Attachment_10_-_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Deployable Adaptive Global Responder Support (DAGRS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W911NF-17-R-0001
About this file
Q&As
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 20
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&As W911NF-17-R-0006 Solicitation Questions & Answers
| Q# | Paragraph Reference | Page in RFP | Question | Answer/Response | |
| 1 | Section A.4 and Sections I and K Clauses | 2 | Page 2 (Section A.4), Page 58 (Section I) and Page 95 (Section K) | Section A.4 states that the Business Size Standard is 1,000 employees; Clauses in Section I and Section K refer to the small business size standard as 500. Please confirm the Business Size Standard. | Section A.4 refers to the NAICS code's Small Business Size Standard, which is the correct small business size standard of 1,000 employees. |
The section being referred to in clause at FAR 52.219-28(d) is referring to "the small business size standard for a Contractor providing a product which it does not manufacture itself," and is also correct.
The Section K clause FAR 52.204-8(a)(2) has been revised to 1,000.
2 RFP page 2, section A4 and p. 95 section K 2 RFP page 2, section A4 and p. 95 section K RFP page 2, section A4 and p. 95 section K appear to conflict regarding NAICS 541712, 500 and 1500 employees. In order that the Government maximizes qualified small business participation for the solicitation can the government confirm that the NAICS code 541712 is for aircraft exception, 1500 employees or less? Section A.4 refers to the NAICS code's Small Business Size Standard, which is the correct small business size standard of 1,000 employees. There is no aircraft exception.
The Section K clause FAR 52.204-8(a)(2) has been revised to 1,000.
| 3 | Section B and PWS 2.0 & 3.3 | 4 | 4, 8,9 | The PWS General Requirements (2.0) and Specific Task (3.3) call for operational assessments, training, integration to warfighters and other DAGRS supported customers. Integration and assessment tasks can include operational modifications to fielded systems. Many operational customers will only have O&M funding available to apply to improving or integrating fielded systems. Question: Will DAGRS allow for O&M funded Tasks? If so, will Section B be updated to add O&M CLINS? | Fund type will be determined at the task order level. |
| 4 | Section B | 4 | 4, 5 | Are contractors required to fill in values for each cost CLIN in Section B or will that be reserved until time of award? | No. Offerors are not required to fill in the values for each cost CLIN in Section B. |
| 5 | C.3.0 b. | 9 | 9 of 136 | This provision states: "Contractors performing on this acquisition shall be required to deliver products relating to the following mission areas:" and is Immediately followed by SOW Sections 3.1-3.4. Are Sections 3.1-3.4 to be considered "the following mission areas:"? Or did the Government intend to include text after the colon in "following mission areas:" that was accidentally excluded? If the mission areas were accidentally excluded, we recommend removing references to "mission areas" in both Sections L and M. | The PWS C.3.1 - 3.4 are the mission areas. |
| 6 | 3.0 Specific Tasks: "(6) Individual Platform Protection" | 9 | 9 | Did the Government intend for this to read “(6) Individual and Platform Protection” such that “Individual” is used in context similar to items (7) and (8)? | Yes, the correct title for Section 3. Item (6) should read "Individual and Platform Protection" |
| 7 | PWS, 3.0, Specific Tasks | 9 | PWS, Page 9 | Will the Government provide detailed descriptions for each of the 8 Technology Areas? This will provide Contractors with a complete understanding of the Government’s expectations, and allow for more efficient mapping of Contractor/Subcontractor experience to the technical areas. | Due to the broad nature of this IDIQ, detailed descriptions are not available. |
| 8 | PWS 3.0 Specific Tasks | 9 | RFP Page 9 | Can the government provide an estimated percentage of the overall contract value for each technical area listed in PWS 3.0, Specicfic Tasks? This will aid the Offeror in determining an appropriate number of teaming partners to have for each task area to better support depth and surge based on percentage of estimated overall contract value per technical area. | The estimated percentage of the overall contract value for each technical area listed in PWS 3.0 is unknown. |
| 9 | Section H, H.2.2.8 h. | 32 | 32 | This TOP requirement references the SB Subcontracting plan for which SB proposers are not required to submit. Question: Will Small Business TOP proposers be relieved from this requirement? | See revised Section H.2.2.8(h) which strikes the requirement for submission of a small business subcontracting plan for each task order. |
| 10 | Section H.3.5 | 33 | RFP Page 33, section H.3.5 | RFP page 33, section H.3.5 notes fee or profit is not allowed on travel and equipment costs. Although a Subcontracts/Material Handling rate or General & Administrative rate are considered costs, not profit or fee, whether or not a contractor uses a S/MH or G&A rate can significantly impact the price the Government must pay. Can the Government confirm that DCAA approved and required indirect rates that are in accordance with the contractors Cost Accounting Standards must be applied to travel, subcontracts and equipment costs for this solicitation? | As stated, fee or profit is not allowed on travel and equipment costs. An offeror shall propose in accordance with their established cost accounting standards deemed adequate by DCMA or DCAA. |
| 11 | RFP page 36, section H.9. | 36 | RFP page 36, section H.9. | RFP page 36, section H.9. Can the government confirm if foreign holidays must be also recognized if personnel are operating in a foreign country? | Foreign holiday requirments may be added at the task order level. |
| 12 | RFP page 37, section H.10.5.4 | 37 | RFP page 37, section H.10.5.4 | RFP page 37, section H.10.5.4 refers to the contractor being allowed “to bill government, at labor rates identified in the order”, can the government confirm this only applies to cost reimbursement task orders? | Rates will be negotiated at the task order level. See revised language in Section H.10.5.4. |
| 13 | RFP page 37, section H.12 | 37 | RFP page 37, section H.12 | RFP page 37, section H.12 states that department of state guidelines shall be proposed and billed, however, this appears to conflict with page 35, section H.7.6 which states Dept. of state guidelines can be used “if necessary”, can the government confirm that the contractor is not required to propose Dept. of State guidelines? | "If necessary" means if the task order requires performance at an OCONUS location. See H.12 |
| 14 | Section J | 52 | 52 | The RFP lists multiple security requirements to be followed under DAGRS. Section J states that Attachment 8, DD 254 is an attachment to the RFP. We have checked FBO and cannot locate Attachment 8. Question: Will Attachment 8 be provided for download on FBO? | The Draft DD 254 is included as Attachment 8 |
| 15 | Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments | 94 | 94 of 136 | The List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments indicates that Attachment 8 DD Form 254 - Contract Security Classification Specification is provided in the RFP; however, Attachment 8 is not included in the Draft RFP. Question: Will the Government please provide Attachment 8? | The Draft DD 254 is included as Attachment 8 |
| 16 | Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments and M.4.4 Factor 4 – Past Performance | 94 | Page 94 and 132 | Section J lists Attachment 4 as the Past Performance Questionnaire and Survey. Paragraph M.4.4 shows the Past Performance Questionnaire as attachment 5. Please clarify. | See revised Section M.4.4 which correctly titles the Past Performance Questionnaire as Attachment 4. |
| 17 | RFP Page 107: Clauses Incorporate by Reference | 107 | RFP Page 107 | RFP Page 107 incorporates clause 52.222-46 by reference; the clause requires an offeror to provide a professional compensation plan with the proposal. Will the Government clarify if the offeror is to provide the professional compensation plan with the IDIQ proposal or at the task order level? | While this provision does not require a separate, stand alone submission, the offeror shall submit their proposal with sufficient information to satisfy the terms of the terms of this provision. |
| 18 | Section L | 108 | 108-114 | It is our understanding that the Proposal Adequacy Checklist is to be filled out by the proposer. Question: Assuming this is correct, what proposal volume should include the checklist? | Proposal Adequacy Checklist shall be included in Volume 7 |
| 19 | 252.215-7009 PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST (JAN 2014) | 108 | 108 | Where should the completed "Proposal Adequacy Checklist" be inserted in our proposal? Should it be filled out as part of the SF 33 inclusion per L.2.7 g, and/or L.2.7.2? | Proposal Adequacy Checklist shall be included in Volume 7 |
| 20 | 252.215-7009 PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST (JAN 2014) | 108 | 108 | Please confirm that the "Proposal Adequacy Checklist" does not count toward any page limits. | Proposal Adequacy Checklist will not be included in the page count. |
| 21 | L - Clause 252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist | 108 | Pages 108-114 | Please confirm the Proposal Adequacy Checklist requirement. It appears that it is geared towards a Task Order Response. |
Q1: Is it required to be submitted with our IDIQ submission? If so, what Volume does the Government want it submitted with and is it excluded from page count.
Q2: If it does need to be included with our IDIQ submission, please confirm that the following checklist questions do not require an answer/location in our response:
- Question 5 (Certified cost and pricing data) - Given that the Government plans to make 8 awards.
- Question 14 (Consolidated Bill of Materials (CBOM))
- Question 15 (subcontractor proposals, for which the contracting officer has initiated or may need to request field pricing analysis)
- Question 16 (Copy of the applicable subcontractor’s certified cost or pricing data)
- Question 17 (Price/cost analysis establishing reasonableness of each proposed subcontracts or matrix identifying dates for receipt of subcontractor proposal, completion of fact finding for purposes of price/cost analysis, and submission of the price/cost analysis)
- Question 23 (Time phased breakdown of labor)
- Question 24 (Basis of Estimate (BOE)) The Proposal Adequacy Checklist is required per its prescription at DFARS 215.408(5).
A1: It is required for IDIQ submission, and shall be included in Volume 7 and is excluded from the page count. See revised DFARS clause 252.215-7009.
A2: Questions 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23 and 24 do not require a proposal page number. However, pursuant to the clause instructions, an explanation of why the requested information is not provided shall be included in the last column.
| 22 | Section L Clause 525.215-7009 - Proposal Adequacy Checklist | 108 | 108 | RFP states, "The offeror shall complete the following checklist, providing location of requested information, or an explanation of | ||
| why the requested information is not provided." Will the Government confirm that the Proposal Adequacy Checklist is to be included in Volume 6? | The Proposal Adequacy Checklist shall be included in Volume 7 and is excluded from the page count. See revised DFARS clause 252.215-7009. | |||||
| 23 | Section L Clause 525.215-7009 - Proposal Adequacy Checklist, item 1 | 108 | 108 | RFP States, "Is there a properly completed first page of the proposal per FAR 15.408 Table 15-2 I.A or as specified in the solicitation?" Will the Government confirm their intent is that this information is to be provided on the first page after the front matter (cover page, table of contents, glossary, etc.)? | FAR 15.408 Table 15-2(I)(A) lists what information shall be included on the first page of the pricing proposal. Not behind any other pages. | |
| 24 | RFP page 108, section K | 108 | RFP page 108, section K | RFP page 108, section K, Proposal Adequacy Checklist appears to be required to be submitted with our proposal, however, the majority of the checklist can only be submitted when a task is proposed. Can the govt. confirm this is to be used after award and when proposing a task? | The Proposal Adequacy Checklist is required per its prescription at DFARS 215.408(5). It shall be included in Volume 7 and is excluded from the page count. See revised DFARS clause 252.215-7009. | |
| 25 | Section L, 252.215-7009 | 108 | RFP Page 108 | If the Proposal Adequacy Checklist is required as part of the IDIQ proposal submission, in which volume should it be included? | The Proposal Adequacy Checklist is required per its prescription at DFARS 215.408(5). It shall be included in Volume 7 and is excluded from the page count. See revised DFARS clause 252.215-7009. | |
| 26 | Section L, Proposal Adequacy Checklist, Items 5 and 6, Section L.2.6.3.2, L.2.6.3.6 | 109 | 109, 127 | Section L.2.6.3.2 states, "In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b), data other than certified cost or pricing data is required to support cost realism and cost reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1." Section L.2.6.3.6 states, "If after receipt of proposals the Contracting Officer determines there is insufficient information available to determine cost reasonableness and cost realism and none of the exceptions identified in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the Offeror shall be required to submit certified cost and pricing data." This conflicts with items 5 and 6 of the Proposal Adequacy checklist. Will the Government confirm that certified cost or pricing data referenced in items 5 and 6 of the Proposal Adequacy Checklist is not required? | ||
| Confirmed. | ||||||
| 27 | L, FAR 252.227-7017 | 114 | 114 and 115 of 136 | This FAR clause requirement is included in in its entirety in Section L, but no specific instructions are included regarding where Offerors' responses should be addressed. In which Volume should the identification and assertion of use, release, or disclosure restrictions as they pertain to data rights be addressed? Will this response be included in the page count of the Volume? If so, we would recommend this requirement be addressed as part of Volume 7: Cover Letter. | This FAR clause requirement will be required at the individual task order level. | |
| 28 | 252.227-7017 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSERTION OF USE, RELEASE, OR DISCLOSURE RESTRICTIONS. (JAN 2011) | 114 | 114 | Please confirm that the "Identification and Assertion of Restrictions on the Government's Use, Release, or Disclosure of Technical Data or Computer Software"pertains to only resulting DOs/TOs and is not required in our base-award proposal. | DFARS 252.227-7017 pertains only to resultant task orders. | |
| 29 | 252.227-7028 TECHNICAL DATA OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE PREVIOUSLY DELIVERED TO THE GOVERNMENT (JUN 1995) | 115 | 115 | Please confirm that the "Technical Data or Computer Software Previously Delivered to the Government" pertains to only resulting DOs/TOs and is not required in our base-award proposal. | DFARS 252.227-7028 pertains only to resultant task orders. | |
| 30 | L.1.7 | 117 | 117 and 122 of 136 | L.1.7 (page 117) does not provide for a document type for submission of the required Attachment 3: Utilization of Small Business required in L.2.4.8 (page 122). We request that the government allow for Attachment 3: Utilization of Small Business to be included within the Microsoft Word document: Factor 4 – Past Performance. Further, we request that the government confirm that the Attachment 3: Utilization of Small Business Appendix not be included within page count. | Attachment 3 was provided with the solicitation as a Microsoft Excel file, and shall remain as such. |
Attachment 3: Utilization of Small Business shall NOT be included within the Microsoft Word document: Factor 4 – Past Performance. Attachment 3 is a stand alone document which shall be submitted as an attachement to Factor 4 - Past Performance.
Pursuant to Section L.1.7, the Attachment 3 - Utilization of Small Business Form is excluded from the page count.
31 L.1.7 and L.2.4.1 (Page Limits) 117 Pages 117 and 120 Per L.1.7, Page limit is viewed as total pages within a file including, but not limited to, table of contents, cover page, glossary page, etc. The page limit for Past Performance is a Maximum of 6 pages. Per L.2.4.1,"each past performance example shall not exceed 2 pages". Given the diversity and complexity of the technical areas listed in Section C 3.0 on page 9, will the Government please consider setting the page limit of Volume 4 to 12 pages (or 10 pages not including the Cover Page and TOC for this specific volume), and for each past performance example to not exceed 3 pages? See revised L.1.7. Table of contents, glossary, and the cover page will not be included in the page count.
The past performance requirements and page limits are sufficient, and no changes will be made to the RFP regarding Past Performance page limits.
| 32 | L.1.7 | 117 | 117-118 | Will the government considering removing the table of contents, cover page, glossery page, etc., from the page counts? Volume page limitations are already very constrained for the amount of information required to meert section L and M requirements. The inclusion of cover pages, tables of content,glosseries , etc., in total page counts impacts an offerors ability to provide the level of detail to successfully meet and exceed the requirements of sections L and M. | See revised L.1.7. Table of contents, glossary, and the cover page will not be included in the page count. |
| 33 | Section L.1.7 | 117 | 117 | RFP states, "Microsoft Office 2007 software or higher and Adobe software if applicable, shall be used to create the required files," but the File Name Convention uses ".doc" for all volumes. This offeror respectfully requests that files with ".docx" extensions and searchable .pdf files be accepted? | Yes, .docx is Microsoft software, and .pdf is Adobe, so either will be accepted. |
| 34 | Section L.1.7 | 117 | 117, 123 | Word (.doc) versions of all volumes are required. Will the Government consider accepting pdf versions of documents that contain signatures (i.e. Letters of Commitment, Teaming Agreements and Cover Letter)? This will also reduce file size for electronic transmission to the Government. | Pursuant to L.1.7 Microsoft Office 2007 software or higher and Adobe software if applicable, shall be used to create the required files. |
| 35 | L.1.7 | 118 | 118 of 136 | The solicitation instructions state, "In order to reduce proposal size, proposals shall be limited to the number of pages outlined above for each volume. Page limit is viewed as total pages within a file including, but not limited to, table of contents, cover page, glossary page, etc." Will the Government consider not including the Cover Page, Table of Contents, and Glossary in the page count? Or, does the Government prefer that we do not include a Cover, TOC, or Glossary with the proposal volumes? | See revised L.1.7. Table of contents, glossary, and the cover page will not be included in the page count. |
| 36 | L.1.7 | 118 | 118 of 136 | The solicitation instructions state, "All proposal information shall be confined to the appropriate file." For volumes requiring supplemental information such as Supporting Cost information (Forward Pricing Rate Agreements, etc.) or Teaming Agreements, can these supplemental documents be provided as a separate PDF file in cases where the source Word file is not available? Our concern is that we may not be able to limit the file size to 9MB if we need to embed PDFs into our Word submissions. | If a single file exceeds 9MB the offeror shall separate the file into another. |
| 37 | Section L.1.7 | 118 | 118 | RFP states, "Page limit is viewed as total pages within a file including, but not limited to, table of contents, cover page, glossary page, etc." For ease of evaluation, will the Government confirm that compliance matrices are excluded from page count? | |
| Compliance matrices are included in the page count. | |||||
| 38 | Section L.1.7 | 118 | 118 | RFP states, "Page limit is viewed as total pages within a file including, but not limited to, table of contents, cover page, glossary page, etc." Volumes 1 and 2 are each limited to 15 pages. The front matter (Cover page, table of contents, glossary, etc.) can easily require 4 pages. To allow offerors to fully and completely respond to the requirements for Volumes 1 and 2, this offeror respectfully requests that the table of contents, cover page, glossary page, etc. be excluded from page count for Volumes 1 and 2. | |
| See revised L.1.7. Table of contents, glossary, and the cover page will not be included in the page count. | |||||
| 39 | Section L.1.7, L.2.4.1 | 118 | 118, 120 | L.2.4.1 specifies that offerors are to submit 3 past performances, each up to 2 pages in length, for a maximum of 6 pages, but L.1.7 specifies that the cover page, tables of content and glossaries are included in page count. To enable offerors to fully and completely respond to the RFP, this offeror respectfully requests that the table of content, glossary, and the cover page be excluded from page count for this volume? | See revised L.1.7. Table of contents, glossary, and the cover page will not be included in the page count. |
| 40 | L.1.7 | 118 | Page 118 | The RFP states: "Page limit is viewed as total pages within a file including, but not limited to, table of contents, cover page, glossary page, etc.." With the very tight page limits on the proposal volumes, request the Government exclude table of contents, cover page, and glossary from the page limits to enable offerors to submit a complete and compliant volume. | See revised L.1.7. Table of contents, glossary, and the cover page will not be included in the page count. |
| 41 | L.1.7 | 118 | RFP Page 118 | "Written Consent of Major Subcontractors" is included in the list of items excluded from page count. Will the Government please define what constitutes a "major subcontractor"? Also, please verify that the consent should be included in the Past Performance volume. | Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. See revised Section L.1.7 |
Written Consent of Major Subcontractors is not specific to any Volume. If applicable to the Offeror’s proposal, it is excluded from the page count.
| 42 | L.2.3 (Functional Area (2)) | 119 | 119 of 136 | For the Project Management (Technical) key personnel, we recommend the relevant activities and services be limited to PWS areas 2.0, 3.0(1-8), 3.1, and 3.2? | Relevant activities and services WILL NOT be limited to PWS areas 2.0, 3.0(1-8), 3.1, and 3.2. |
| 43 | L.2.3 (Functional Area (3)) | 119 | 119 of 136 | For the Project Management (Services) key personnel, we recommend the relevant activities and services be limited to PWS in 3.3 and 3.4? | Relevant activities and services WILL NOT be limited to PWS in 3.3 and 3.4 |
| 44 | L.2.3 Volume 3: Factor 3 - Key Personnel | 119 | 119 | The RFP states that “[t]he Program Manager (PM) (included as item L.2.3.(1) is designated by the Government as Key Personnel and shall have a Top Secret - Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearance or other clearance based on a background investigation (SSBI) that supports at least that level of access. This clearance shall be active at the time of proposal submission.” According to the issuing authority, an SCI access requires an approved “need-to-know” and billet. Would the Government please confirm that a candidate with an active Top Secret clearance with SCI eligibility at the time of proposal submission would meet this requirement? | A candidate with an active Top Secret clearance with SCI eligibility at the time of proposal submission will meet the requirement. See revised Section L.2.3. |
| 45 | L.2.3 Volume 3: Factor 3 - Key Personnel | 119 | 119 | If the Government would consider a PM candidate with an active Top Secret clearance with SCI eligibility at the time of proposal, would the Government please change the RFP language to reflect this? | A candidate with an active Top Secret clearance with SCI eligibility at the time of proposal submission will meet the requirement. |
| 46 | Section L.2.1 | 119 | 119 | RFP states, "All subcontractors and teaming members shall be included in the management structure. The Offeror shall address all teaming arrangements it plans to use to support the requiring activity throughout the contract period. The importance of teaming partners and their added value to the requiring activity should be discussed. In addition, the cohesiveness of the team should be discussed, including whether those teaming partners will fill any key management positions within the proposed management structure." This offeror respectfully requests that this requirement (a description of the offeror's management structure and teaming arrangements) be removed from Volume 1 - Corporate Experience and added to Volume 2 - Management and Contract Management Approach? | |
| The description of the offeror's management structure and teaming arrangements shall be included in Volume 1 - Corporate Experience. | |||||
| 47 | L.2.3 Volume 3: Factor 3 - Key Personnel | 119 | Page 119 | The citation at the reference states that the Program Manager . . . shall have a Top Secret - Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearance or other clearance based on a background investigation (SSBI) that supports at least that level of access. This clearance shall be active at the time of proposal submission. Can eligibility for SCI access suffice for this requirement if no available SCI work is currently available to provide access for the PM designee? | A candidate with an active Top Secret clearance with SCI eligibility at the time of proposal submission will meet the requirement. |
| 48 | Section L.2.1 Volume 1: Factor 1 – Corporate Experience. (last paragraph). | 119 | 119 | The subject of the last paragraph is on teaming that shall be included in the management structure and teaming arrangements. Should this evaluation criteria be included in volume 2 instead? | The last paragraph of L.2.1 is in the correct volume. See additional language in this section for clarity. |
| 49 | L.2.4 | 120 | 120 | The requirement under this paragraph is for Attachment 3 to be included with Volume 4 for the Past Performance Citations provided. Question: Is this requirement applicable to SB proposers as there were no goals for SB and all dollars on citations are SB? | Attachment 3 is applicable to Small Business offerors. |
| 50 | L.2.3 Volume 3: Factor 3 - Key Personnel | 120 | Page 120 | Please clarify if item # 9 Letters of Commitment are required for proposed Key Personnel currently employed by the Prime contractor. | Letters of commitment are required for Key Personnel currently employed by the Prime contractor. |
| 51 | L.2.4.1 | 120 | 120 | Are the three past performance submissions for Volume 4 required to be for the prime contractor, or can some of the submissions be from subcontractors on the Team? | The three past performance examples shall be provided by the Prime only. See additional language clarifying this. |
| 52 | Section L.2.4 | 120 | 120 | RFP states, "Offerors shall complete and submit Attachment 3, entitled, Utilization of Small Business and Attachment 4, entitled Past Performance Questionnaire and Survey." Will the Government confirm that their intent is that offerors are to submit completed Part 1 of the past performance questionnaires with their proposal? | Pursuant to the instructions within the Past Performance Questionnaire the the past performance questionnaires are to be sent electronically to usarmy.rtp.rdecom-aro.mbx.nvesd-qrb-umc-source-selections-dagrs@mail.mil. |
| 53 | Section L.2.4, L.2.4.8 | 120 | 120, 122 | Will the Government confirm that Attachment 3 is to be provided as an attachment to Volume 4, and excluded from page count? | Attachment 3 shall be provided as an attachment to Volume 4. |
| 54 | Section L.2.4.1 | 120 | 120 | RFP states, "Offerors shall submit three (3) recent (past 3 years) and relevant past performance examples. Will the Government confirm that "offeror" includes all teammates/subcontractors, and past performance of any team member may be used as past performance in Volume 4? | See revised Section L.2.4.1. The offeror is the entity directly responding to the RFP, which is who shall submit the past performance examples. |
| 55 | L.2.4 Volume 4 - Factor 4 --Past Performance | 120 | Page 120-121 | The page limit of 6 pages for Volume 4 makes it very difficult to provide all the information required for the three past performance examples and the information required by paragraphs L.2.4.4 and L.2.4.5. We request that the page limit for Volume 4 be increased to allow at least 8 pages to enable offerors to submit a complete and compliant volume. | The page limitation for Volume 4 is sufficient to meet the Government's needs. no changes will be made to the RFP regarding Volume 4 page limits. |
| 56 | Section L.2.3 | 120 | 120 | "Licenses or Certifications" is listed twice in the resume format - under Education and Professional Activities and under Achievements. Please advise where we should list such items. | Licenses and Certifications shall be provided for both areas: education, and professional activities and achievements. |
| 57 | RFP page 120 section C.2.4.1 | 120 | RFP page 120 section C.2.4.1 | RFP page 120 section C.2.4.1 mentions that offerors shall submit 3 (three) recent past performances. Can the govt. clarify if all 3 PP must be from the prime contractor or if additional PP are allowed by its subcontractors? | The three past performance examples shall be provided by the Prime only. |
| 58 | RFP page 120, section L.2.4.1(f) | 120 | RFP page 120, section L.2.4.1(f) | RFP page 120, section L.2.4.1(f) refers to the use of IDIQ’s, can the govt. confirm that IDIQs count as one past performance reference? | An IDIQ counts as one past performance reference. |
| 59 | L.2.4 Volume 4-Past Performance and Attachment 3 | 120 | RFP Page 120 & Attachment 3 | In the goal percentage column of Attachment 3 what should the offeror use for percentages and how are we to calculate the percentages for the actual percentage column if the contracts used for Past Performance section were won as a small business and/or did not require a small business subcontracting plan? Should the offeror insert dollar amounts in this case? | Pursuant to FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii), the contracting officer shall include a factor to evaluate past performance indicating the extent to which the offeror attained applicable goals for small business participation under contracts that required subcontracting plans. If the offeror was a small business and no small business subcontracting plan was required, then the offeror shall put the percentage of the total contract value that the offeror performed. |
| 60 | Attachment 4 and L.2.4.7 | 121 | 121 | Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire and Survey, states 1) the RFP Number is W911NF-17-R-0001, 2) the proposal due date is (February 14, 2017) 1600 and 3) questionnaires are to be submitted electronically to usarmy.rtp.aro.mbx.arl-um-arl4@mail.mil. Paragraph L.2.4.7, states questionnaires should be returned to no later than the proposal due date to usarmy.rtp.rdecom-aro.mbx.nvesd-qrb-umc-source-selections-dagrs@mail.mil. Question: Will the Government be updating Attachment 4 to reflect the following? 1) Solicitation Number corrected to W911NF-17-R-0006, proposal due date corrected to February 06, 2017, 12:00 PM and 3) correct the email address for completed questionnaires to be sent to usarmy.rtp.rdecom-aro.mbx.nvesd-qrb-umc-source-selections-dagrs@mail.mil. | See revised Attachment 4. |
| 61 | L.2.4.7 | 121 | RFP Page 121 | L.2.4.7 states that we must send the Past Performance Questionnaire "to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract." Does "Government contracting activity" refer to the Contracting Officer for each reference? If yes, please verify that only a single response (from either the Contracting Officer or Contracting Officer's Technical Representative) is expected for each past performance reference. | Responses from both the Contracting Officer and Techncial Representative are expected. |
| 62 | M.1.1 General Instructions and L.2.5 Small Business Participation | 122 | 129 and 122-125 of 136 | Section M.1.1 states that proposals must separate cost/price information from Volumes 1,2,3,4, 5, and 7 in order to be compliant with the RFP, however L.2.5 Volume 5 (Small Business Participation) must also include cost elements such as % of total contract value and dollar allocation to comply with the small business participation plan requirements. We recommend only including % of total contract value (rather than specific dollar allocations) to avoid including Cost-specific information outside of Volume 6: Cost. | Percentage of total contract value and dollar allocation shall be provided in Volume 5. |
| 63 | Section L.2.4.8 | 122 | 122 | RFP states, "Offerors shall also provide a statement indicating whether any negative information has been reported in the past three |
years concerning the Offerors’ past compliance with FAR 52.219-8. If any such negative information has been reported, the Offeror may submit explanations or comments responding to such negative information." Will the Government confirm that this statement and any resultant explanation may be provided as part of Attachment 3, and be excluded from page count?
The statement indicating whether any negative information has been reported in the past three years concerning the Offerors’ past compliance with FAR 52.219-8, and explanations or comments responding to such negative information shall be provided with Attachment 3 and will be excluded from the page count.
| 64 | L.2.4.8 | 122 | RFP Page 122 | Should the statement required for any negative information for Small Business Utilization be added directly to Attachment 3 beneath the applicable Past Performance reference? | An offeror may add any negative information to Attachment 3 beneath the applicable Past Performance reference. | |
| 65 | L.2.6.2.1 and M.4.6 Factor 6 Cost: Part 1 – Cost Proposal | 125 | Page 125 and Page 135 | Per L.2.6.2.1, “For the purposes of evaluation, the fee rate proposed in Attachment 2 shall exactly match the maximum fee rate proposed for experimental, developmental, or research work.” Per M.4.6 Factor 6 Cost: Part 1 – Cost Proposal “the Government will evaluate the fee to ensure the fee rate proposed matches the maximum fee rate proposed for experimental, developmental, or research work in Attachment 2” | ||
| Q. Does the NON experimental, developmental or research work table need to be completed? If so, please provide similar guidance for completing and evaluating this second table. | The table for non experimental, developmental or research work shall be completed. It is at the offeror's discretion to decide which rate to enter. | |||||
| 66 | L.2.6.2.3 Labor Categories for the Cost Factor (including L.2.6.2.3.1, L.2.6.3.2, L.2.6.3.3, L.2.6.2.3.4) and Attachment 2 - Cost Summary Sheet | 125 | Pages 125-126 in RFP; Attachment 2 | The labor category titles listed in the RFP within sections L.2.6.2.3.1, L.2.6.3.2, L.2.6.3.3, and L.2.6.2.3.4 do not match the labor category titles listed in Attachment 2. Which labor category titles should be used? | See revised Attachment 2 which includes the updated labor categories. | |
| 67 | Section L.2.5(11) | 125 | 125 | Item 11. Please confirm that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is to be provided in Volume 5 as a separate section/document. | The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is to be provided in Volume 5 as a separate document | |
| 68 | RFP L.2.6.2.3.2 | 125 | RFP Page 125-126 and Attachment 2 | Labor Categories listed in section L.2.6.2.3 on RFP pages 125-126 do no match to the categories listed in the RFP Attachment 2-Cost Summary Sheet. Will the Government correct the inconsistency or can the offeror edit the Attachment 2 to correlate to the labor categories listed in section L of the RFP? | See revised Attachment 2 which updates the labor categories. | |
| 69 | L.2.6.2.3 and Attachment 2, Cost Summary Sheet | 125 | 125-6 and in Spreadsheet | In Section L.2.6.2.3, four labor categories (LCats) with descriptions are provided for cost evaluation purposes only. Yet in the Cost Summary Sheet, three of the four LCats are demonstably different (Program Manager is the exception). Would the Government consider adjusting the Cost Summary Sheet LCats to match those described in L.2.6.2.3? | See revised Attachment 2 which updates the labor categories. | |
| 70 | RFP L.2.6.4 Part 3-Cost Management | 127 | RFP Page 127 | Contractors are allowed a fixed fee on subcontract costs. Are bidders to explain their DCAA approved and required indirect rates to also be applied in the Cost Narrative? | Bidders are to explain their indirect rates in the Cost Narrative. | |
| 71 | Section M.4.4 | 132 | 132 | In the Past Performance section, the questionnaires are referred to as Attachment 5, but the Past Performance questionnaire attachment is labeled Attachment 4. Please confirm that the Past Performance section should refer to Attachment 4. | See revised Section M.4.4 which correctly titles the Past Performance Questionnaire as Attachment 4. | |
| 72 | RFP page 132, section M.4 | 132 | RFP page 132, section M.4 | RFP page 132, section M.4 refers to “offerors designation of key personnel, their qualifications and the level of autonomy given to the program manager.” Can the govt. confirm that “key personnel” are identical to those positions listed on page 125 section L.2.6.2.3? | No. The Factor 3 Key personnel referenced in M.4.3 are from L.2.3 Factor 3 Key Personnel. | |
| 73 | M.4.5.b Factor 5 –Small Business Participation | 134 | Page 134 | The Government has recognized in M.4.5.b that a Small Business Joint Venture will be weighted more heavily as a way to incentivize small business teaming and partnering. Will the use of a formal Small Business Mentor Protégé relationship also be weighted more heavily? | The use of a formal Small Business Mentor Protégé relationship will NOT be weighted more heavily. | |
| 74 | M.4.5 | 135 | RFP Page 135 | Two paragraphs beneath the Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions chart are numbered 6. and 7. with no numbered paragraphs preceding them. Please provide any missing information (paragraphs 1-5), or clarify if the numbering is a typo. | The numbering in Section M.4.5 has been updated. | |
| 75 | 3.0 | 9 | 9 | Section 3.0 SPECIFIC TASKS, states: |
"a. Contractors performing on this acquisition shall be required to deliver, at short notice, all the products [emphasis added] within the following technical areas:
(1) Electronic and Electro-Optic Equipment
(2) Software Design, Development and Integration
(3) Mechanical Components and Systems
(4) System Integration and Human Systems Interface
(5) Energy Generation and Storage
(6) Individual Platform Protection
(7) Individual and Platform Lethality
(8) Advanced Individual and Platform Mobility"
| Can the Government please provide a list of "all the products" to aid in determination of necessary resources? If it's not possible to list all products due to the broad possibilities and nature of R&D, would the Government consider changing the wording from, "...deliver, at short notice, all the products within the following technical areas" to "...deliver, at short notice, products within the following technical areas"? | Section 3.0(a) accurately portrays the Government's requirement and will not be changed. | |||||
| 76 | L.2.3, L.2.6.2.3 and Attachment 2 | Attachment 2 | 119 and 125-126 | The Labor Categories to be priced in Attachment 2 - Cost Summary Sheet are different from those in Section L.2.6.2.3 in the Solicitation. Question: What are the labor categories that should be priced in this Proposal? | See revised Attachment 2. | |
| 77 | L.2.6.2.3 (w/ associated subparagraphs) & Attachment 2 | Attachment 2 | 125 and 126 of 136 & Attachment 2 | The Labor Categories provided within the Section L instructions of the Cost Volume do not match the labor categories established in Attachment 2, which is a requirement of the Volume. We recommend the LCATs in Attachment 2 are changed to match those included in L.2.6.2.3 of the RFP. | See revised Attachment 2. | |
| 78 | L.2.6.2.1 and Attacment 2 _Cost_Summary_Sheet | Attachment 2 | Page 125; Attachment 2 | Per L.2.6.2.1, “The offeror shall use 2080 hours for each of the four skill classifications listed below.” |
Q. Attachment 2 has 100 hours per LCAT. Is it correct to assume that offerors are to change the 100 to 2080 per LCAT?
| See revised Attachment 2 which includes the updated labor hours. | |||||
| 79 | L.2.6 Volume 6: Factor 6 – Cost, paragraph 2.1 and M.4.6 Factor 6 Cost, Part 1 and Attachment_2_-_Cost_Summary_Sheet | Attachment 2 | Page 125, 135, Attachment 2 | The two citations from the solicitation describe a requirement to provide cost data relative to four government-site labor rates for a 2080-hour man-year for each category provided for work that is experimental, developmental, or research (EDR). Alternatively, the Cost Summary Sheet at Attachment 2 asks for four differing labor categories priced across 100 hours each for both an EDR task and a non-EDR task. Please clarify. | See revised Attachment 2 which includes the labor hours and labor categories specified in Section L.2.6.2.3.1. |
| 80 | Attachment 2 | Attachment 2 | The Cost spreadsheet template provided lists Labor Categories that do not match the Labor Categories specified in Section L.2.6.2.3.1, and 100 hours per Labor Category, rather than the 2080 hours specified in the RFP. Will the Government confirm that offerors may update the Labor Categories and hours provided to refer to the 2080 hours and the labor categories set forth in the RFP? | See revised Attachment 2 which includes the labor hours and labor categories specified in Section L.2.6.2.3.1. | |
| 81 | Attachment 3 | Attachment 3 | The headers in the file refer to a different solicitation. To reduce confusion, will the Government confirm that offerors may change the header to refer to the DAGRS solicitation W911NF-17-R-0006? | See revised Attachments 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 which updates the headers to W911NF-17-R-0006. | |
| 82 | Attachment 3 | Attachment 3 | RFP Atachment 3 | Should the goal percentages on Attachment 3 be expressed as a percentage of the Total Contract Value or of the Total Subcontract Awards? | The goal percentages on Attachment 3 shall be expressed as a percentage of the Total Contract Value. |
| 83 | Attachments 3, 5, and 6 | Attachment 3 | RFP Attachments 3, 5, and 6 | Will the Government correct the RFP Attachments 3,5, and 6's headers to represent the correct RFP number and the RFP title? Currently the headers state: "W911NF-15-R-0004 Advanced Expeditionary Warfare Development (AEWD)." | Headers have been updated to read W911NF-17-R-0006 Deployable Adaptive Global Responder Support (DARGS). |
| 84 | L.1 General Instructions & Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire | Attachment 4 | Page 116 in RFP; Page 1 in Attachment 4 | L.1 lists the due date as 2/6/2017 at 12pm; the Past Performance Questionnaire lists the proposal due date as 2/14/2017 at 4pm; please clarify the due date for the proposal and the Past Performance Questionnaire. | See revised Attachment 4 which revises the stated proposal due date. |
| 85 | Attachment 4 | Attachment 4 | The cover letter provided for the Past Performance Questionnaire requests that questionnaire/survey respondents return the questionnaires to the Government no later than "the proposal due date (February 14, 2017)". Will the Government confirm that offerors may change the date to February 6, 2017 to ensure the questionnaires are submitted in a timely manner? | See revised Attachment 4 which revises the stated proposal due date. | |
| 86 | RFP cover sheet, item 9; Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 4), second paragraph | Attachment 4 | 1 | RFP cover sheet, item 9, states that proposals are due at noon Monday, February 6, 2017. The Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 4), second paragraph, states that questionnaires are due at 1600, February 14, 2017. Please confirm the correct due date and time for questionnaires. | See revised Attachment 4 which revises the stated proposal due date. |
| 87 | Block 9 on Standard Form 33 and Paragraph 2 on Page 1 of Attachment 4 | Attachment 4 | Standard Form 33 Block 9 and RFP Attachment 4 Page 1 | Block 9 on the Standard Form 33 lists Proposal Due Date as February 06, 2017; however Page 1 Paragraph 2 of Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire and Survey, lists proposal due date as February 14,2017. Can the Government please clarify what is the actual due date for the proposal and by what date the Past Performance Questionnaires must be submitted to the Government? | See revised Attachment 4 which revises the stated proposal due date. |
| 88 | Attachment 4 - Past Performance Questionnaire and Survey | Attachment 4 | N/A | The Cover Letter for Attachment 4 - Past Performance Questionnaire and Survey states: "Please complete the enclosure and return to the US ACC-APG-RTP Division via e-mail, no later than the proposal due date (February 14, 2017) 1600 in Durham, NC (Eastern Time)." However, the RFP gives the proposal due date as 1200, February 6, 2017. Question: Will the Government please confirm the due date for the Past Performance Questionnaire and Survey? | See revised Attachment 4 which revises the stated proposal due date. |
| 89 | SF 33 and Atch 4 Past Performance Questionnaire and Survey | Attachment 4 | Page 1 (SF 33) and Page 1 (Atch 4) | Atch 4 notes the proposal due date as February 14, 2017. This conflicts with the SF 33 which shows a due date of February 6. Please clarify. | See revised Attachment 4 which revises the stated proposal due date. |
| 90 | Attachment 5 | Attachment 5 | Spreadsheet is labeled "Attachment 6" on Sheet 1. To reduce confusion, will the Government confirm that offerors may change the cell to read "Attachment 5"? | See revised Attachment 5 which updates the title to Attachment 5. | |
| 91 | RFP attachment 5 | Attachment 5 | RFP Attachment 5 | RFP attachment 5, list of approved subcontractors. Can the govt. confirm that an 8(A) Company is to be listed under “SDB”, or should 8(A) subcontractors be given a separate column? | 8(a) companies are to be included in the SDB column of Attachment 5. |
| Attachment 5 List of Approved Subcontractors | Attachment 5 | RFP Attachment 5 List of Approved Subcontractors | Will the Government correct the RFP Attachment 5 List of Approved Subcontractors to correctly represent the order it is presented in? Currently the attachment title is listed as "Attachment 6 List of Approved Subcontractors." | Attachment 5 has been updated from Attachment 6 to Attachment 5. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .