AMP Question and Answer.pdf

Responses are for informational purposes prior to the issuance of the Final RFP. The contents of the Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read in its entirety prior to proposal submission.

Q1: Can the Government provide the attachments listed in the Draft RFP?

A1: The PWS has been provided to all parties who requested it. Other Attachments/Exhibits are not included as part of the Draft RFP but will be included in the final RFP release.

Q2: Can the Government clarify if the Army Modernization Priorities (AMP) IDIQ is a separate requirement than Advanced Expeditionary Warfare Development (AEWD) IDIQ or is this a follow‐on requirement that will replace AEWD?

A2: 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.

Q3: Can the Government clarify if the Army Modernization Priorities (AMP) IDIQ is a separate requirement than Advanced Expeditionary Warfare Development (AEWD) IDIQ or is this a follow‐on requirement that will replace AEWD?

A3: See answer to Q2.

Q4: Draft RFP Page 43 Proposal Adequacy Checklist. Can the Government clarify if this checklist will be utilized for the IDIQ and subsequent task orders? Will this be inserted in a proposal volume or as a separate document?

A4: Utilization of this checklist will be clarified in official RFP release.

Q5: Please confirm Total Price Evaluated will be CPFF labor only. (p 60‐61, L.2).

A5: Per the Draft RFP, the Government anticipates evaluating total cost of 1 FTE for each of the labor positions identified, as well as indirect rates and fee on a CPFF basis.

Q6: Is the customer planning on providing non‐labor plug number for pricing/evaluation purposes? (p.

60‐61)

A6: No.

Q7: Does the customer consider Equipment and Material as separate cost elements? (p. 13)

A7: Yes. Equipment means tangible personal property (including information technology systems) having a useful life of more than one year and a per‐unit acquisition cost which equals or exceeds $5,000.00.

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

Q8: Is fee allowable on Material? (p. 13)

A8: No.

Q9: Does the customer consider Equipment and Material as separate cost elements? (p.14)

A9: See Q7.

Q10: Is fee allowable on Material? (p. 14)

A10: No.

Q11. Will the Customer provide a draft Attachment titled "Cost Summary Spreadsheet" for offerorer's Q&A? (p. 60‐61)

A11: See question 1.

Q12: On Page 50 – Paragraph 3 it states: In order to ensure successful electronic submission, the total size of the offeror’s proposal package shall not exceed 10MB. 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. 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. For Clarity ‐ Should the 10MB limit sentence above be revised to read: “In order to ensure successful electronic submission, the total size of the offeror’s proposal email package shall not exceed 10MB. (p. 50)

A12: Will be considered for final RFP release.

Q13: 2nd to last sentence in Paragraph 8 states: Proposals shall not contain any classified data or information. Question: The PWS is classified as CUI and our response will likely be CUI.

Does CUI fall into the category of "classified data"? (p. 51)

A13: CUI does not fall into the category of “classified data”. However, the submission process and protection of CUI will be clarified in final RFP Release.

Q14: Sub‐factor 1 references "specialized services from 6.1 through 6.7 tasks". What are the seven (7) tasks are being referenced above? (p. 54)

A14: “Specialized Services” are defined as the capacity to:

1) Provide rapid RDT&E prototyping, experimentation, testing, analytics, and technology insertion/integration across a wide range of technology readiness levels (TRLs) / maturity levels (Budget Activities 6.1 through 6.7),

2) Provide the services in: a) within the context of real‐world, battle‐ready OCONUS environments, and b) Provide these services with demonstrated experience in convergent MDO & JADO environments. These specialized services (and experience bases) are critical for the

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read development of Army MDO & JADO overmatch capabilities that the AFC has been commissioned to achieve under the Big 6 Army Modernization Priorities framework by 2028 and beyond.

Q15: M.5.2.a references "specialized services from 6.1 through 6.7 tasks". What are the seven (7) tasks are being referenced above? (p. 65)

A15: See question 14.

Q16: Paragraph 1.b on DRFP page 53 of 70 specifies that Volumes I‐III of the proposal require a summary section containing a brief abstract of the file. How will the Government use these summary sections during proposal evaluation?

A16: All proposal documents are part of the evaluation. The summary provides a quick synopsis of key points the Offeror wishes to highlight.

Q17: The Government states, “Their ability to meet quick‐reaction project contracting needs that may span a wide range of specialized services from 6.1 through 6.7 tasks, in some cases within the same task order contract.” However, there is no 6.1 through 6.7 on the PWS. Will the Government please clarify what tasks we are to write to for Sub‐Factor 1? (p. 54)

A17: See question 14.

Q18: Is the intent of the government for all primes have a current PRP program within 180 days of requisite task order award, solely, or within 180 days of IDIQ award? (Gen. Instr.)

A18: A PRP is specific to Chemical, Biological and/or Nuclear Weapons tasking. A PRP will only be required if the Task Order is supporting these types of weapon systems (i.e., PRP will be determined at the Task Order Level).

Q19: Please confirm one key personnel, Program Manager, is all that is required for the IDIQ RFP. (Sec.

2.1 Prog. Mang.)

A19: Yes.

Q20: Is it the government's intent when referring to "Prime Contractor" in the RFP to limit competition on this contract to only those potential prime offers who, alone, believe they can do the entire PWS, or, is the intent to allow for maximum competition by defining "Prime Contractor" to include the offerer's comprehensive team? (Background)

A20: Per the draft RFP, evaluation of capability will consider the ability of the entity (Prime contractor, joint venture, teaming partners and all proposed major subcontractors). This will be clarified in the release of the final RFP.

Q21: In order to eliminate assumptions and promote consistent use and application of the terms "Prime Contractor", "Entity", "Offerer", "Contractor", or other synonymous terminology throughout the DRAFT RFP and PWS, how are those terms to be defined and applied?

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

A21: This will be clarified in the release of the Final RFP.

Q22: Although not explicitly stated, is it the government's intent to have the Prime's Program Manager (PM) be current on their Project Management Professional (PMP) certification? (Sec. 2.1 Prog. Mang.)

A22: This will be clarified in the release of the Final RFP.

Q23: Understanding the historical challenges associated with previous similar programs, is the government better‐served to raise the level of participation expectation for a Large Business from 5% Task Order Request participation to at least 10% in order to execute the off‐ramp process? (Sec. H.12)

A23: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q24: Is it in the best interest of the government to include large businesses to the H.11.b provision regarding the onboarding of new primes in order to refresh competition? (Sec. H.11)

A24: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q25: Please reconcile the off‐ramp process of not executing the IDIQ‐level option for those primes assessed to not meeting the standard with the period of performance in section F.2 being one five year ordering period with an additional five year ordering period? (Sec. F.2)

A25: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP

Q26: What is the government's intent for duplicating instructions 252.227‐7017, the IDENTIFICATION AND ASSERTION OF USE, RELEASE, OR DISCLOSURE RESTRICTIONS, on both pages 40‐41 and 49‐50?

A26: This will be clarified in the release of the Final RFP

Q27: Does the unclear statement regarding offerers falling within 5% of their proposed level of small business participation possibly resulting in a poor CPARS rating mean that offerers are to exceed their small business participation goals by greater than 5% or risk receiving a poor CPARS? (Vol. IV Small Bus.)

A27: No, it means the offeror needs to be within 5% of their proposed level of small business participation. Exceeding the proposed small business level by more than 5% could mean a higher rating in CPARS but is not a requirement. CPARS rating is at the task order level.

Q28: Consider adding in the scope of "winning in competition" the type of procurement and contracting best suited to rapidly entering R&D and low rate production. (PWS Sec. 3.2)

A28: This will be clarified in the release of the Final RFP/PWS.

Q29: Section H.4 discusses a maximum Fixed Fee and Profit rates applicable to Primes and Prime fee on Subcontractors. The DRFP also indicates that fee will be negotiated on a task‐by‐task basis in accordance with the DOD Weighted Guidelines. Given that this contract will result in a multiple‐award IDIQ with the expectation of ongoing competition at the TO level, establishing maximum Fee % seems excessive: The

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

Government's financial interests will be protected by ongoing competition and the ability to negotiate fee on a task‐by‐task basis. In light of this, we respectfully request that all Fixed Fee and Profit ceilings be removed, since statutory ceilings on CPFF TOs will apply.

A29: The intent of the fee limitation is to impose a maximum fee that the prime may charge on subcontractor costs.

Q30: Sections H.4.1.2 and H.4.2.2 establish maximum Fixed Fee that Prime contractors will be allowed to apply to Subcontracts. The Maximum Fees are identical for CPFF and FFP. This approach is in contravention to the Weighted Fee Guidelines of DFAR 215.404.71, which outlines differing Fee guidance based on the Contract Type and inherently different risk associated with Fixed Price versus Cost Type. We respectfully request that the Fee ceilings for FFP be increased to be higher than the ceilings for CPFF, in accordance with the Weighted Fee Guidelines.

A30: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q31: Section I ‐ Contract Clauses includes FAR 52.244‐6 Subcontracts for Commercial Products and Services. The inclusion of this FAR clause indicates an understanding that there may be subcontractors of a Commercial type that will not be able to support disclosure of Cost data, as required under section H.3.3. However, Section H.3 does not include any provisions for proposing other‐than‐cost type subcontractors, commercial subcontractors, etc. Please confirm that commercial item subcontractors will be permitted on task orders where a Price Analysis will be acceptable to determine fair and reasonable pricing.

A31: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP, but the Government anticipates maintaining the fee allowance on subcontract costs as specified in the Draft RFP.

Q32: H.3.3 states "However, costs associated with the prime and "subcontractor" partnership must be evaluated for its fair and reasonableness. "Undisclosed" or "loaded" cost does not allow a proper cost analysis. Therefore the following must be adhered to: " and the DRFP lists a number of items, to include Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data, and requirements for the Prime to conduct a cost analysis.

We have a number of concerns with this approach, as follows:

a) H.3 and its respective subsections do not provision for subcontractors to be of a Fixed Price type (either FFP or Fixed Hourly rates) where only Price analysis may be conducted, or for the use of subcontractors who are unable to provide a cost breakdown due to lack of an approved accounting system. We respectfully request acknowledgement that some subcontractors may be used on a "Price" basis, whether due to Commercial services, or their inability to provide cost disclosure, and therefore exceptions to providing a complete cost breakdown will be permitted.

b) Section H.3.3.2.1. requires the disclosure of proprietary cost and price data from the subcontractor to the Prime, which is not appropriate. We respectfully request revising instructions and guidelines in Section H to permit all cost breakdown information to be submitted to the Government only, via a Sealed Package. Otherwise, permit subcontractors to provide Price data only, for which the Prime can perform a Price Analysis on the loaded / fixed hourly rates to determine fair and reasonableness.

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

c) Conducting a cost analysis as required by Section H.3.3.2.1. will require validating rates via DCAA/DCMA. Neither organization will disclose company proprietary cost data to another contractor. In light of this restriction, the requirements of H.3.3.2.1 appear impossible to meet.

d) Fair and Reasonable Pricing can be ascertained via price analysis, such as adequate price competition at the subcontract level. We respectfully disagree that examination of a subcontractor cost breakdown is necessary to determine reasonable prices.

e) In a competitive Task Order, the Prime will be exempt from Certified Cost and Pricing Data.

FAR 15.404‐3(c) states that exceptions to Certified Cost and Pricing Data apply to subcontract pricing.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to expect that if the Prime meets an exception of 15.403‐1(b), then their subcontractors would as well.

f) Sections H.3.3.2.1 and H.3.3.2.2 note different instructions for Subcontract Proposals less than and greater than $750k. The current threshold for obtaining certified cost or pricing data, per FAR 15.403‐4, is $2M as of July 2018.

A32: Each of these will be considered when constructing the final RFP

Q33: The Proposal Adequacy Checklist indicates that the default position of the Government is that a Certificate of current cost or pricing data is considered the "default" and supplemental rationale and justification is required when requesting an exception. Given that the envisioned contract will be a multiple‐award IDIQ, with ongoing competition at the Task Order level, it seems that this approach will create additional work and administration on the part of both the contractors and the Government.

Would the government consider the expectation of adequate price competition under a multiple‐award IDIQ to be the "default" and the need for a Certificate of Current Cost and Pricing Data to be the exception, when competition is not obtained? This approach would be consistent with other multiple‐ award IDIQs.

A33: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q34: The instructions for Volume V ‐ Cost identify the eight (8) labor categories to be used in the cost proposal. In order to aid in proposal preparation and to facilitate the cost realism evaluation, we respectfully request that the Government provide labor category definitions, to include minimum education and experience qualifications, for offerors to reference in the preparation of their Cost Proposal.

A34: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q35: The price instructions state that "For proposal and evaluation purposes only, offerors shall assume the location of performance is on a Government Site…"

In order for the Government to better assess their maximum cost liability, we respectfully recommend that the performance location to be assumed to be at Contractor Site, rather than Government Site.

A35: The instructions above are reference points to develop a cost proposal at the Base IDIQ for evaluation purposes only. Actual performance location will be defined per Task Order. Locations can be Contractor Site, CONUS or OCONUS Government Sites.

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

Q36: The DRFP is very clear that subcontracting will not only be permitted, but will be required in order to meet small business goals. It therefore seems incongruous that the Cost proposal is limited to Prime Contractor rates only. Respectfully request the government reconsider the current approach and permit Prime Offerors to incorporate subcontractor pricing in their IDIQ Cost submission.

A36: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q37: Please confirm that the proposed fixed fee ceiling will be reflected in the proposed CPFF rates, but will not be separately evaluated. (M.5.5)

A37: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q38: It is our opinion that it is in the best interest of the government when discussing the requirements regarding CONUS or OCONUS deployment; or demonstrated capabilities or performance, other similar requirements that the "entity" (Prime contractor plus teaming partners, joint ventures, etc) be considered and therefore the PWS and RFP, as appropriately, be written in such a manner to reflect this.

(PWS 2.2)

A38: It is generally understood that the term Contractor refers to Contractor Team; therefore, this includes teaming partners. Additionally, each individual Task Order Request (TOR) will provide further guidance on how proposals will be reviewed. We will review the Draft PWS to see how this might be more clearly stated.

Q39: In order to eliminate any assumptions, when referring to the "specialized tasks" 6.1 ‐ 6.7, please confirm the government is referring to the DOD RDT&E Budget Activity Codes and Descriptions; and if not please clarify.

A39: Yes, see question 14.

Q40: Due to the use of uncommon or dated acronyms or terminology (i.e. NC3I vs. C4/C5ISR), and in order to eliminate assumptions and promote the best competition for the government, it is recommended a thorough glossary of terminology definitions and acronyms be included in the RFP.

(PWS general)

A40: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q41: Pursuant to FAR, competition establishes price reasonableness for FFP efforts and cost/profit analysis is not necessary. Assuming competition is expected, recommend evaluation of FFP TO be based on competitive price proposals without the expectation of other than cost and pricing data being required. (H.2.2.2)

A41: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

Q42: Pursuant to FAR 15.403‐1, certified cost or pricing data shall not be required to support determination of a fair and reasonable price or cost realism when the KO determines that prices agreed upon are based on adequate price competition. Assuming competition is expected, request removal of this requirement. (H.3.3.1)

A42: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP

Q43: This checklist is not applicable for a competitive acquisition Per DFARS 252.215‐408(4), the checklist if for use with proposals requiring certified cost or pricing data. Certified cost or pricing data should not be required in a competitive procurement. (Sec. L DFAR 252.215‐7009)

A43: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q44: Do all personnel on the IDIQ/Task Order fall under the PRP program, or is it limited to Key personnel? (Gen. Inst. Paragraph 1.c.3)

A44: A PRP is specific to Chemical, Biological and/or Nuclear Weapons tasking. A PRP will only be required if the Task Order is supporting these types of weapon systems (i.e., PRP will be determined at the Task Order Level). If a Task Order has a PRP requirement, all personnel working in PRP positions fall under the PRP (See DoDM 5210.42, January 13, 2015 for description of PRP Positions).

Q45: Is the assumption that the PRP will only be applicable to task orders and not the overall IDIQ correct? (Gen Inst. Para. 1.c.3)

A45: A PRP is specific to Chemical, Biological and/or Nuclear Weapons tasking. A PRP will only be required if the Task Order is supporting these types of weapon systems (i.e., PRP will be determined at the Task Order Level)

Q46: Besides task orders that support the CBRNE mission, what scope of work or mission‐sets would a PRP be appropriate? (Gen. Inst. Para 1.c.3)

A46: A PRP is specific to Chemical, Biological and/or Nuclear Weapons tasking. If a Task Order has a PRP requirement, all personnel working in PRP positions fall under the PRP (See DoDM 5210.42, January 13, 2015 for description of PRP Positions/Scope of Work).

Q47: As a result of the ongoing, and dynamic COVID‐pandemic state, what changes or adjustments to processes or timelines has the government made regarding the establishing, maintaining, and overseeing of PRPs? (Gen Inst. Para. 1.c.3)

A47: A PRP will only be required if the Task Order and any adjustments due to COVID will be addressed at Task Order Level.

Q48: In order to limit the impact of inaccurate assumptions, it is our opinion that it is in the best interest of the government to clearly articulate when, where, how, and to whom a PRP applies within the context of the IDIQ, task orders, prime contractors and their entities/teams, contractor personnel, and any other aspect worth including. (Gen Inst. Para. 1.c.3)

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

A48: A PRP is specific to Chemical, Biological and/or Nuclear Weapons tasking. A PRP will only be required if the Task Order is supporting these types of weapon systems (i.e., PRP will be determined at the Task Order Level). If a Task Order has a PRP requirement, all personnel working in PRP positions fall under the PRP (See DoDM 5210.42, January 13, 2015 for description of PRP Positions).

Q49: Does AFC have spending authority over Budget Activity (BA) 5, 6, and 7? If not, who will be the Government PM for TOs involving BA 5, 6, and 7?

A49: The Army’s approved RDT&E Programs span BA‐1 thru BA‐7 funding. These Programs are managed jointly by ASAALT, AFC, DEVCOM and ARL. The AMP IDIQ Contract will support BA‐1 thru BA‐

7. The Government PM will be determined at the time of Task Order Award and is expected to change with each new Task Order.

Q50: At what level (contract or TO) will SB utilization/participation goals be enforced?

A50: Task Order Level.

Q51: What are the details and substantiation behind the fee considerations?

A51: Fee limitations are only implemented for prime contract fee/profit being applied to subcontractor costs. Fee on prime contractor labor will be evaluated based on application of the weighted guidelines.

Q52: Is there any consideration for using the FPIF contract type for suitable RDTE efforts? FPIF provides some flexibility for the contractor while avoiding cost risk to the Government.

A52: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q53: What details will be required at the subcontract level (see H.2.2.7 items f and g)?

A53: The same level of detail should be provided for subcontractors as is required of the prime.

Q54: H.8: Will site closure/holiday provisions apply to local OCONUS holidays?

A54: OCONUS Site Closure is determined by the Local Command. All Task Awards that require CONUS and OCNUS onsite support will have PWS Statements that required Contractors to follow local Command Guidance for duty hours, closures, etc. and a VISITOR GROUP SECURITY AGREEMENT (VGSA) will be required. A VGSA requires: IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARA 1‐15 OF ARMY REGULATION 380‐49, INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM, CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL PERFORMING ON THIS CONTRACT WILL

ADHERE TO LOCAL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS AT THEIR DUTY LOCATION THROUGHOUT THE

PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT EFFORT.

Q55: H.12.b: What is the expected # of TO Requests in a 24‐month period?

A55: TO requests are highly variable and dependent on numerous factors. It is ARL’s expectation that AMP will support a minimum of ~ 10 to 12 Task Orders per year.

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

Q56: H.13 (1): SB Participation Goal is 15% of total contract value, but “Target/Goal” is “90% of SB participation.” Please clarify.

A56: H.13 is intended to explain the metrics for on/off‐ramp determinations. The Socio‐Economic small business goals for this metric are 15%. The expectation is that offerors will achieve 90% of this socio‐ economic goal annually at the contract level.

Q57: Can the Govt provide the content of the customer satisfaction survey described in H.13? Will it form the basis for a CPAR?

A57: H.13 refers to application of an on/off ramp process.

Q58: Will the Government award to the highest‐rated offerors? [Not clearly stated in Section M.]

A58: Reference M.2.1 of the Draft RFP.

Q59: Is it possible to receive an award with no past performance submittal? (Sec. M)

A59: Reference M.5.3 of the Draft RFP. The Government will revisit this section for any necessary clarifications in the Final RFP.

Q60: Will the Government quantify offeror responses against Section M criteria? If so, how will each criterion be weighted in the Government’s evaluation?

A60: See M.2.3 of the Draft RFP.

Q61: Will the Government debrief unsuccessful TO offerors?

A61: The Government will comply with the requirements outlined DFAR 215.5 regarding Task Order debriefings.

Q62: Section L: Proposal Adequacy Checklist Question: Can the government please clarify in which volume the Proposal Adequacy Checklist should go?

A62: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q63: General Instructions: Personnel Reliability Program Question: We are not familiar with the Personnel Reliability Program requirement. Can the government confirm if other services (I.e. Navy, Air Force, etc.) have similar requirements? If so, can the government provide the name of those programs?

A63:

a) The Army can only speak to Army programs and its requirements. The Army cannot speak to the requirements of the other branches of services.

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

b) A PRP is specific to Chemical, Biological and/or Nuclear Weapons tasking. A PRP will only be required if the Task Order is supporting these types of weapon systems (i.e., PRP will be determined at the Task Order Level). If a Task Order has a PRP requirement, all personnel working in PRP positions fall under the PRP (See DoDM 5210.42, January 13, 2015, Army Regulation 190–17 and Army Regulation 50‐6 for description of PRP Positions).

c) The DoDM 5210.42 is specific to Nuclear Weapons and applies to all services so the expectations is a PRP would be required for TOs working with Nuclear Weapons.

d) Any waiver of PRP requirements for TOs supporting non‐Army Programs will be determined a the time of Task Order Award.

Q64: General Instructions: Chart 1 Proposal Structure indicated past performance should not exceed 10 pages (page 52). However, on page 57, Volume III Factor 3 – Past Performance say’s “Offeror shall provide (3) contracts…. Each not to exceed 3 pages”.

Question: Will the government confirm the page limit for past performance?

A64: Past Performance shall not exceed 10 pages in total and each example shall not exceed three (3) page.

Q65: Section L: b. Volume I: Factor 1 – Technical. Sub‐Factor 1: Specialized services 6.1 – 6.7; and Section M.5.2 Factor 1 Technical: a) “…wide range of specialized services 6.1 – 6.7 tasks….”. There is no detail to “Specialized services 6.1 – 6.7” in the draft PWS or draft solicitation.

Question: Will the government specify “Specialized services 6.1 – 6.7” as used throughout the draft solicitation and draft PWS?

A65: “Specialized Services” are defined as the capacity to:

a) Provide rapid RDT&E prototyping, experimentation, testing, analytics, and technology insertion/integration across a wide range of technology readiness levels (TRLs) / maturity levels (Budget Activities 6.1 through 6.7),

b) Provide the services within the context of real‐world, battle‐ready OCONUS environments, and;

c) Provide these services with demonstrated experience in convergent MDO & JADO environments. These specialized services (and experience bases) are critical for the development of Army MDO & JADO overmatch capabilities that the AFC has been commissioned to achieve under the Big 6 Army Modernization Priorities framework by 2028 and beyond.

Q66: Is the customer looking for Prime companies who can develop solutions against the scope of work, or for a Program Management Office to act as a clearinghouse to manage the letting of task orders to a consortium of subcontractors?

A66: AMP is expected to be awarded to Prime Contractors (or potentially with Sub‐Contractor Teams) to support the diverse Mission Set. AMP is not intended to be a “Pass‐thru” contract but the government understands that key technology solutions may be at the sub‐contractor level and/or Prime mentoring a

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read small business Team Member and in these cases will support the majority of the work being executed at the sub‐contract level.

Q67: Draft RFP mentions the first task order will be issued concurrently with contract award – what is the scope of that task order? (Para. G.4)

A67: The government anticipates awarding an initial Task Order to all primes in the amount of $2,500 to support kick‐off activities, but this will be finalized in the Final RFP.

Q68: Is there any prohibition on the IDIQ performer from bidding on the task orders?

A68: Only recipients of an IDIQ award are eligible to bid on task order requests under the MAC IDIQ process.

Q69: The Government will not accept any assumptions, alternate terms, alternate conditions, caveats, or exceptions with proposals. If an offeror includes any assumptions, alternate terms, alternate conditions, caveats, or exceptions with proposals, the proposal may not be considered for award.” The inclusion of such a prohibition will ultimately limit competition, which runs counter to the USG’s goal to obtain the best selection of awardees under this Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Multiple Award (IDIQ MA) contract. (p. 3)

A69: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q70: “Inspection and Acceptance Terms” Specifies Destination, however, if hazardous materials such as explosives are shipped, it might be more appropriate to inspect at Origin. (p.8)

A70: This will be addressed at the Task Order level.

Q71: “Travel arrangements, including extended travel, shall be provided to and are subject to approval by the COR in advance of travel.” Is there a dollar threshold for COR approval? (p. 14 H.5.1)

A71: This will be addressed at the Task Order level.

Q72: The FAR 52.227‐17 clause (in full text on page 30 of 70 in the PDF) should not be in the RFP because it only applies to non‐DoD agencies. See, FAR 27.400 where it states FAR 27.402 applies to all agencies and the remaining data rights clauses are not applicable to the DoD. The analogous DFARS clause (252.227‐7020) is contained in the RFP on page 22 of 70. The prescription clause for that DFARS clause requires the USG to have a specific need to use the clause and the USG must identify the specific portion of copyright control in a special contact requirement. We did not see such a special contract requirement. And thus, we think this DFARS clause should be deleted. (p.30)

A72: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q73: “The Program Manager (PM) shall have a Top Secret ‐ Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearance or other clearance based on a background investigation that supports at least that level of access, e.g., TS/SBI.” Has any special consideration been given to ensuring an adequate number of

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read supporting TS/SCI billets for classified task orders – beyond the PM? In the past, inadequate billet plans have resulted in unnecessary schedule risk. (PWS p. 4)

A73: Yes, this has been considered and the government expects the Prime to be able to ramp up with the requisite support required at the appropriate Security Level. Additionally, Task Orders (TOs) may have specific DD‐254's to address the TO security requirements.

Q74: If an IDIQ awardee has multiple businesses with unique CAGE codes, does the Government intend to award task orders directly to the performing business, or only to the CAGE code that received the IDIQ? We recommend keeping open the option of issuing a task order award to any business unit within a corporation. This promotes efficiency and keeping the best team directly supporting the task order.

A74: Only to the CAGE code that received the IDIQ.

Q75: Capping fixed fees or profit on cost elements could limit the field significantly on any given task order, and potentially affect the overall goal of rapid prototyping to support MDO.

A75: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q76: Must we be able to address both Mission Area Support AND Technical Area Support, along with Organizational Capabilities or can we expect to focus on either Mission Support Tasks OR Technical Support Tasks?

A76: Both.

Q77: Are there any TRL requirements?

A77: No. However, the Government may provide TRL requirements at the Task Order level.

Q78: When is the expected program start date? Or does this depend on the individual awards?

A78: AMP IDIQ Contract is anticipated first quarter FY23.

Q79: How will the contract awards be broken down between “Mission Areas” to support (i.e. sections 3.1‐3.8 of PWS) and “Technical Areas” to Support (i.e. Sections 4.1.1‐4.1.6)? Will each of these sections have its own award associated with it, or can it be anticipated that some of these may merge if a single contractor is able to address multiple tasks?

A79: The AMP IDIQ Award includes Mission Areas and Technical Areas (i.e., These will not be broken into separate award pools). An "In‐Scope Determination" will be performed on each new Task Order request which will identify one/more (1) Mission Areas, and (1) Technical Areas.

Q80: Are there existing ONS that this IDIQ could apply resourcing to, to create a material / COCO solution to experiment/test capability improvements?

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

A80: UFRs, ONS, JUONS, JEONS, etc. and budgets are always in flux so we can’t answer if there is an existing requirement and/or funding; however, AMP will be able to support such requirements much like AEWD IDIQ has done previously.

Q81: On page 3 of the RFP, the Government states that the maximum nominal Fixed Fee for Prime contractors will be allowed on Other Direct Costs for subcontractors as follows: Small business Subcontractors 5% and other than Small Business Subcontractors 3%. Can the Government confirm that this Fee limitation is for only Other Direct Cost (ODC) or applied to across all subcontractor costs?

A81: This fee limitation is across all sub‐contractor costs. The Government does not anticipate allowing profit/fee on other direct costs (i.e. travel, equipment, etc.).

Q82: Since the scope for the Army Modernization Program is unique, would the Government consider providing a sample task, with stated FFP requirements for the rapid development, and deployment of a transformational overmatch capability as part of this solicitation?

A82: No.

Q83: On page 61 of the draft RFP the Government list eight (8) Labor Categories to be used for purposes of the cost proposal. Other than the Program Manager (Key Personnel) the government doesn’t specifically state the education and experience required / associated with the other seven (7) Labor Categories. Could the Government please provide Labor description for all Labor Categories to be proposed for the purpose of the cost proposal that includes the specific education, experience, qualification and security clearances requirements?

A83: This will be clarified in the release of the Final RFP.

Q84: GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2. INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

e. Volume IV – Small Business Participation Plan

1. Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet

a. 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.

Offerors are required to utilize and complete the proposal format depicted in the RFP Attachment 000X ‐ Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet. The Offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet will be incorporated as an attachment in the awarded contract to reflect the contract’s minimum contractual requirements in terms of Small Business Participation.

Where is the worksheet?

A84: The worksheet will be provided in the release of the Final RFP.

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

Q85: GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2. INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

e. Volume IV – Small Business Participation Plan

1. Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet

b. It is the Government’s expectation that the Offeror will meet or exceed their proposed level of small business participation during contract performance. Failure to meet or exceed proposed level of small business participation, or fall within 5% of proposed level of small business participation on the contract, may result in negative Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System ratings and/or contract default procedures.

When will the government evaluate the contractor’s SB participation? Will compliance be evaluated at the end of the contract?

A85: SB participation will be evaluated at the task order level. Compliance will be evaluated at the end of the task order period of performance.

Q86: The stated intent of the IDIQ includes providing ‘…a quick‐reaction contracting vehicle…’ What is the anticipated PALT for TOR under AMP?

A86: As a general practice, the Government anticipates allowing 30 days for task order proposal submission, and an additional 30‐60 days for award. This is subject to variation depending on the individual task order

Q87: DRFP Section H.2.2.7 Task Order Process. Under the resultant AMP IDIQ, what is the anticipated duration of time between a Sources Sought notice for small business viability market research and issuance of a task order request (TOR)?

A87: The Government anticipates allowing 3‐5 days for receipt of capability statements during the sources sought stage of the task order process.

Q88: General Instructions, page 52/70. The instructions state, “If an organizational chart or schedule does not take up 1 page, it will not be counted as 1 page; further, 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.”

Please confirm that an 11x17” schedule or organization chart will count as only 1 page. Additionally, how will the government assess the page count for other 11x17 graphics or tables (1 page or 2)?

A88: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q89: DRFP, Page 50/70, General Instructions. The general instructions require an, “…unclassified proposal.” May contractors submit a CUI/CDI response? If not, how much, and what portions of the CUI language from the PWS may we use in the unclassified response?

A89: If using any CUI information in the Proposal, the Proposal should be submitted via DOD SAFE and/or encrypted email.

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

Q90: Pricing. Does the government intend to request a single pricing response to cover all potential work types, or will it request separate pricing build ups for research and development, and services type work? (p.60)

A90: The Government anticipates one (1) itemized budget for the Base IDIQ proposal. Separate pricing build‐ups may be required at the Task Order level depending on the requirement and contract type.

Q91: DRFP, General Instructions, Cost Section 2f, page 60/70, and Volume II Management, Section 2c2 (page 55/70). The DRFP specifies eight labor categories for pricing. One position is the Program Manager. The instructions for the management factor identify the program manager as a key person.

Does the government with us to treat the IDIQ Program Manager labor category as key when developing the pricing response?

A91: Yes, but the Government does not anticipate this to bear any weight on cost proposal submissions.

Q92: The proposal instructions state that past performance references must be contracts “that are currently active or that have been physically completed in the last twenty‐four (24) months.”

The evaluation approach states, “The Offeror shall identify up to three recent and relevant projects… that demonstrate their ability to perform the specified tasks within the last three years…”

Please confirm that Offerors may present past performance contracts performed within the past 3 years.

A92: This will be clarified when constructing the Final RFP.

Q93: The draft general/proposal instructions section regarding key personnel seem to identify only the Program Manager position as key and requiring a resume. The draft PWS identifies, "…six (6) functional key areas," including Program Manager, in section 2.1 Program Management. Is it the government's intent that a) those positions listed in draft PWS Section 2.1, are classified as key personnel, and/or b) that contractors submit resumes for personnel to support each of those six key functional areas? (p. 56 of 70; DPWS 2.1)

A93: This will be clarified when constructing the Final RFP and PWS.

Q94: "Additionally, the Government reserves the rate to use a reserve of two (2)" Please clarify that the sentence should read "… reserves the right to use a reserve…" (p. 63)

A94: Correct. This will be clarified when constructing the Final RFP.

Q95: Is it the Government’s intent to notify all offerors of compliance or non‐compliance prior to the Phase II evaluation? Reference: Section M.3 Two Phase Process, Paragraph M.3.1.

A95: Yes.

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

Q96: Is it the Government’s intent to conduct cost realism on rates proposed? Additionally, is the Government planning to use Weighted Guidelines to conduct cost realism on the proposed profit/fee?

IAW DFARS 215.404‐4(c)(1), typically profit analysis is not performed when assessing cost realism in competitive acquisitions. Reference: Section M5.5 Factor – Cost.

A96: Yes.

Q97: The government discusses the relevant weighting of each factor. How will the government assess each individual element within a given factor? For example, will all four elements under the technical factor be weighted equally?

A97: The Government does not anticipate utilizing sub‐factors. Therefore, the elements listed under the Technical Factor are collectively evaluated as one rating.

Q98: The RFP states: “F.2.2 The period of performance for orders will be determined at the Task Order.”

Can the period of performance for an issued task order extend beyond the end date of the IDIQ ordering period? If so, how far past the ordering period.

A98: Yes, the specific amount of time will be specified in the Final RFP.

Q99: Fee or Profit is not authorized on travel, stipend, and equipment. Is there a distinction between “equipment” and M&S (Materials and Services) other than subcontractors? Reference: Section H.3.4

A99: This will be considered when constructing the Final RFP.

Q100: Additionally, on fee or profit not being authorized travel, stipend, and equipment, is the Government intending to make a separate Cost‐Reimbursable CLIN for this? Moreover, has the Government considered allowing fee or profit on equipment or travel?

A100: No fee is allowed on equipment or travel. The Government will consider using separate CLINs for ODCs.

Q101: In the draft RFP, you state that the Government will only accept one (1) proposal from each Corporation. Do you legally delineate a “Corporation” by the organization’s CAGE code or DUNS number, or by some other method?

A101: The Government anticipates by CAGE Code, but this will be clarified in the Final RFP.

Q102: What should we expect regarding when the first task order(s) arriving after awarding IDIQ contracts? For example, should we anticipate some task orders arriving concurrently with IDIQ award?

Can you say if task orders will issue on a regular or irregular timing?

A102: Issuance of Task Order most likely will be irregular timing as funds become available.

Q103: What can you say regarding the prioritization and breakout of funding across the different Mission areas? Do you anticipate certain Mission areas having the bulk of interest and funding from the

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

Army at the expense of other Mission areas? If so, please provide details as this may affect business cases and partnering decisions.

A103: No funding prioritization expectations at this point.

Q104: How will the transition occur for technologies developed under task orders toward traditional acquisition methods?

A104:

a. Outcomes to be utilized by AFC for recommendation(s) on further technology investment decisions for realization of both near‐term and longer‐term overmatch capabilities.

b. Outcomes may include rapid advanced‐technology insertion for POR’s and fielded systems (for rapid warfighter feedback / spiral development)

a. Outcomes may be utilized to provide effective solutions to counteract and defeat asymmetrical, adaptable enemy overmatch threats when present – advanced‐technology‐ based solutions that can also be employed by small units, expeditionary forces, special operations forces and other irregular warfare operators.

Q105: Technology Transition for Advanced Research and Development is identified as one of the functional key areas. It appears from the preponderance of the RFP wording that IDIQ contractors are responsible for transition activities all the way to the field. Is this a correct way of looking at this topic?

A105: See question 104.

Q106: Given the expansive Technical and Mission area support requirements of this RFP, would the Army consider expanding the Volume 1 page limitations from 15 to 30 or more pages to allow ample amplification of capabilities and technologies to be brought to bear for the Army Modernization programs

A106: There is no plan to increase page allowance for any Volume, but this is subject to change in the Final RFP.

Q107: Do the same fee caps apply to both large and small business primes. I.e., are small business primes capped at 3% fee on their large business subcontractors?

A107: Yes. Small Business prime contractors are capped at 3% for other than small business subcontracts.

Q108: Will AMP service non‐Army requirements in addition to Army requirements, provided they are within AMP’s scope and alignment with Army modernization priorities?

A108: AMP’s first priority is AFC and ARL support, but ARL HQ does allow support of DOD Mission Partners if priorities align with Army Interests. As long the goal is to enable and or accelerate the realization of new Army Modernization transformational OVERMATCH CAPABILITIES through rapid RDT&E prototyping, experimentation, testing, analytics, and technology insertion/integration – all aspects of operationalizing science through disruptive innovation for dominant Multi‐Domain

Final RFP, when released, will supersede the information in this document. The Final RFP should be read

Operations (MDO) and Joint All‐Domain Operations (JADO) capabilities. ARL APEX Team currently is supporting several DOD Mission Partners under the former AEWD IDIQ and other contract vehicles.

Q109: Will the presentation/slides be available?

A109: Yes. The presentation/slides will be available on betaSAM.

Q110: May we still request the PWS following the instruction?

A110: No. Cut off in the draft RFP was 10 March 2022. However, once the Final RFP has been released there will be instructions on how to obtain the Final PWS.

Q111: Is past performance requirement 2 years?

A111: This will be clarified in the Final RFP.

Q112: Would the government consider having a large and small pool for awards?

A112: The AMP IDIQ Award includes Mission Areas and Technical Areas (i.e., These will not be broken into separate award pools). An "In‐Scope Determination" will be performed on each new Task Order request which will identify one or more Mission Areas, and Technical Areas. The Government does not anticipate Large and Small Pools.

Q113: Will there be restricted task orders for small business…