17 | L.3.2.1, L.3.2.2, L.3.2.3 and L.3.2.4 | L.3.2.1 states, “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 three (thus, a maximum allowable page limitation of 40 pages).” Give the amount of information required by L.3.2.3 and L.3.2.4, especially a highly relevant contract with all or nearly all the same functional areas, and the 12-point font requirement makes the five-page limitation an unrealistic requirement. Recommend the citations for major subcontractors, teaming partners or JV partners be allowed 4 pages per citation and a max of 3 citation per company. | No change. The Government will not change page count, as requested. | No | |
| 18 | L.3.2.1, L.3.2.2, L.3.2.3 and L.3.2.4 | L.3.2.1 states, “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 three (thus, a maximum allowable page limitation of 40 pages).” Is it safe to assume that we can have three citations from one major subcontractor, five pages each, if we are proposing only one subcontractor? | No. L.3.2.1 states 5 pages for EACH major subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or JV. If an Offeror is proposing/has identified one major subcontractor within Volume II, the past performance for that one major subcontractor is limited to 5 pages (and thus, a Volume II of 30 pages total). RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 19 | L.3.2.7.1 | L.3.2.7.1 states, “Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC via DD/MMM/YYYY format.” Please clarify if the Solicitation Number refers to the TEAS solicitation number or the solicitation number of the awarded contract we are referencing. | The referenced solicitation number is the TEAS RFP number: W91151-24-R-0030. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 20 | L.3.2.8 | L.3.2.8 Section 6: Submissions 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.” It is unclear what is required under Section 6: Submission. Please clarify. | In providing POCs, it is not recommended (i.e., discouraged) to identify past performance POCs from Offeror's also submitting a proposal for the TEAS requirement. Government POCs shall be included, to include cases where the Offeror was in a subcontractor role. In this case, include the prime contract number and Government POC, to the extent that information is available. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 21 | L.3.3.4.1.1 | L.3.3.4.1.1 states, “Offeror’s may utilize historical data at A12 as deemed appropriate, but the Offeror is responsible for proposing personnel, hours and associated labor rates proposed to meet requirements as set forth herein.” The RFP provides no projected workload to develop a staffing from, only historical data and that is not a valid forecast of future testing Level-of-effort (LOE). Without a project workload, a valid staffing level/LOE cannot be developed. Please provide projected workload. | A projected workload is not available. Offerors may utilize the provided historical data as well as their understanding of the requirements set forth in the PWS and experience otherwise to propose a solution for TEAS support. L.3.3.4.1.1 will be amended to state "Offerors should utilize historical data at A12..." | Yes | |
| 22 | L.3.3.5 and M.5.2.2.1 | L.3.3.5 has the Professional Compensation Plan in Volume 3. However, M.5.2.2.1 lists the Compensation Plan under Evaluation Subfactor Two: Recruitment and Retention of Technical Expertise. Recommend the Government move M.5.2.2.1 under Volume 3 evaluation. | M.5.2.2.1 clearly states the Compensation Plan for Professional Employees (CPPE) is evaluated separately IAW FAR 52.222-46 under Volume III. But recruitment and retention strategies as proposed in meeting L.3.3.5 requirements shall align with (or go beyond) those elements stated in the Offeror's CPPE. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 23 | M.5.2.1.2 | M.5.2.1.2 states, “The Government will evaluate the offeror’s adequacy and feasibility of the proposed organizational chart with the types and number of people and rationale...” Given there are 46 different labor categories with multiple FTEs, and we must use 12-point font, this will make for an unreadable organization chart. Recommend numbers and type of personnel be placed in a separate staffing table, not within the organization chart, and excluded from page limitations. | The Offeror may include a staffing table as part of its associated narrative to the organizational chart as it sees fit and IAW stated proposal requirements. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 24 | M.5.3.5 | M.5.3.5 states, “The areas of past performance to be reviewed in the evaluation process include: |
• Business Relations
• Quality of Service
• Service
• Cost Control
• Customer Satisfaction”
| There is no definition of these terms and it is unclear what the difference is between “Quality of Service” and “Service”. Given the limited page count allowed and 12-point font size, recommend deleting Service as a discussion topic since it will be addressed in “Quality of Service.” | M.5.3.5 specifies past performance data may be utilized from other sources, to include CPARS. CPARS evaluation criteria includes: business relations, quality of service, cost control and customer satisfaction. The Government concurs to remove the bullet "service" and will amend M.5.3.5 accordingly. | Yes | |
| 25 | PWS 4.12.2, para 3; TE 9 | PWS 4.12.2 says that Government will develop and group PSCs by commodity or function to track expenditures by work assignment. |
Will the Government clarify that every individual PSC will fall under a group PSC? Further, would the Government confirm that group PSCs are different than WAOs?
| No, an individual PSC may not always fall under a group. To clarify, a PSC, Project Support Code, is the Government term/nomenclature for the contractor's mechanism to track the SOW requirements within the WAO. This will include the WBS funding number. The WAO requirements are used to categorize the work, e.g., MT-02 is for Access Monitoring. A WBS is created by the Government, which is the funding source. The contractor will use the WBS and associated SOW to create the PSC document in their system. The PSC document will go through various Government and contractor approvals once upon generation. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||||
| 26 | PWS 4.12.5 | Can the Government clarify if each PSC will be tied to a single WAO? Further, please confirm if a single PSC could be supported by multiple WAOs (i.e. one PSC crosses multiple WAOs)? | There may be multiple PSC under a WAO. PSC mission requirements may be supported by multiple WAOs. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 27 | PWS 4.12.2.2, 4.12.2.2, 1.6.17.1 | The Government makes various mention of WBS, will the Government clarify how WBSs are tied to PSCs? Is the idea that each PSC would be tied to a single WBS? "PSC/WBS" used together/interchangeably. | A WBS is the funding number for the PSC. There is a PSC for each WBS. They are not interchangeable as the WBS is the funding source and the PSC is generated by the contractor to track the requirements and funding. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 28 | PWS 4.12.2.1, 4.12.2.4 | Will the Government confirm whether the intention is for the Government or the contractor to enter the PSC in the system? "The Government enters PSCs into the Contractor’s automated tracking system (reference C.1.6.3)." vs. "PSC assignment officially occurs when the Contractor enters the action within the automated tracking system (reference Section 4.12.1.3), which shall occur no later than three (3) business days of PSC receipt from the Government". Our read was that the Government would initiate in our system, that would prompt us to generate spend plan, so that entire process is managed in single system. | Both will enter PSCs into the system. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 29 | PWS 5.3.6.1 | Can the Government provide more information about the Range Operations face report? | This report is generated during the operation of PMM and is used during the mission schedule review conducted by the Government (an example cannot be provided). The contractor will manage the view-only report in the PMM. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 30 | PWS 4.12.2 para 3 | Can the Government provide a list of commodities/functions they are anticipating using to group PSCs to track expenditures? | The WAO requirements are how the contractor can group PSCs, however, the WAOs do not track expenditure. As stated, WAOs are organization tools for requirements -- and test requirements will be provided in the individual mission test plans. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 31 | PWS(general) | Can the Government further clarify how the process and data requirements differ, if at all, for a direct/reimbursable vs. overhead/institutional PSC? | The process is the same. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 32 | PWS 1.7.3 Reporting Hours | To report labor hours for supported missions, the Contractor shall follow the example provided. |
| Please provide the referenced example. | Please see PWS paragraph referenced, 1.7.3. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 33 | PWS 4.12.1.3 | "….a list of the designated Government personnel requiring access thirty (30) days after contract start and update as necessary thereafter." |
| If the Government is initiating the PSCs within the PCMS, then Government user access will need to be granted during transition. Will the Government be providing an initial list of users during the Contract Kick Off meeting so all required actions will be completed by the end of the Transition period? | Yes. Government user list will be provided transition period. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||
| 34 | PWS 4.12.2 PSCs | How will on-going PSCs (from the current contract) be initiated for the new awardee during transition? | All current mission test requirements will be provided during transition period. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 35 | PWS, Page 21, Section 4.12.1.1 | When notified by the Resource Management Directorate (RMD), the COR, in writing, may authorize the Contractor to report labor against an institutionally funded PSC/WBS in advance of reimbursable customer funding. |
| Section 4.12.2 of the PWS defines what a PSC is. In Section 4.12.1.1, it seems that PSC and WBS are interchangeable. Is a PSC the same as a WBS? | A PSC is tracked by WBS, not funded by it. The WBS is where the funding number resides (after funds have been provided at the CLIN level). RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 36 | PWS, Page 21, Section 4.12.1.1 | For accounting purposes, the Contractor shall record and invoice labor, ODC, travel, and commitments (pending actuals) against each PSC. Government project cost tracking nomenclature includes the ADSS reimbursable mission project assignments to WSMR, the GFEBS WBS, and the PSC. |
| Section 4.12.1.1, lists ADSS and then discusses funding down to the PSC. Can the Government clarify the correct process of funding, i.e., ADSS to WBS to PSC to WAO? | The WAO establishes the requirement, funding is through ADSS/WBS, and the contractor generates the PSC. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 37 | PWS, Page 22, Section 4.12.2 | 4.12.2. Project Support Codes (PSCs): All work efforts performed by the Contractor flow through the Government in the form of individual PSCs. |
| Can the Government provide a clearer explanation of what a project support code is? At what level is a PSC assigned (i.e. WSMR, WSTC customer, etc.)? Do current support operations use PSCs? | The PSC is defined in the response to RFI 25. PSCs are assigned at the contractor level, as driven by customer requirements. Yes, the WSMR requirements currently utilize the PSC process. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 38 | PWS, Page 23, Section 4.12.2.1 | The PSC is a focused, abbreviated document continuing the anticipated period of performance of the test effort (e.g., one week, three months, one year), the specific task requirements, and any applicable specifications, designs and drawings, data requirements, milestones, budget allocation, and deliverables. |
| Can the Government provide a example of a PSC? | The Government is unable to provide an example of a PSC as that will be generated from the contractor's system. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 39 | PWS, Page 28, Section 5.1.3 | The Contractor employees providing technical support services (and data collection and harvest) may be required to be licensed on Army Tactical Vehicles such as but not limited to variants of the High Mobility Maneuverable |
| Will the Government provide this training and licensing with other licensing requirements as outlined in 4.9. Training, Permits, Licenses and Certifications? | No, the Government will not provide training. It is not anticipated the contractor will be required to execute the stated requirement. Should the unlikely event occur, the need for training will be revisited in execution. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||
| 40 | Attachment 12 Historical Hours | Please provide clarification on the highlighted labor categories and why some of the labor categories do not have any hours. Some have not had hours since 2021-2022 or some just started having hours in 2023-2024 | Historical hours are correct, as included in the RFP package (highlighting of particular labor categories was an administrative error and can be ignored). All labor categories with hours since 2021 were included to provide Offerors with the most accurate history of recent TEAS requirements, however, the most recent data is representative of the labor mix based on multiple factors (requirements, funding, cost shredding efforts, etc.). While the labor categories without hours since 2021-2022 were excluded from the Attachment 11 Pricing Matrix, Offerors are able to add labor categories, as their proposal solution supports. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 41 | Page 16 | Section B indicates the base period is 11 months, but section F shows CLIN 0001 as full 12 months from 6/1/25 - 5/31/26 |
| Assuming transition start date is 5/1/25, as shown, should the end date of CLIN 0001 be 4/30/26? | Correct. The first period of performance (PoP) should end 30 Apr 2026. All applicable CLINs are pending amendment to reflect PP end in April of each year. Section F will be amended accordingly. | Yes | |
| 42 | Page 16 | CLIN 0001 Delivery Date POP 01-JUN-2025 TO 31-MAY-2026 |
| As written, the dates of 01 June 2025 to 31 May 2025 is 11 months and 30 days. Is 31 May 2025 correct? Applies to CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003. | As (partially) stated in response to RFI 41 above, the PoP (for CLIN 0001) will be corrected to 01 Jun 2025 through 30 Apr 2026. CLIN 1001 will reflect a full year (12 months) from 01 May 2026 through 30 Apr 2027 and continuing to the final option year on the 01 May through 30 Apr 2030. Section F will be amended accordingly. | Yes | |
| 43 | Section I | Section I includes FAR 52.237-3 Continuity of Services, which states, “By requiring prospective contractors who employ the same personnel to provide the same vacation benefits as an incumbent contractor, equity in bidding is achieved – otherwise the incumbent contractor would be at a distinct disadvantage when bidding. Note: Not less than 10 days before contract completion, the incumbent prime contractor must furnish the contracting officer a list of all service employees who were on the contractor or subcontractor’s payroll during the last month of the contract, together with the employees’ anniversary dates of employment (when employment began with the incumbent as well as with any predecessor contractors). A copy of this list is provided to the successor contractor. 29 C.F.R. § 4.6(l)(2).” |
| In order to ensure that offerors appropriately build rates based on incumbent employees time in service and corresponding vacation time, please provide the seniority information for all contractor personnel. Should the Government not provide seniority, thus allowing non-incumbents to properly assess time in service, then please confirm that the Government will allow equitable adjustments to offeror bid rates post award to correct for any underestimated vacation benefits. | FAR 52.237-3 does not contain that language in quotes. Regardless, the Government does not have the seniority information for all contractor personnel available to provide with the solicitation. Accordingly, the awardee, has the ability to request an Equitable Adjustment via DFARS 252.243-7002 (incorporated in the RFP), for a contract adjustment for which the Contractor believes the Government is liable. | No | |
| 44 | Section L.5.2.1 (correct reference is L.2.5.1) | Company logos, pictures or information otherwise that provide company identification or personnel shall NOT be included in Volume I.” L.3.1.1 requires offerors to describe their organizational structure as well as their subcontractors/teammates. Specifically, offerors are asked “to include major subcontractor*, teaming partners, and / or Joint Venture (JV) relationships, key personnel qualifications…. |
| Please confirm that offerors cannot use the name of subcontractors or JV partner names. Also, please confirm that offerors cannot use the name of the key personnel in their KP resume. | Confirmed. The Offeror shall not include identifying information for any component of its team (to include subcontractors and JV partner names). As noted in the Government's response to RFI 9, the Offeror may use a naming convention such as Subcontractor 1 or Team Member 1, etc. Confirmed Offerors cannot use the name of key personnel in their KP resume. L.3.1.1.3 shall be amended to ensure clear direction: To ensure compliance with L.2.5.1 (pending amendment per RFI 3), resumes shall NOT include names of personnel. | Yes | |
| 45 | Section L.3.1.1.5 | Regarding the PCMS, L.3.1.1.5 states, “Demonstration of such may be through a direct, read-only link to the Offeror’s web-based systems for purpose of evaluation, screen shots* with associated narrative explanation, or detail otherwise to substantiate cost management capability as required by the PWS.” |
| Please confirm that a link to a video of an offerors system (read only) that demonstrates it’s capabilities may include associated text/narrative explanation of the capabilities to align to the video on screen. | Confirmed. The RFP will be amended to add the option of demonstrating an Offeror's CMS with a read-only video link and associated text/narrative. L.3.1.1.5 shall be amended accordingly. | Yes | |
| 46 | Section L.3.1.1.5 | Regarding the PCMS demonstration, L.3.1.1.5 states, “Accordingly, Offerors shall NOT include narrative information on screen shot pages.” |
| Should offerors elect to use screen shots for the PCMS, please confirm that figure names/numbers are allowable on each page. | Confirmed. The RFP will be amended to clarify figure names/numbers are allowable on screen shot pages. L.3.1.1.5 shall be amended accordingly. | Yes | |
| 47 | Section L.3.2.1 | L.3.2.1 states, “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 three (thus a maximum allowable of 40 pages).” |
| In the case of an All Small Mentor Protégé Program Joint Venture, per 13 CFR§ 125.8, 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. As such, the past performance of each partner should be included within the 5 citations from the offeror (it must be considered in the same way as if performed by the JV itself), and not within the 3 citations allowable from major subcontractors. Would the Government please revise Section L.3.2.1 to state, “This volume shall not exceed 25 pages of offeror/prime past performance information (including past performance of individual JV partners) plus five pages for each major subcontractor or teaming partner, with a maximum of three (thus a maximum allowable of 40 pages).” This more appropriately aligns with the CFR and the assessment of the past performance of JV partners as being acceptable in place of the JV itself. Note that L.3.2.2 also defines prime and JV Partners separately and should also be updated. | The Government concurs to correct L.3.2.1 to align the requirement per 13 CFR§ 125.8 and correct L.3.2.2, as appropriate. L.3.2.1. | Yes | |
| 48 | Section L.3.3.5 | L.3.3.5 Professional Compensation Plan states that the offeror shall submit a single TCP setting for the base salaries separated by fringe benefits proposed for the prime contractor, subcontractors, and joint venture partners as applicable. |
| Given that data within the TCP is considered company proprietary, we recommend that each team member (offeror, JV partner, and subcontractor) submit their own TCP individually to the Government as part of the cost proposal as per L.3.3.4.7.1 and not as a single submission for the entire team. | Team members may submit a separate TCP directly to the Government, along with their cost proposal. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 49 | Section L.2.5.1 | L.2.5.1 “…no quotes or statements made by Government personnel in prior acquisition efforts shall be contained in Volume I.” |
| Per the Government’s evaluation criteria, offerors approaches must be both adequate and feasible. CPARS quotes substantiating how offerors application of the same approaches on other contracts are a very objective way of demonstrating adequacy and feasibility. So long as no attribution is made to a specific company or contract (or any other company identifying information), are CPARS quotes allowable in Volume I? | No CPARS quotes, or quotes otherwise shall be included in Volume I. See response to RFI 3 for pending amendment to L.2.5.1. | Yes | |
| 50 | RFP Section L.3.2.4.1, pages 69-70 | 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." |
| Can 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? These can be extensive and consume page count. | Yes, all schedule deviations, even if Government directed are to be addressed in the proposal. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 51 | RFP Section L.3.2.3 & L.3.2.8, pages 69-71 | 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."
| Can 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. | See response to RFI 20 above. L.3.2.8 states Offerors are discouraged. If no other POC information is available, Offerors may provide as they deem appropriate. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 52 | Attachment 3, Appendix 1.6.9 Page 3, Section 1.6.9.6 | First sentence of this section is written over so unsure what it says |
| Please provide a corrected copy to see what is written | Fully legible copy of Attachment 3 shall be provided in a subsequent amendment. 1.6.9.6 states: "Contractor and Safety Health Program: The Contractor shall establish and maintain an acceptable safety and health program. | ||
| a. Contractor Safety and Health Manager. As part of the Contractor Safety and Health Program,..." | Yes | ||
| 53 | Attachment 3, Appendix 1.6.9 Page 4, Section 1.6.9.9 | If the Contractor or their sub-Contractor will use or access radioactive material or radiation generating devices, the Contractor shall establish and maintain a Radiation Safety Program |
| Is there a requirement to use or access radioactive material or radiation generating devices on this contract? | No. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 54 | Attachment 3, Appendix 1.6.9 Page 5, Section 1.6.9.9 | Personnel shall receive appropriate training before performing work that involves exposure to AE. |
| Will the Government provide this training? | The Government will not provide training as there is not a projected need to support requirements involving exposure to AE. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 55 | Attachment 3, Appendix 1.6.9 Page 5, Section 1.6.9.11 (a-hh) | Required Safety Elements |
| Are all these elements applicable to this contract (examples: scaffolding, powered platforms, aerial lift equipment, soldering, excavations, et al)? | No. However, this is standard safety requirements language, required by ATEC DPG. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 56 | Attachment 4, Appendix 1.6.11 Page 1 | This contract does not perform or need to manage environmental requirements such as these listed as a large percentage of the contract |
| Can the Government provide a refined listing of which environmental requirements pertain to this contract? | No refined listing is available, but Attachment 4 remains, as required by ATEC DPG. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||
| 57 | TE 9 | Can the Government provide an estimate of the number of Government users who will need to interact with the PCMS system's applications (i.e. PSC initiators, approvers such as Test Officers, Division Chiefs, KO, COR) by system (i.e. purchasing, travel, PSC tracking, overtime, funding, and financial tracking site)? This information is important for offerors to properly estimate the number of licenses required by user/system. | Each system anticipates approximately 100 Government users. | No | |
| 58 | TE 9 | multiple references |
| Will the Government define WAC and provide additional information as to how WACs relate to PSC/WBS funding? | WAC = Work Authorization Code is the same as PSC. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 59 | TE9 | MSC Tracking section |
| Will the Government confirm that MSC Tracking should say PSC tracking? | MSC = Mission support code or WBS. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 60 | TE 9 | Funding Elements to be Considered Section |
| Could the Government clarify what is meant by obligation vs allocation with regards to funding amount? | Obligated amounts are the funds authorized for a particular period of time. Those funds are then allocated for spending purposes. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 61 | TE 9 | Funding Capability |
| What is meant by custom report for "Contractor Monthly Strength"? | Contractor headcount. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 62 | TE 4 | Block 11h, Require a COMSEC Account, is checked. Block 13 normally has additional information related to items checked in Block 11. |
| Will the Government provided additional information in Block 13 for Block 11h? | No. Contractor must meet DOD COMSEC account requirements. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||
| 63 | TE 6 | Will the Government provide a list of potential non-CDRL deliverables tied to PSCs? | No list is available. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 64 | TE 6 | Will the Government provide a list of all non-CDRL related deliverables at contract level, if any? | No list is available. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 65 | L.2.4.2, page 65 of 98 | A stnadard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman font are required. Tables and illustrations may use a font sixe no less than 12-point and may be produced in landscape mode. |
| Would the Governments consider to reduce the font size for graphics, tables to be 10-point? | No, the 12-point font is firm. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||
| 66 | L.2.4.2, page 65 of 98 | A stnadard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman font are required. Tables and illustrations may use a font sixe no less than 12-point and may be produced in landscape mode. If the font size remains as 12-point for graphics and tables in the Technical Volume would the Governement increase the page count from 50 to 75 pages? | No, the page limitations for all Volumes is firm. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 67 | L.3.2.2 | The solicitation states: "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 in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation." Are unpopulated JV's submitting as a prime Offeror limited to 3 x PP citations or can either partners comprising the JV be included as the 5 x prime offeror submissions? | See response to RFI 47. L.3.2.1 (and L.3.2.2) will be amended to address offeror/prime past performance information (including past performance of individual JV partners) plus five pages for each major subcontractor or teaming partner, with a maximum of three (thus a maximum allowable of 40 pages). Amendment to L.3.2.1 and L.3.2.2 pending. | Yes | |
| 68 | Attachment 11 | Will the government provide education and years of experience requirements for the labor categories? | No, information will not be provided. IAW L.3.3.3.2, any assumption the Offeror makes shall be addressed in the narrative. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 69 | L.2.4.3 | Section L.2.4.3 of the RFP requires Offerors to "compress (zip)" files which contradicts the mitigations to file size limitations outlined in Section L.2.2.2, in which the Government instructs offers to submit proposals in multiple emails if necessary. May the Government please clarify expectations surrounding zipped files for submission? Should Offeror's split emails as necessary for size, and compress each file on each of the separate emails? | Offerors shall use the instructions at L.2.2.2. L.2.4.3 will be amended to refer to L.2.2.2. Zipped files are not required. Amendment to L.2.4.3 to clarify pending. | Yes | |
| 70 | L.6.2.1.1 | Setion L.6.2.1.1 indicates that proposals might be submitted to the contracting office via PIEE. In section L.2.4.3 there are emailing instructions. Please clarify how proposal submissions are accomplished. | L.6 is included to put all Offerors on notice of the Army's transition to the Army Contract Writing System (ACWS), however there is NO CHANGE TO PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS. Offerors shall follow submission (email) instructions at L.2.4.3. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 71 | L.2.5.1 | Section L.2.5.1 states, "Company logos, pictures or information otherwise that provide company identification or personnel shall NOT be included in Volume I." Typically headers, cover pages, and team/company introductions include identifying content. The narrative is populated by leveraging company names as well. Is it the intent of the Government that Volume I - Tehcnical / Mission Capability be entirely sanitized? If so, are we still to include our company name in the title of the files as instructed? | Correct. Volume I shall be sanitized entirely, with no identifying content to the Offeror (or any team members). The email submission at L.2.2.1 shall include the Offeror Name, as instructed. Evaluation teams are not privy to email receipts. See response to RFI 3 for pending L.2.5.1 amendment. | Yes | |
| 72 | L.4.3 | Is the Property Management Plan due at proposal submission or at contract award? | The Property Management Plan is due at proposal submission. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 73 | pg 12 of 98 | On the bottom of page 12 of 98 the following statement is provided “FIXED FEE While the labor hours will fluctuate up and down based on customer needs, the CPFF contract type CLIN fee will be fixed, and divided equally by the twelve-month period of performance (or eleven months for the base period), and payable at the end of each month.” If hours fluctuate, which drives Cost, wouldn’t the Fee also fluctuate in line with the costs? How would industry predict all the costs for a period (12 or 11 months) and accurately indicate on each invoice? | IAW FAR 16.306(a), the negotiated fee is fixed at the inception of the contract, and thus, does not vary with actual cost (i.e., fluctuating hours). The negotiated fee is applied to the proposed contract cost at award, and calculated as a dollar value, divided by twelve, and established as the monthly fee for invoice throughout the contract. | No |
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 .