AMP Question and Answer Document Including Updated Proposal Submission Instructions - FINAL.pdf

*This Q&A Document constitutes an Amendment to the RFP. Any information contained this Q&A Document takes precedence over conflicting information from the RFP/PWS documents.*

**UPDATE TO PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS IN SECTION L, GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS – ALL PROPOSALS SHALL BE SUBMITTED THROUGH DOD SAFE (NOT VIA EMAIL) PER INSTRUCTIONS BELOW:

There is a very high probability that proposals will contain CUI since any proposals containing content from the PWS should be marked CUI. Due to this, ALL proposals shall be submitted through DOD SAFE following a Government request to drop off files. Offerors shall send an email request no later than 4:00 PM Eastern Time on 21 December 2022 to usarmy.rtp.devcom‐arl.mbx.baa3qa@army.mil to request a DOD SAFE Government request to drop off files. EMAILS FOR A DOD SAFE DROP OFF REQUEST RECEIVED

BEYOND THIS DEADLINE WILL BE CONSIDERED NON‐RESPONSIVE AND WILL NOT BE HONORED.

Following this required email request, the Government will initiate the DOD SAFE process by using the DOD SAFE “Request a Drop‐Off” Function, which will provide a link for the Offeror to drop off Proposal files. Proposals shall be RECEIVED THROUGH DOD SAFE no later than 4:00 PM Eastern Time on 23 December 2022. OFFERORS SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT TIME FOR THE DOD SAFE SYSTEM TO PROCESS SUBMISSIONS. PROPOSALS NOT ACTUALLY “RECEIVED” IN DOD SAFE BY THIS DEADLINE WILL BE CONSIDERED NON‐RESPONSIVE. For proposals containing any CUI, the block for “Encrypt Files” should be checked in DOD SAFE and Offerors must send a separate email to usarmy.rtp.devcom‐ arl.mbx.baa3qa@army.mil with an Offeror generated Passphrase to access the documents (this is different than the DOD SAFE generated “Claim Passcode” and you will be prompted in DOD SAFE to enter your CUI Passphrase during the submission process). In the email with the CUI Passphrase, the Government also requests that Offerors include a screen shot of the “Print Details” submission confirmation from DOD SAFE. Note: The Government recognizes there is a note regarding transmission of contract proposals on the DOD SAFE website and has confirmed this is a valid submission method.**

Q1: Page 61 of 70, Part 2 ‐ Cost Narrative

Reference: The instruction to offerors states that either a FPRA, FPRR or DCAA/DCMA report or memorandum is required in support of the proposed direct labor. The instructions also request the same documents as evidence of approved indirect rates.

Question: Can the Government please confirm that the submission of one of the above listed documents will satisfy both requirements?

A1: Whether it is one consolidated document, or two separate documents (e.g. company memo for direct labor rates and FPRA for indirect rates), documentation must be provided for direct and indirect rates in accordance with pages 73‐74 of the RFP.

Q2: Section L, Chart 1 ‐ Proposal Structure

The Final RFP Section L, Chart 1 (page 62 of 85) specifies a 15‐page limitation for Volume I, Technical.

Question: Considering that offerors are required to address 30 technical areas under Volume I, will the government please consider increasing the page limit for Volume I from 15 pages to 35 pages?

A2: No.

Q3: L.2.f Volume V – Cost

The Final RFP (page 73 of 85) requires offerors to cost/price 100 hours for a Senior Scientist; however, the draft RFP does not specify the minimum personnel requirements for a Senior Scientist. Question:

Will the government please provide the missing minimum personnel requirements for the Senior Scientist labor category to ensure that all offerors are bidding the same requirement?

A3: For purposes of rates in the cost proposal, offerors should assume a Senior Scientist has a minimum of 12 years of professional experience with a minimum education level of Master’s Degree.

Q4: L.2.f Volume V ‐ Cost

The Final RFP (page 73 of 85) requires offerors to cost/price 100 hours for a Systems Analyst; however, the draft RFP does not specify the minimum personnel requirements for a Systems Analyst. Question:

Will the government please provide the missing minimum personnel requirements for the Systems Analyst labor category to ensure that all offerors are bidding the same requirement?

A4: For purposes of rates in the cost proposal, offerors should assume a Systems Analyst has a minimum of 5 years of professional experience with a minimum education level of Batchelor of Science

Degree.

Q5: L.2.f Volume V ‐ Cost

The Final RFP (page 73 of 85) requires offerors to cost/price 100 hours for an Electrical Engineer, Intermediate; however, the draft RFP does not specify the minimum personnel requirements for a Electrical Engineer, Intermediate. Question: Will the government please provide the missing minimum personnel requirements for the Electrical Engineer, Intermediate labor category to ensure that all offerors are bidding the same requirement?

A5: For purposes of rates in the cost proposal, offerors should assume an Intermediate Electrical Engineer has a minimum of 5 years of professional experience with a minimum education level of Batchelor of Science Degree.

Q6: L.2.f Volume V ‐ Cost

The Final RFP (page 73 of 85) requires offerors to cost/price 100 hours for a Mechanical Engineer, Intermediate; however, the draft RFP does not specify the minimum personnel requirements for a Mechanical Engineer, Intermediate. Question: Will the government please provide the missing minimum personnel requirements for the Mechanical Engineer, Intermediate labor category to ensure that all offerors are bidding the same requirement?

A6: For purposes of rates in the cost proposal, offerors should assume an Intermediate Mechanical Engineer has a minimum of 5 years of professional experience with a minimum education level of

Q7: L.2.f Volume V ‐ Cost

The Final RFP (page 73 of 85) requires offerors to cost/price 100 hours for a Data Analyst; however, the draft RFP does not specify the minimum personnel requirements for a Data Analyst. Question: Will the government please provide the missing minimum personnel requirements for the Data Analyst labor category to ensure that all offerors are bidding the same requirement?

A7: For purposes of rates in the cost proposal, offerors should assume a Data Analyst has a minimum of 5 years of professional experience with a minimum education level of Batchelor of Science Degree.

Q8: L.2.f Volume V ‐ Cost

The Final RFP (page 73 of 85) requires offerors to cost/price 100 hours for a Cyber Systems Specialist;

however, the draft RFP does not specify the minimum personnel requirements for a Cyber Systems Specialist. Question: Will the government please provide the missing minimum personnel requirements for the Cyber Systems Specialist labor category to ensure that all offerors are bidding the same requirement?

A8: For purposes of rates in the cost proposal, offerors should assume a Cyber Systems Specialist has a minimum of 5 years of professional experience with a minimum education level of Batchelor of Science Degree.

Q9: L.2.f Volume V ‐ Cost

The Final RFP (page 73 of 85) requires offerors to cost/price 100 hours for a Software Engineer, Intermediate; however, the draft RFP does not specify the minimum personnel requirements for a Software Engineer, Intermediate. Question: Will the government please provide the missing minimum personnel requirements for the Software Engineer, Intermediate labor category to ensure that all offerors are bidding the same requirement?

A9: For purposes of rates in the cost proposal, offerors should assume a Software Engineer, Intermediate has a minimum of 5 years of professional experience with a minimum education level of

Q10: M.5.3 Factor 3 ‐ Past Performance

The Final RFP, Section M.5.3 states "...Proposed past performance will be evaluated using the Offeror’s proposal, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Past Performance Questionnaires and any other sources available to the Government..." However, Section J, does not include a template for the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and Section L does not provide instruction regarding submission of PPQs. Question: Will the government please provide the missing PPQ template or provide clarification that the PPQs are not required?

A10: The Government evaluation teams will initiate the past performance questionnaires by contacting the POC's listed in the examples.

Q11: Attachment 2 – Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet This is an IDIQ effort, with an overall ceiling value identified, but no additional information on the anticipated distribution of contract award values by performance period, or technical area, either in total, or by year over the life of the IDIQ. This makes it impractical and possibly unethical to enter into subcontract partnership agreements with teammates for specific dollar values. Would the government consider allowing the entry of more traditional percent values distributed across the small business categories?

A11: Evaluation of small business participation requires the extent of commitment. The government acknowledges that offerors cannot know at time of offer the amount of dollars that will be obligated over the life of the contract, nor the specific work offerors will be awarded at the Task Order level.

However, the government must evaluate Small Business Participation and expects the offeror will review similarly scoped past performance, their own make or buy decisions, the availability of quality and available Small Business subcontractors, and the performance work statement and the offerors anticipated level of participation over the contract and consider Small Business Participation as a weighted evaluation factor in a best value trade‐off when determining their proposed level of small business (and socioeconomic programs) participation. Offerors should consider levels that both parties can reasonably expect from the offeror expending a good faith effort.

Per the RFP, “For purposes of this proposal, Offerors shall use the full contract value 0f $900 million as a base for proposing small business participation.”

During the performance of Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contracts, Small Business Participation performance is assessed by the government applying the proposed percentage (%) against the dollars obligated to the offeror. The government does not assess performance by the total dollars proposed at the base award.

Q12: Section 2, c, 2 page 64/85

Key Personnel. Will the government allow a substitution of years of program management experience in lieu of the PMP certification?

A12: No.

Q13: Section I; Pages 33, 42/85

Request the Government identify the portion of the PWS and/or deliverables that are “special works” as defined by FAR 27.405‐1 or respectfully request removal of FAR 52.227‐17 Rights in Data‐ Special Works and DFARS 252.227‐7020 from Section I Contract Clauses.

A13: If applicable, this will be identified at the task order level. Otherwise, this clause remains silent.

Q14: Past Performance Volume

In regards to RFP page 68; General Instructions, 2.d, it states that “Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541715) required by the RFP." There is a vast amount of ongoing and recent work that is highly relevant and similar in size, scope and magnitude to the efforts in the AMP RFP. All of which could be leveraged and directly beneficial to AMP. Many of these programs are not being performed under the RFP NAICS (541715), but are being performed under adjacent and very similarly titled and defined NAICS codes (specifically, NAICS 5413**: Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services; NAICS 5416**: Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services).

Would the Government agree that these NAICS (NAICS 5413** and NAICS 5416**) would be rated similar in response to the AMP RFP past performance requirements (NAICS 541715) in the offeror’s proposals?

A14: Yes. The inclusion of information found a – n of the referenced section will help defend the similar NAICS Code that is outside of NAICS 541715.

Q15: Could you please provide clarification on which date we need to be tracking as the final due date to submit questions/comments?

Page 2, Section A.2, reads “A cutoff date for receipt of industry written questions and comments on the RFP is 4:00 PM Eastern Time on 30 November 2022.”

Page 61, General Instructions, paragraph 8, reads “All questions shall be submitted via email to usarmy.rtp.devcom‐arl.mbx.baa3qa@army.mil no later than 04:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 23 November 2022.”

A15: The announcement on SAM.GOV was amended to correct the submission date to 30 November 2022.

Q16: RFP, Page 74, f. Volume V: Factor 5 – Cost

Reference: "As part of the cost narrative, the contractor shall provide evidence of approved indirect rates via FPRA, FPRR or DCAA/DCMA report or memorandum containing the most recent finalized DCAA/DCMA audit of indirect rates" Question: Will the Government please confirm the submission of an offerors most recent Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP) is acceptable evidence of approved indirect rates?

A16: Yes, an FPRP is acceptable. The contractor shall provide evidence and justification of proposed indirect rates via FPRA, FPRR, FPRP, DCAA/DCMA report or memorandum containing the most recent finalized DCAA/DCMA audit of indirect rates, or justification for how the rates were derived. If the offeror does not currently have DCMA/DCAA reviewed/approved rates, the offeror should provide justification of how the indirect rates were derived along with any FPRPs that have been provided to DCMA (if applicable). Offerors are hereby notified that they will be subject to DCMA indirect rate audits during performance and will be required to provide updated indirect rate information at the task order level.

Q17: RFP, Page 74, f. Volume V: Factor 5 – Cost

Reference: "If the offeror does not currently have DCMA/DCAA approved rates, the offeror must provide evidence it is able to obtain them prior to contract award" Question: If an FPRP is not accepted as evidence of approved indirect rates, what additional documentation should be submitted to meet this requirement?

A17: An FPRP is acceptable. The contractor shall provide evidence and justification of proposed indirect rates via FPRA, FPRR, FPRP, DCAA/DCMA report or memorandum containing the most recent finalized DCAA/DCMA audit of indirect rates, or justification for how the rates were derived. If the offeror does not currently have DCMA/DCAA reviewed/approved rates, the offeror should provide justification of how the indirect rates were derived along with any FPRPs that have been provided to DCMA (if applicable). Offerors are hereby notified that they will be subject to DCMA indirect rate audits during performance and will be required to provide updated indirect rate information at the task order level.

Q18: Volume IV: Factor 4‐Small Business Participation Plan

Reference: All Offerors (both U.S. small business and other than U.S. small businesses) shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet with their proposal as a separate document (xxxxSBPCDxxxx.xlsx) in order to identify the extent to which U.S. small businesses will participate in the performance of the proposed acquisition relative to the Government's small business objectives.

Question: Will the Government please revise the Small Business Participation Commitment Document to allocate dollar values by socio‐economic group rather than by company? Allocating dollars to individual subcontractors without defined requirements (i.e. pricing) and sample task orders will result in unrealistic participation plans. The remaining subcontractor information still demonstrates the extent of small business participation on the proposed proposal.

A18: All Offerors are evaluated on the proposed percentages for each Small Business and socio‐ economic categories in accordance with M.5.4.1 and the extent of commitment to such firms in accordance with M.5.4.3. Offerors shall provide % and dollars and should provide to the greatest extent practicable the names and size and commitments to proposed Small Business subcontractor.

The Government acknowledges that, for an IDIQ, proposing dollars awarded to individual subcontractors is complex. Offerors should refer to their individual make or buy decisions for similarly scoped requirements and determine the proposed % for Small Businesses and apply that percentage to the anticipated total dollars award (stated as $900M for purposes of this RFP).

Offerors are not required to provide the names of Small Business subcontractors if they have not been identified at time of proposal. However, IAW section M.5.4 of the solicitation, SB Participation will be evaluated to the extent of participation of small business subcontractors ($/%) in each of the Small Business and socio‐economic categories, the extent in which firms are identified in the proposal and the identification of the complexity of work SB subcontractors will perform, and the realism of the proposal which includes supporting documentation such and bilaterally signed commitments. Offerors are not required to name Small Business subcontractors, however, additional consideration and higher evaluation ratings may result based on the level of detail and supporting information provided in the proposal as it relates to M.5.4, 1‐6.

Q19: Volume I: Factor 1 ‐ Technical Page 65 paragraph b.

Reference: Their capacity to provide specialized services in experimentation, prototyping, evaluation, and integration of advanced technology in real world, battle‐ready OCONUS environments.

Question: Is the capacity to be explained the ability to perform this services in actual OCONUS environments or just to prove ability replicate OCONUS environments or both?

A19: Both. Consideration will be given to a respondent’s narrative that provides relevant evidence demonstrating an ability to perform these RDT&E services.

Q20: DD Form 254 Block 13

DD Form 254, Block 13, states: "…See ADDENDUM(s) attached to this DD Form 254..." No addendums were attached to the DD Form 254. Question: Will the government please provide the missing addendum(s)?

A20: All relevant information is contained in the Pre‐Solicitation DD254 provided in the RFP. Any Addendums associated with final Prime DD254s will be provided at the time of award.

Q21: DD Form 254 Block 13

DD Form 254, Block 13, states: "…Antiterrorism/Operations Security Review completed on 06/21/2021 (See Attached)…" The Antiterrorism/Operations Security Review was not attached to the DD Form 254.

Question: Will the government please provide the missing Antiterrorism/Operations Security Review?

A21: Reference to the ATOPSEC Review is for internal approval processing only. It is not relevant to the AMP RFP process. This reference will be removed in the final Prime DD254’s.

Q22: SECTION L, General Instructions (page 63 of 85)

The Final RFP, Section L General Instructions states: "…and QDRs/CAs may be included as appendices to Volume III and count towards the page count noted in the above table…" Corrective Action Reports issued by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) are typically one to two pages in length per corrective action. Question:

Will the government please consider excluding QDRs/CAs from the page limit for Volume III appendices?

A22: QDRs/Cas “may” be included, this is not a requirement. Additionally, the page limitation on the Volume III Appendices is hereby removed. Volume III Appendices is unlimited in page count.

Q23: SECTION L, General Instructions

The Final RFP, Section L General Instructions states: "If a proposal submission contains CUI, the proposal must be submitted via DOD SAFE and/or encrypted email" Question: Will the Government accept proposals containing contractor proprietary information via encrypted email or DOD SAFE?

A23: Yes. See updated proposal submission instructions at the top of this Q&A document and in the updated SAM.GOV Announcement Description.

Q24: SECTION H 4, Fixed Fee and Profit

The Final RFP, Section H.4.1.2 Fixed Fee and Profit states "Contractors will be allowed fixed fee on subcontract costs, excluding equipment, stipend, and travel costs. The maximum fee/profit the Prime contractors will be allowed to apply fee to subcontracts is as follows:

‐ Small Business Subcontracts: Maximum Nominal Fee 5% ‐ Other Than Small Business Subcontracts: Maximum Nominal Fee 3%" Question: Will the Government please consider removing this requirement?

A24: No.

Q25: Can you please clarify if this RFP is just for engineering services?

A25: This IDIQ MAC will be awarded under NAICS Code 541715 ‐ Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences. Task Orders will primarily provide the following deliverables:

research, analysis, prototyping, experimentation, advanced technology demonstrations (ATD’s), and subsystem and system design and development.

NOTE: The CLIN Descriptions in Section B referencing NAICS Code 541715 are hereby updated to remove “(except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)”. While 541715 is the NAICS Code which best suits this requirement, there is the potential for task orders to contain performance in the Nanotechnology and Biotechnology spaces.

Q26: The draft documents and industry day presentations indicated AMP was looking for qualified small businesses that were 500 employees or less.

Q1a.) Why did the small business set‐aside number increase to 1000 employees?

Q1b.) Was there not adequate competition at the standard of 500 employees?

This new, wider scope allows businesses on the verge of becoming a large to join as a small even though they will soon graduate into the next size category. Small Business Awardees that outgrow the small business size status will ultimately cause an extensive on‐ramp process that can be avoided by maintaining the 500‐employee limit on the initial draft RFP.

A26: 541715 was determined to the be the appropriate NAICS for this requirement and Effective 1 October 2022, the published SBA small business size standard for NAICS 541715 is 1,000 employees.

Q27: The Attachment 3 DD254 reference form section 11c states: that the contractor facility can only hold documents up to the Secret Level.

Q27a.) Why is the security clearance requirement set at the TS level when only Secret documents can be held onsite? <see also form section 1a vs 1b>

Q2b.) Will all of the anticipated task orders require TS/SCI access?

If not, a Small Business could still compete for task orders under the original draft RFP language while they are awaiting the upgrade from Secret FCL to TS FCL

A27a: DD254 facility security clearance and level of safeguarding are different requirements. Many AMP task orders will require TS/SCI access at Government facilities. Many AMP task orders will require a minimum of Secret safeguarding at the contractor’s facility.

A27b: All AMP Prime contractors must possess a TS facility security clearance at the time of award (see DD254 and AMP RFP criteria, Vol II: Factor 2 – Program Management factor).

Q28: Please clarify the requirement to obtain a Top Secret level security clearance within 30 days by the Program Manager.

The PM‐only access to TS/SCI material would not allow an organization the appropriate access to reasonably respond to task orders.

A28: Yes – the proposed PM must obtain a TS security clearance within 30 days after award. All AMP Task Order Request (TOR) documents are anticipated to be unclassified. At the individual Task Order Request Level, there may be further security requirements in addition to the PM requiring a TS level security clearance; however, these are unknown until task order requirements are identified.

Q29: Section A of the SF33 (page 2 of the PDF file) and the SAM posting state the deadline for submitting questions is 30 November 2022 1600 EST while Section L of the SF33 (page 61 of the PDF file) states the deadline is 23 November 2022 1600 EST. Please advise at your earliest convenience which deadline the Government will use in receiving questions from industry.

A29: The announcement on SAM.GOV was amended to correct the question submission date to 30 November 2022.

Q30: May we please receive a copy of the final RFP?

A30: The Final RFP is included as a document in the SAM.GOV announcement. This Q&A constitutes an Amendment to the RFP posted in SAM.GOV and any information in this Q&A supersedes conflicting information from the RFP.

Q31: Please provide clarification regarding the requirement of Personnel Reliability Program (PRP).

Page 80, Section M.5.2 Factor 2 Factor 2 – Management Approach:

“The Management Approach Factor will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror as Contractor (Prime contractor, joint venture, teaming partners and all proposed major subcontractors) clearly meets the requirements as described in Section L for the following components; Management Plan Narrative, Key Personnel, Personnel Reliability Program, Security Clearance, and Telecommuting Plan.”

There is no mention of a Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) in section L and this is the only mention of a PRP anywhere in the RFP; can the government please confirm the listing of Personnel Reliability Program in Factor 2 (Section M.5.2) is a typo and having a PRP is not a requirement for this solicitation?

A31: The reference to Personnel Reliability Program in Section M.5.2 is hereby removed from the RFP and is not a requirement.

Q32: Our understanding was that the PWS associated with the subject opportunity was going to be released Friday, November 18th to potential offerors. We did not receive any follow‐up to have access to the PWS. Can you please provide us with a copy of the PWS or instructions on where to retrieve the

PWS?

A32: PWS marked as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) has been provided to the Data Custodian on record for each company who submitted a timely request for the PWS AND had an approved DD 2345 in place at the time requests were due per Section C of the RFP.

Q33: Following up on the AMP PWS request. Was the PWS sent to approved parties and are all requirements in Section C necessary?

A33: PWS marked as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) has been provided to the Data Custodian on record for each company who submitted a timely request for the PWS AND had an approved DD 2345 in place at the time requests were due per Section C of the RFP.

Q34: OMITTED

Q35: In Section A, on Paragraph #2, it states, "cutoff date for receipt of industry written questions and comments on the RFP is 4:00 PM Eastern Time on 30 November 2022," however, under 'General Instructions,' the government states, "All questions shall be submitted via email to usarmy.rtp.devcom‐ arl.mbx.baa3qa@army.mil no later than 04:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 23 November 2022."

Will the government please clarify which is the correct submission deadline for questions?

A35: The announcement on SAM.GOV was amended to correct the question submission date to 30

Q36: Pg. 72 Para f. Volume V: Factor 5 – Cost‐ What security clearance level (Secret, Top Secret, Top Secret/SCI) should Offeror use to price the eight labor categories? Should we assume that all have a top‐secret clearance? Are there other requirements such as certifications or experience factors that should be considered that would affect the labor rate?

A36: See answers to questions 3 through 9 for experience and qualification factors when preparing the cost proposal.

Q37: Pg.55; 252.215‐7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist ‐ Can the Government clarify which Volume of the Proposal does the Government want the proposal adequacy checklist to be added to? Is it acceptable to add to the Cost Narrative Volume as an Appendix or Attachment?

A37: Page 62‐63 of the RFP provides the location where the Proposal Adequacy Checklist should be located.

Q38: Pg2 Question Submission ‐ Paragraph 2 of the RFP instructions states the suspense for questions is 30 November 2022 while page 61 under General Instructions states the suspense is 23 November 2022. Can the Government clarify if we are able to submit questions up to the deadline on 30 November 2022?

A38: The announcement on SAM.GOV was amended to correct the question submission date to 30

Q39: General Questions – Chart 1 – Proposal Structure shows 15 pages allocated for Volume III Appendices (filename C03 XXX Volume II Appendix ‐ Name (date) .doc/.pdf), yet there are no Section L instructions for what content to include in these Appendices. Please advise.

A39: Page 63 of the RFP states: Consent documents; as required by FAR 52.219‐8 and ‐9; and QDRs/CAs may be included as appendices to Volume III. Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) shall be included in Volume III’s appendix. The page limitation for Volume III Appendices is hereby removed. The page limitation for Volume III Appendices is unlimited.

Q40: Is the government willing to initiate a pre‐award audit as we do not currently have an accounting system that has gone through DCAA audit but we fully believe it is ready for an audit and approval at this time.

A40: Yes. Per the RFP, If the accounting system has not been audited by the local Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Branch Office then the Contracting officer will request a review of the system before an award will be executed. A DCAA approved accounting system is required prior to award; should the selected proposer not be able to fulfill this requirement, the Government reserves the right to refuse award or award to the next highest rated eligible offeror.

Offerors may submit with their proposal a copy of their SF1408 “Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor (Accounting System)” to assist in this process. Offerors are also encouraged to initiate an accounting system review with DCAA as soon as possible, and may provide that correspondence as part of its Volume V submission.

Q41: Is this contract replacing a previous contract in support of US Army and Joint DoD Agencies?

A41: DEVCOM‐ARL‐SEDD‐APEX Team created AMP to better align Team support to AFC and ARL Missions. AMP does replace AEWD as the “flag‐ship” for the APEX Team but contract scope/focus will be different than AEWD. However, APEX Team—with support from ARL HQ—will provide continued support to DOD Mission Partners as AEWD, ARL‐3, ARL‐2 and ARL‐1 contracts have accomplished throughout the years. The APEX Team’s objectives align with quick reaction RDT&E projects that will support innovation to address current and emerging need/requirements that ultimately address the Transformational Overmatch Concept.

Q42: Do you anticipate all primes being required to respond to every TOR?

A42: The Government anticipates contracting needs that may span a wide range of specialized services from 6.1 through 6.7 tasks; therefore, the TOR requirements and a contractor’s capabilities will dictate whether an adequate task order proposal could be submitted. Per H.12 and H.13, IDIQ holders are expected to submit Technically Acceptable proposals for at least 5% of the Task Order Requests issued during the initial four years of the MAC IDIQ.

Q43: Is there a general timeframe in which you would perform and on‐ramp/off‐ramp evaluation?

A43: Per H.11 of the RFP, the use of on/off ramp procedures will take place prior to exercising the option periods on awarded contracts.

Q44: The due date of the proposal is cited as 4:00 PM local time 21 Dec 2022. Will the Government consider an extension to 4:00 PM ET 23 December 2022?

A44: Yes. See updated proposal submission instructions at the top of this Q&A document and in the

Q45: Page 61 of the RFP cites use of a file name convention “Offeror name, Solicitation Number (W911NF‐22‐R‐0001), Example: Company Name; W911NF‐22‐R‐0001; File 1 of 2” However Page 62 Chart 1 cites a somewhat different format for the volume files. Which is the correct file name convention?

A45: The individual file names should be in accordance with the chart on page 62‐63. With the updated proposal submission instructions requiring submission through DOD SAFE, the reference on Page 61 should no longer be applicable since the 10MB limit should no longer apply. In the unlikely event that a DOD SAFE submission exceeds the DOD SAFE data limitations, Offerors may submit multiple DOD SAFE submissions titled “Company Name; W911NF‐22‐R‐0001; File 1 of 2”.

Q46: The Offerors submittals will contain CUI and proprietary data and thus cannot be sent via open Internet channels. Will the Government be providing DoD SAFE drop‐off links to all offerors?

A46: Yes. See updated proposal submission instructions at the top of this Q&A document and in the

Q47: Page 61 cites that the cost volume may contain Excel spreadsheets. Does “contain” allow submission of multiple files for the cost volume or must these files be embedded in a .doc file?

A47: Page 63 allows for multiple documents since the page count is unlimited. The excel spreadsheets need not be embedded in a .doc file.

Q48: RFP, Page 73, f. Volume V: Factor 5 – Cost; Reference: The labor categories to be used for purposes of the cost proposal. To ensure fair and consistent pricing proposals, will the Government please provide a brief description and/or desired qualifications for each of the labor categories used in the cost proposal?

A48: See answers to questions 3 through 9.

Q49: RFP, Section L, Page 63, General Instructions; Reference: If an organizational chart or schedule is required to be submitted for readability on an 11 x 17 fold‐out page, it will be counted as 1 page.

Question: For better readability is it acceptable for us to use the 11x17 format to provide tables showing our team members organizational roles and relationships?

A49: Yes.

A50: RFP, Section L, Page 55, Proposal Adequacy Checklist; Reference: Chart 1 Proposal Structure requires the Proposal Adequacy Checklist to be included in Volume 5 ‐ Cost. Some line items listed in the Checklist are not part of this particular RFP. Is it possible for us to mark "NA" items that are not required in this RFP?

A50: Yes.

Q51: RFP, Section M, Page 81, M.5.3 Factor 3 PP; Reference: Section M.5.3 Factor 3 ‐ Past Performance states: Proposed past performance will be evaluated using the Offeror’s proposal, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Past Performance Questionnaires and any other sources available to the Government. Is it the Government’s intent that the self‐reporting and self‐assessment required in Section L satisfies that evaluation criteria in Section M as no other templates or instructions were provided?

A51: The Government will still use resources available to conduct the Past Performance Evaluation, including but not limited to contacting POC’s listed in Past Performance examples to answer Past Performance Questionnaires.

Q52: Can you tell us how all the Q&As will be handled for this RFP?

A52: The Government will record all questions and answers and they will be posted to the SAM.GOV RFP posting. This posting of this Q&A document constitutes an Amendment to the RFP.

Q53: RFP, Section L, page 61; General Instructions – paragraph 4 – If the technical volume is addressing a CUI PWS, would that require the technical volume to be considered CUI?

A53: Yes, if the Technical Volume contains language directly from the PWS, then the Technical Volume should be marked CUI. See updated proposal submission instructions at the top of this Q&A document and in the updated SAM.GOV Announcement Description.

Q54: RFP, Section L, page 61; IF the tech volume only is CUI – would the entire proposal need to be submitted at the SAFE site?

A54: Yes. See updated proposal submission instructions at the top of this Q&A document and in the

Q55: RFP, Section L, page 63; "Consent documents; as required by FAR 52.219‐8 and ‐9; and QDRs/CAs may be included as appendices to Volume III and count towards the page count noted in the above table. Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) shall be included in Volume III’s appendix but are not counted towards the page count of any volume." Is the government asking for Quality Deficiency Reports/Corrective Actions (QDRs/CAs) in relation to not meeting small business goals? If QDRs/CAs are not in regards small business contracting goals, what context is the Government asking for QDRs/CAs?

A55: No. QDRs are designed to initiate corrective actions where nonconformances are discovered after the government has accepted the item. A QDR is submitted to appropriate activities to initiate corrective action. The page limitation for Volume III Appendices is hereby removed.

Q56: RFP, Section L, page 63; "Consent documents; as required by FAR 52.219‐8 and ‐9; and QDRs/CAs may be included as appendices to Volume III and count towards the page count noted in the above table. Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) shall be included in Volume III’s appendix but are not counted towards the page count of any volume." Regarding "Consent Documents," is the Government referring to FAR 44.2 Consent to Subcontracts?

A56: Yes.

Q57: RFP, Section M, page 76, M1.2; Instructions state ‐ Proposals that fail to separate cost/price information from Volumes 1, 2, 3 or 5. Volume 5 is the cost Volume. Was it the Governments’ intent to have Volume 4 instead of Volume 5 listed?

A57: Yes, M.1.2 is hereby changed to read Volumes 1, 2, 3, or 4.

Q58: M2.4; Please confirm that there is no missing text in the blank space between page 77 and 78 and that the sentence is continuous and should read as "A competitive range will be established in the event that discussions are determined to be necessary."

A58: That is correct. The gap on this page was a system generation issue.

Q59: RFP, Section L, page 63; Chart 1 ‐ Proposal Structure ‐ Vol II Appendices. The Program Management section is limited to 15 pages. Per instructions at the IDIQ level we are to only submit a single resume (limited to 2 pages) for only the Program Manager (c.2.d). Is it the Government’s intent that the Telecommuting Plan would require the remaining available 13 pages ‐ or are there other required appendix contents that were inadvertently not listed?

A59: No. There are numerous aspects of the Section L Proposal Contents Volume II: Factor 2 – Program Management Factor that may be included in the Volume II Appendices. These are specifically identified throughout this section (including Telecommuting Plan, PM resume, commitment letters, OCI disclosures and any requisite security information the Offeror sees fit to include). Note (f) under “Telecommuting Plan” in Section L is intended to address overall attachments in Volume II, not only the Telecommuting Plan.

Q60: Page 54/85; 252.215‐7009, Proposal Adequacy Checklist.

Question 1 ‐ Are the proposers to include the Proposal Adequacy Checklist with the proposal?

Question 2 ‐ If so – what are the instructions and naming convention required for the submission?

Question 3 ‐ If so – should this be included within one of the Appendices?

A60: Yes. Page 63 of the RFP identifies where the checklist should be located.

Q61: RFP, Section L, page 63; Chart 1 ‐ Proposal Structure ‐ Vol II Appendices and Vol III Appendices.

Please verify that the government is looking for each element of the Appendices to be submitted as separate documents and that each document has a 15 page limit. For example:

C03 XXXX Volume II Appendix A ‐ Facility Clearance Verification 12‐21‐2022.pdf (15 pages) C03 XXXX Volume II Appendix B ‐ Telecommuting Plan 12‐21‐2022.pdf (15 pages) C03 XXXX Volume II Appendix C ‐ NIST Letter 12‐21‐2022.pdf (15 pages)

A61: 15 pages should be the total of the Volume II Appendices. The page limitation for Volume III Appendices is here by removed. The page limitation for Volume III Appendices is now unlimited.

Q62: Factor 1 – Technical Section L, M.4. and M.5.2.c.

c) Rapidly and effectively recognize and characterize operational deficiencies and needs, and ability to work with operational users and Science and Technology researchers to define and ultimately deploy acceptable, achievable, and scalable solutions.

c) above is not listed in section L or M.4. It is only listed in M.5.2.c. Please remove or correct section L and M.4.

A62: See the AMP RFP Section L.2.b.b. ‐ Volume I: Factor 1 – Technical that reads, “Offerors shall provide a detailed narrative describing the Offeror’s approach and corporate technical capabilities and experience that generally describes their ability to accomplish the PWS, including:

b. Their capacity to provide specialized services in experimentation, prototyping, evaluation, and integration of advanced technology in real world, battle‐ready OCONUS environments. These specialized services (and past experiences) are critical for the development of Army multidomain operation (MDO) overmatch capabilities that the Army Futures Command (AFC) has been commissioned to achieve under the Big 6 Army Modernization Priorities framework. Prime contractors (to include the Prime contractor, joint venture, teaming partners and all proposed major subcontractors) must also be able to rapidly and effectively recognize and characterize operational deficiencies and needs, and be able to work with operational users and Science and Technology researchers to define and ultimately deploy acceptable, achievable, and in many cases, scalable solutions.”

Q63: Factor 2 – Management Approach Section L and M.

e) Understanding of potential personnel retention risks and ability to mitigate those risks.

e) above is listed in Section M but Section L lists it as d and no e

A63: Section L states, among other things, “Offerors shall describe potential personnel retention risks and describe risk mitigation measures”.

Q64: RFP Section A number 2 and General Instructions; A cutoff date for receipt of industry written questions and comments on the RFP is 4:00 PM Eastern Time on 30 November 2022. All questions shall be submitted via email to usarmy.rtp.devcom‐arl.mbx.baa3qa@army.mil no later than 04:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 23 November 2022.

Conflicting date on submitting questions. Please confirm final date to submit questions.

A64: The announcement on SAM.GOV was amended to correct the question submission date to 30

Q65: RFP, Section L, General Instructions; Pages 63 and 64. Section L, General Instructions: Page 63, first paragraph after Chart 1 states:

… The cover letters, summary section, title page, Table of Contents, List of Tables/Figures, Acronym Lists/Glossaries; and representation and certifications are not included in the page count limitations. … Section L, General Instructions, Page 64, section 2.a (Proposal Contents, Cover Letter) states:

Offerors shall submit a cover letter on company letterhead. The cover letter shall not exceed three (3) pages. The cover letter shall be submitted as an independent document and not in one of the five volumes listed below. The following information shall be included in the cover letter:

Questions:

a. Should each volume include a cover letter (as Page 63, first paragraph after Chart 1 alludes) OR Should there be a single cover letter separate from all of the volumes (as Page 64, 2a states)?

b. If the cover letter should be a separate file, is there a specific file name for the file, such as “Cover Letter XXXX (date).docx/.pdf?

A65:

a. Single cover letter separate from all of the volumes in accordance with Page 64, 2a.

b. There is no specified file name for the Cover Letter. The Government requests that it be clearly marked in the file name.

Q66: RFP, Section L, General Instructions. General Instructions, Pg 61, 3rd Paragraph, the RFP states:

Proposals shall use the file names set forth below in Chart 1, replacing “xxxx” with the Offeror’s name and the date of the proposal.

General Instructions, Pg 61, 5th paragraph, the RFP states:

In order to ensure successful electronic submission, the total size of the offeror’s proposal package shall not exceed 10MB…If an Offeror’s proposal exceeds the data limit, the Offeror may send multiple files that clearly mark (in the file name) Offeror name, Solicitation Number (W911NF‐22‐R‐0001), Example:

Company Name; W911NF‐22‐R‐0001; File 1 of 2.

Chart 1, Proposal Structure The filenames contain both:

XXXX ‐ (which General Instructions, 3rd paragraph state is to be replaced with Offeror’s name and date), and (date) – further in the filename.

Questions:

a. Please confirm XXX in the file names provided in Chart 1, Proposal Structure, should be replaced with only the Offeror’s name, and the date of submission should replace “(date)”.

b. Please confirm we are correct in our assumption that, in the General Instructions, 5th paragraph, the word “email” should replace to word “file”, as shown below.)

…If an Offeror’s proposal exceeds the data limit, the Offeror may send multiple files emails that clearly mark (in the file name email subject line) Offeror name, Solicitation Number (W911NF‐22‐R‐0001), Example: Company Name; W911NF‐22‐R‐0001; File Email 1 of 2.

c. In the unlikely event a single file exceeded the 10MB data restriction, please confirm the Offeror can “split” the file into two or more files. Each file would contain the appropriate filename based on Chart 1, but will also identify the order of the files by adding Part 1, Part 2, etc.

A66:

a. Page 61 of the RFP is updated to state: If an Offeror’s proposal exceeds the data limit in DOD SAFE, the Offeror may send multiple submissions that clearly mark (in the submission name) Offeror name, Solicitation Number (W911NF‐22‐R‐0001), Example: Company Name; W911NF‐ 22‐R‐0001; File 1 of 2. This format is to be used WHEN all files in the proposal exceeds the data limit. The individual file names should be in accordance with the chart on page 62‐63.

b. This question is no longer applicable as the updated proposal submission instructions require submission through DOD SAFE. See updated proposal submission instructions at the top of this Q&A document and in the updated SAM.GOV Announcement Description.

c. With the updated proposal submission instructions requiring submission through DOD SAFE, the reference on Page 61 should no longer be applicable since the 10MB limit should no longer apply. In the unlikely event that a DOD SAFE submission exceeds the DOD SAFE data limitations, Offerors may submit multiple DOD SAFE submissions titled “Company Name; W911NF‐22‐R‐ 0001; File 1 of 2”.

Q67: RFP, Section L, General Instructions. Pg 61. General Instructions, 5th Paragraph states:

Acceptable file types are: Adobe Portable Document File (.pdf) and Microsoft Word (.docx), with the exception of the cost volume which may contain Microsoft Excel Spreadsheets for budget information.

Question: Is there a specific file name for the Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet, if one is included?

A67: Since the question related to the Cost (Volume 5), proposals should adhere to the format file name outlined in the table located at the top of page 63 of the RFP (to include .xls files).

Q68: RFP, Section M, General Instructions. Evaluation Criteria:

Factor 2 – Management Approach:

The Management Approach Factor will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror as Contractor (Prime contractor, joint venture, teaming partners and all proposed major subcontractors) clearly meets the requirements as described in Section L for the following components; Management Plan Narrative, Key Personnel, Personnel Reliability Program, Security Clearance, and Telecommuting Plan.

Question: Eval criteria says that we will be evaluated based on the Personnel Reliability Program … However section L, instructions do not require a Personnel Reliability program …Would the government please clarify the need for a PRP at the ID/IQ level.

A68: The reference to Personnel Reliability Program in Section M.5.2 is hereby removed from the RFP

Q69: RFP, Section L, Volume III, Factor 3 ‐ Past Performance. Pg 69. n. Self‐assessment: Offerors shall provide a self‐assessment for each past performance example. The self‐ assessment shall address performance, including if the contractor met the schedule and technical requirements within the original estimated cost. If the original cost, schedule, or technical requirements of the contract were not met, the offeror shall provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) the original requirements were not met and any corrective actions taken by the contractor. The offeror shall identify each time the schedule (period of performance) or cost ceiling was revised and provide an explanation of why each revision was necessary. Question: If the offeror is using an IDIQ contract as a past performance example, should the offeror address schedule and/or cost revisions for individual task orders under the IDIQ contract?

A69: Regardless of contract type (IDIQ, Task Order, “C” contract, etc.) used as an example, the last sentence is revised to read: “The offeror shall summarize any schedule and cost revisions to describe their nature within the allotted page count.”

Q70: L.2.b, Mission Area Support; Final RFP Section L.2.b, Mission Area Support, instructs offerors to address irregular warfare support under Volume I; however, the final PWS does not provide requirements for irregular warfare support. Question: Will the government please provide the missing PWS requirements for irregular warfare support?

A70: The final AMP (CUI) PWS does not specifically delineate irregular warfare support in section 3., Mission Area Performance Requirements. However, these requirements are generally described in section 1., Introduction, para 6: “This unique contracting vehicle will also enable rapid advanced‐ technology insertion to provide effective solutions to counteract and defeat asymmetrical, adaptable enemy overmatch threats when present – advanced‐technology‐based solutions that can be employed by small units, expeditionary forces, special operations forces and other irregular warfare operators.

Advanced irregular warfare technologies may include: advanced communications devices and systems;

assured position, navigation, and timing (PNT) systems; information technologies; electronic,…