W911S0-17-R-0002_Industry_Q A_(Amendment_2).pdf

Source Question Government Response

1 Volume II – Cost p.54 (4.2) Purchasing System. Prime contractors shall also state the status regarding the adequacy of their Purchasing System. The Offeror shall provide the date it was determined adequate and supporting information or back up letter from an

Administrative Contracting Officer stating the adequacy for the system.

Request the government confirm that the absence of a government “approved” purchasing system does not exclude nor diminish during evaluation an offer’s proposal response. Many qualified small businesses, even those with previous subcontractors (due to type of contract or use of Consent to Subcontract procedure) do not have “approved” purchasing systems. A requirement for an

“approved” purchasing system, especially in light of limited and long lead time for CPSR’s availability, would appear to unfairly restrict competition.

All Offerors are required to have an adequate accounting and purchasing system, or should request a preaward survey. Instructions have been clarified in paragraph 4.2 of Section L.

Respectfully, the response period for Solicitation Number: W911S0-17-R-

0002 for AWG spans two holidays. One of them being Thanksgiving, the heaviest travelled holiday of the year and almost universally celebrated in the

US. The other being Veterans Day. This requirement is an SDVOSB set aside heavily supported by retired military personnel, and honorees of Veterans Day.

Given the federally recognized holidays that occur during the response period, would the government please consider a 10-day to two-week extension?

Allowing for 30 business days seems more aligned with the complexity of the technical content and will facilitate better quality responses.

The proposal deadline has been extended to

Thursday, 1 December at 11 am. The SF33 coverpage has been updated to reflect these changes.

Asymmetric Warfare Group Operations Support

SOLICITATION: W911S0-17-R-0002

Industry Questions & Answers

3 L, c.3 (c) Page 45 Would the Government consider changing the instructions to remove the

Exceptions/Assumptions response from Volume III Mission Capability / Risk and add it to Volume I General? This would relax the already stringent page limitation for Volume III and allow Offerors to address any

Exceptions/Assumptions in the General Volume for the overall proposal vs.

Mission Capability /Risk.

Exceptions/Assumptions are already located in

Volume I. There is no additional

Exceptions/Assumptions requirement located in

Volume III.

4 PWS Given the complexity of the content required for Volume III, would the government please consider expanding the Mission/Capability Risk Volume from 75 pages to 125 pages to allow for full development of the solution and response to the requirements and enable the Government to evaluate compliance of Offeror proposals.

The page limitation for Volume III will not be increased.

5 C, 1.1 The government requests that the contractor shall provide “facilities, transportation, tools, material…necessary to perform AWG Operation Support

Services.” It is our understanding that the government will provide all those types of items if required by the mission. If the contractor is required to provide those items, will the government provide a list of all facility specifications and required locations, what modes of transportation are required, the same with types/quantities of tools, and other associated materials. The detailed lists are need to provide an accurate cost estimation if actually required under the contract.

There are no additional contractor provided equipment, facilities, transportation, tools or materials aside from what is listed in the PWS.

6 Factor 3, Section L.c.3; Section M.c(6) Section L.c.3 (Factor 3: Mission Capability Scenario), Page 57, includes instructions for Volume III Mission Capability / Risk, with specific instructions for the Factor 3 Mission Capability Scenario. These instructions state “The

Offeror’s proposal for Factor 3 shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements by thoroughly responding to the Mission Capability Scenario.

This response shall provide a comprehensive discussion of all of the questions posed within the scenario and any additional information or detail that the

Offeror deems necessary to demonstrate understanding of the requirement.”

Section M.c(6), Pages 62-63, includes evaluation criteria for Factor 3 Mission

Capability Scenario. However, the only evaluation criteria appears to be included in the first paragraph of this section. The remaining paragraphs of this section are apparently a description of the Mission Capability Scenario and appear to be more consistent with proposal background // requirements / instructions rather than evaluation criteria.

SUGGESTION/QUESTION: Would the Government provide more clarity on the requirements, instructions, and evaluation criteria for Factor 3 Mission

Capability Scenario? It is suggested that the Mission Capability Scenario be fully defined in the PWS with specific technical and management requirements. It is also suggested that more specific instructions be provided in

Section L for the Mission Capability Scenario response, including the questions posed within the scenario in Section M as evaluation criteria. Finally, it is suggested that more specific evaluation criteria be provided in Section M, as provided for Factor 1 Technical Capability and Factor 2 Management and

Staffing Plan, so that the Section L instructions and Section M evaluation criteria are aligned to enable the Government to more easily evaluate the

All requirements, instructions, and evaluation criteria are already included in Sections L and M of the solicitation for Factor 3. Section L provides the instructions for the AWG scenario and Section M states how the scenario will be evaluated along with the quetions that must be answered. The scenario is not part of the PWS as it is a method to evaluate the

Offeror's capability to perform AWG requirements.

7 RFP 6.2(a)(i), Page 55 The government references the capture of all costs associated with the Program

Management Office and Sustainment Costs all steady state labor, excluding staff augmentation and overtime hours related to specific exercises, as described in the PWS. Can the government please clarify what is defined as

Program Management and Sustainment costs? As there are no pricing templates or prescriptive formats, additional details and clarification is required in order to accurately and effectively develop the cost model.

Offeror should determine their Program

Management and Sustainment costs, which are all the routine costs outside of the AWG support laobr requirements. Program management costs are typically contract and requirement management costs. Sustainment costs are additional costs for the requirement.

8 RFP 6.2(a)(ii), Page 55 The government references the capture of all Training Costs associated with training of the contractor’s labor force as described in the PWS. Can you please clarify the training associated with this cost element, as there are pre-deployment training costs, annual training costs, and job-specific training costs, all of which could be associated with this element. Please clarify the government's intent.

Throughout the PWS there are requirements for traininng and keeping current on certifications.

These are the training costs that the Offeror must capture.

9 General It is our understanding that at times, a practice of the AWG program, for certain key personnel and special operations advisors, has been to pay for travel from a person’s residence to the primary place of performance. Will this practice be permitted to continue? If so, does the government have a preference regarding how these costs are presented in the pricing volume?

The Government cannot dictate whether or not this practice is permitted, but a Government not-to-exceed amount has been provided.

10 RFP 4.2 The verbiage in the RFP appears to require a Purchasing System Business

System Approval. We do not recommend that the RFP require a Contractor

Purchasing System Review (CPSR) prior to proposal submission. Most small businesses under the $15M threshold will not have this business system approved by DCMA, as the business system rules Purchasing (252.244-7001) only apply to contracts subject to Cost Accounting Standards covered awards

(modified and full coverage); at award, all small business will claim the CAS small business exemption. At proposal submission, we believe that an adequate description of the offeror’s purchasing system, in compliance with DFARS

252.244-7001 Contractor Purchasing System Administration would be adequate to show offeror’s capability. Will the government please modify the contract to reflect the small business nature of this procurement?

No changes are being made to the accounting and purchasing system requirements listed in the RFP.

11 PWS, 5.2.1.3, 5.2.2.1.c Throughout the PWS, there are many instances of the RFP attributing level of effort for planning purposes, often in vague terms such as with regard to travel

CONUS/OCONUS for personnel such as paragraph 5.1.2.3 and 5.2.2.1.c, which indicate: "Contractor will travel CONUS/OCONUS (up to 70% of the time)". The attempt to describe the amount of travel is appreciated but doesn't enable the offeror sufficient detail to plan effectively as "up to 70%" is hardly definitely. The actual amount, as reads, could range from 0 - 70%. Moreover, there is no differentiation between CONUS and OCONUS travel. Will the contracting office consider please removing and replacing the vague level of effort descriptions and replacing with more precise historical data or the amount used for the IGCE to allow for fair comparison of costs between bidders?

The Government's not-to-exceed amounts for travel are listed in Section B of the solicitation.

12 Section L, 6.1(e)(v) This section states: "(v) The offeror shall provide the basis for all applicable shipping costs in the proposal, as well as all applicable travel, and relocation expenses." There are Travel and ODC CLINS with pre-populated plug-in costs, where we assume that these costs will typically be charged. Can the government please provide additional detail regarding the specific nature of this separate requirement, and what the intention of it is so we can accurately aggregate all shipping, travel, and relocation costs as requested? If these are duplicative, would the government please remove the additional requirement in

6.1(e)(v) as it presents contradictory directions, and appears to reflect what amounts to 'double billing'.

While there is a Government not-to-exceed amount, it is important for the Offeror to develop their own estimates for the ODC and Travel CLINs. A new

ODC definition is now inlcuded in the PWS.

13 Section L,6.2(a)(i) This section states "(i) Program Management and Sustainment Costs – This segment should capture all costs associated with the Program Management

Office and all steady state labor (excludes staff augmentation and overtime hours related to specific exercises) as described in the PWS." Is the intention here to split out estimated "base labor" and "extra effort labor" costs within the

Labor CLIN proposed costs?

See answer to #8.

14 7.2.3, 95 What CLIN is surge work associated to? Where in the contract will specific limits be called out?

There is no longer any 'surge' work associated with this contract as it is no longer a firm-fixed price contract.

15 Clause 52.229-10 Is any portion of this contract performed within the state of New Mexico? Yes, there may be occassional TDY solution development or training support performed in NM.

16 Section L, Volume I, Tab B, SF33 When submitting by email or CD-ROM, what is considered "original on a SF

33"? Will electronic signatures be accepted?

Yes, electronic signatures are acceptable.

17 Clause 252.225-7995 Weapons-Can you provide the training guidelines and associated qualifications for authorization to carry weapons in theater?

Contractors are required to qualify with

Government-assigned weapons within 6 months of a deployment to any hostile fire zone. Additionally, qualification is required once annually in accordance with Army Standards and as a standard readiness practice. Other weapons familiarization on Government weapons is conducted in accordance with squadron training plan. To date, these practices have been sufficient to meet theather contractor arming requirements.

18 Section J, C-iii Adhere to all guidance and orders issued by the Combatant Commander regarding possession, use, safety accountability of weapons and ammunition.

Can you provide a copy of the USCENTCOM Rule of Engagement (ROE)?

Current rules of engagement are protected FOUO and will be provided to contractor as required.

19 Section L, 51, 2(c) The directions indicate that all text shall be single spaced and in black font, however, that the black font requirement does not apply to tables, graphics, photos, etc. Please clarify that section headings and headers/footers are also omitted from the black font requirement, as the differentiation is necessary for easier reading/review, particularly on long documents. Additionally, please confirm that the 12-point pitch/10-point proportional spacing requirement does not apply to tables and graphics?

Section headings and footers are also omitted from the black font requirement. Additionally, 12-point pitch/10-point proportional spacing requirement does not apply to graphics; however, graphics should be formatted in a way that is legible to the reader. Tables shall adhere to the RFP guidelines.

20 CLIN 0003 Can you define what AWG Operations Travel CLIN? Does this CLIN apply to

CONUS or OCONUS travel?

The travel CLIN applies to all contractor travel.

21 RFP Section L.B.4.1 As per the RFP, there is a requirement to contact the contracting officer to initiate a pre-award accounting system survey for any businesses or JV's that do not have an adequate accounting system. If the JV intends to leverage the accounting system of one of the partners of the JV, and that system is considered adequate, does the government consider this requirement to be sufficiently met or will the JV need to contact the government to initiate a pre-award accounting system survey?

An unfounded JV will require all parties in the JV to have an approved system.

A founded JV does not require all parties to have an approved system.

22 Section L Instructions for Volume I indicate that offeror should complete SF 33, Section

B, and Section K. Similarly, instructions for Volume II indicate that SF 33

Continuation Sheets should be completed.

Please confirm that completion of Section B should be removed from Volume

(i) General and include instead only in Volume (ii) Cost/Price.

A completed Section B shall be submitted with

Volume II Cost/Price only. The requirement to submit with Volume I General has been removed.

23 52.222-42, Page 29 Can the government please clarify what--if any--personnel are subject to wage determination on this contract and consider providing wage determinations for these personnel in accordance with the service contract act?

Offerors determine if any positions are subject to the SCA.

24 Page 10 (RFP) and Page 10 (Amendment 2) The Period of Performance will be as follows: 60-day Phase-In 16 April 2017 -

15 June 2017; Base Year (10-months) 16 June 2017 - April 15 2017; Option

Year 1 (12-months) 16 April 2017 - 15 April 2018; Option Year 2 (12-months)

16 April 2018 - 15 April 2019; Option Year 3 (12-months) 16 April 2019 - 15

April 2020; Will the Government be issuing an Amendment 3 reflecting the correct years across the base and option years period of performance?

The POP has been corrected in Section F of the solicitation.

25 Section Lc.3.b, Page 52, 53, 54 The government says that pricing is to be contained only in MS Excel, and yet the narrative requirements with supporting documentation can be extensive to comply with the RFP. Does the government want all of those documents imported into MS Excel or would the government allow Offerors to have MS

Excel contain only their detailed pricing and cost build up with the narrative and supporting documentation be in MS Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF?

The MS Excel document shall contain the detailed pricing and cost build up with formulas in tact, per the RFP. A narrative, that does not contain calculations, may be provided in Word or as a PDF.

The RFP has been updated to reflect specific instructions.

26 L.c.3.(b) (4.1), (6.1) (d) If the Prime Contractor has a DCAA approved accounting system, but its subcontractors do not, can the prime allow subcontractors to quote their proposal on a Firm Fixed Price or Time & Material basis?

This determination is made by the Prime

Contractor.

27 L.c.2.f, page 52 Letters of consent and Client Authorization Letters are required to be included in Volume IV Past Performance. Are these excluded from the 15 page count limitation?

Yes, the letters of consent and authorization are excluded from the page count in Volume IV Past

Performance. The RFP has been updated to reflect specific instructions.

28 L.c.2.c, page 52 Can the font size used in graphs be smaller than 12 pitch or 10 point as long as they are easily readable?

Yes, the font size used in graph may be smaller than 12-pitch/10-point font as long as it is easily readable.

29 Attachment J The PWS section 6.2 page 86 indicates that "there is no requirement for the

Contractor to develop an OPSEC plan". The OPSEC plan is included in the deliverable table in Section J. Please delete as a required deliverable.

The OPSEC Plan deliverable has been deleted from

Attachment J of the PWS.

30 L.c.3.b.(6.2)a The Government did not provide a cost template with the RFP. Is the contractor's format acceptable as long as it complies with FAR Subpart

15.408?

Offerors must comply with FAR 15.408 Table 15-2

-- Instructions for Submitting Cost/Price Proposals

When Cost or Pricing Data Are Required. Beyond this requirement, it is up to the Offeror to develop a format for its cost proposal.

31 PWS 5.1.1.1 Please provide the current number of contractor personnel? This number is not provided as it would be misleading due to the descoping and/or rescoping of the PWS requirements contained in this solicitation.

32 PWS 5.1.1.1 Is this a full 18D course vs. abbreviated SOF medic course graduate? This is a certified 18D course, as stated in the PWS.

33 PWS 5.1.1.1 Can the 5 years experience be combined active duty and DOD contractor work?

No, 5 years active duty 18D experience is required.

34 PWS 5.1.1.2 In event of injury during small arms range training, does the medic accompany the patient to the hospital or is there an additional EMS available? Patient accompaniment would require an additional on-site medic so training proceeds.

Training may be suspended if there are no other medically trained personnel available to continue the training.

35 PWS 5.1.1.2 Does the EMT-P requirement only apply to this section vs also 5.1.1.1? Yes.

36 L.b.2 Is there a file size limitation on the email submission of attachments? About 20 MB is the limit. Electronic submission may be made in multiple emails but should be titled appropriately (e.g.: Email 1 of 2, Email 2 of 2).

37 L.c.2.c, page 52 Can the proposal files be consolidated into a .zip file before email submission? No, the Government cannot accept zip files.

38 Page 63, Section L para c.3 (c) (3) “The offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology it will use for accomplishing the PWS requirements. However, the evaluation criteria established on page 67 for Factor 1-Technical Capability (Section M para c. (4)) indicates that only experience and understanding are evaluation criteria – not methodology.

1) Will the government remove the requirement to address methodology from section L since it is not part of the evaluation criteria?

2) If not, will the government confirm that methodology while required to be addressed is not part of the evaluation criteria?

3) If not, will the government provide guidance as to how methodology will be evaluated since it is not part of the current evaluation criteria?

4) If the government keeps the requirement for methodology, will the government increase the page count to 150 pages as the government’s description of the technical requirements requiring a methodology response cover 61 pages and it is inconsistent to require a methodology response to 61 pages of requirements, a management and staffing plan, and mission capability scenario responses in only 75 pages.

The word 'methodology' has been added to be used with the term 'capabilty' in the current description located in Section M.

Page limit will not be increased.

39 Page 60, Section M para c.(4) “Offeror’s extensive experience in providing detailed intelligence analysis and deep analytical support across the intelligence discipline…” We request clarification of the difference between detailed intelligence analysis and deep analytical support.

Detailed intelligence analysis is the process of creating finished intelligence, utilizing multiple sources of verified intelligence reports, with a quantifiable end result of an intelligence product.

The purpose of this intelligence production cycle is to provide Group or Squadron CDRs and staff with the intelligence needed to identify potential future mission locations, developing threats, and solution development venues that require or would benefit from AWG involvement and expertise.

Deep analytical support is a prerequisite task to the overall effort of detailed intelligence analysis. Deep analytical support is defined as providing unrefined information on a variety of subjects in support of individual OA deployments, Integrated Solution

Teams and other Group or Squadron efforts. Deep analytical support does not necessitate, but may develop into a requirement for detailed intelligence analysis.

40 RFP Page 41 Is there any Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) for Ft Meade and AP.

Hill that is part of this solicitation W911SO-17-R-0002. Page 41 only list SCA positions for Ft Meade, MD and AP Hill, VA. WDs.

There are no CBAs associated with this requirement.

41 Volume II, para (4.2) p. 54 Can a subcontractor's status regarding adequacy of the Purchasing

System be substituted for the Prime's?

No, the prime contractor shall have an approved purchasing system in accordance with the RFP.

42 PWS Sections 1.5.3.1 (pg. 10) & 4.4 (pg. 22) Will contract employees receive their daily guidance from government personnel or the contract PM?

Contractors will received their guidance from the

Contract Program Manager.

43 PWS Section 1.3 (pg.4) As AWG is a multi-support organization, are contract employees embedded in multiple locations CONUS?

The two primary CONUS locations for work to be performed is Fort George G. Meade, MD and Fort

A.P. Hill, VA. All other CONUS locations are in a temporary status for limited durations in most cases less than two weeks.

44 PWS Section 3.2 (pg. 21) Will contract personnel be required to sign for daily use equipment to assist with GFP tracking?

There is no daily requirement for tracking GFP.

45 PWS 5.3.5.8 (pg. 75) Please confirm that the vehicles listed are GFE and not contractor provided? Vehicles are GFE and not contractor provided.

46 Section L (b) Volume II Cost 4.2 Purchasing System

(page 54)

Our company has developed and operates an approvable purchasing system.

None of our previous and current contracts has required for DCMA’s review of the system. Will a narrative describing our purchasing system be acceptable evidence as required under Section L Volume II 4.2 of the solicitation?

No, a narrative description will not suffice.

Information regarding Offeror's Purchasing System shall be submitted in accordance with the RFP.

47 Section L (b) Volume II Cost 6.1 Cost Narrative (e) (ii)

(page 55)

Please confirm if the following statements are correct.

“Nonexempt” means the labor category is covered by the Service Contract Act

(SCA).

“Exempt” means the labor category is not covered by the Service Contract Act

(SCA).

These statements are correct.

48 Section L (b) Volume II Cost 6.2 Cost/Price Proposal

Section (page 55)

Since Certified Cost of pricing data is not anticipated for contract award as stated under (b) Volume II (2) page 53, is it correct to assume that the submission of Cost/Price Proposal Section does not have to follow the requirements under FAR Subpart 15.408, Table 15-2, Instructions for

Submitting Cost/Price Proposals When Certified Cost or Pricing Data Are

Required?

No, the formatting in FAR 15.408 Table 15-2 --

Instructions for Submitting Cost/Price Proposals

When Cost or Pricing Data Are Required is required.

49 Section L (b) Volume II-Cost (3) (c) pg. 53 “Cost Proposal shall be submitted in MS Office Excel format “ONLY” however (b) Volume II-Cost (3) pg. 53 requests an organization of information that would typically be in a MS Word document (table of contents, narratives, POC’s agreements, etc.). Will it be acceptable to provide both a Word document and an Excel document to meet the requirements of the Volume II-

Cost proposal?

The MS Excel document shall contain the detailed pricing and cost build up with formulas in tact, per the RFP. A narrative, that does not contain formulas and calculations, may be provided in

Word or as a PDF.

50 Are there incumbents for this effort? Yes, the current contractor is AT Solutions, Inc.

51 Paragraph L.c.(c)., Page 52. Paragraph L.c.(d)(5). Background. It states the page limit is 15 pages which excludes the

Performance and Risk Assessment Questionnaires.

Question. Will the Government also consider excluding the Consent Letters, Client Authorization Letters, and Organizational Structure Change History as well? The 15 page limit for the Summary Page and Specific Relevant Contracts

Format considering an average of two pages for each Relevant Contracts Sheet as outlined in Attachment 7.

The consent and authorization letters are no longer included in the page count for Volume IV Past

Performance. However, the Organizational

Structure Change History is not exempt from the page count.

52 Paragraph L.c.2.(C)(3) Factor 2, Page 57 Background. Regarding the Resume Contents and the “Present Positions” block.

Question. Did the Government intend to state “Present and Past Positions” so that candidates list not only the current position, but also past/previous positions?

Yes, the Resume Contents table has been updated in the RFP.

53 PWS Paragraph 1.5.3.2, Page 10 Background. Troop SOS are identified as key personnel, but there is no PWS section that specifically addresses their required qualifications.

Question. Are we to use the requirements for the Senior Operations Support

(5.2.1, pg. 53) for the Troop SOS or do their requirements fall under

Operations Advisory Support section (5.2.2, pg. 54)?

Yes, the requirements for the Senior Operations

Support are to be used for Troop SOS.

54 PWS Paragraph 5.1.4.3a, Page 44 and Paragraph

5.3.5.7, Page 74

Background. There are Armorer position listed for both Ft. Meade (page 44

Section 5.1.4.3a) and Fort A.P. Hill (page 74, Section 5.3.5.7).

Question. Are both of these considered key and essential personnel as listed on page 10 & 11?

No, the armorer at Fort AP Hill is not considered key and essential.

55 Section L.c.3. (b) (4.2) Section L.c.3. (b) (4.2) on page 54 discusses requirements for Purchasing

System. It states, "The Offeror shall provide the date it was determined adequate..." which seems to imply that an improved purchasing system is required. Must the prime offeror have an approved purchasing system to be awarded?

The offeror must have an adequate purchasing system in accordance with the RFP.

57 RFP, Section F Deliveries or Performance. POP years appear to be incorrect. The Base Year end (15 April 2017) occurs before the Base Year start. (16 June 2017). We believe the Base Year end should be 15 April 2018. This error continues through the remaining option years. Will the Government revise the POP dates?

The POP has been corrected in Section F of the solicitation.

58 PWS Para. 1.5.1.1 Phase-in Period/Transition and Para.

1.5.1.2 Phase-Out Period

To ensure comprehensive milestone planning and a smooth transition, will the

Government provide the AWG Long Range Calendar for 3rd Quarter, Fiscal

Year 2017 and projected AWG disposition?

Yes, the Government will provide the awardee all working calendars and known/anticipated mission information upon award of planning purposes.

59 PWS Para. 6.3 Quality Control Plan (QCP), states, " The Contractor shall include the QCP within its proposal…”

Where in the proposal does the Government desire the QCP?

How will the QCP be evaluated?

Does the QCP count against the allocated pages for the intended volume?

The submission of a QCP as part of the proposal is not required. This language has been updated in the

PWS to stated that the QCP plan is due within 15-days of phase-in start and as needed throughout contract performance.

60 The RFP implies that Offeror and ALL subs/teammates have to have AFG

Business License. Is this accurate? What if a particular sub will only do

CONUS work?

Yes, the Offeror and ALL subs/teammates have to have an AFG Business License. The statement "All contractor personnel have the potential for

OCONUS travel" has been added to the PWS to make this requirement explicitly clear.

61 It was unclear to us if the Gov is specifying a certain number of positions or if it is up to offeror to determine how many and what type of positions are required to fulfill the technical requirements.

It is up to the Offeror to determine what type of positions are required to fulfill the technical requirements.

62 PWS Paragraph 5.1.3.1 Operational Support requires a TS-SCI clearance, what are the other requirements for that position?

No additional requirements aside from what is listed at PWS para 5.1.3.1.

63 PWS Paragraph 5.1.3.2 Plans Specialist – Group requires a TS-SCI clearance, what are the other requirements for that position?

Paragraph 5.1.3.2 has been updated to include TS-

SCI requirement

64 PWS Paragraph 5.1.3.4.1 Operational Support requires a TS-SCI clearance, what are the other requirements for that position?

As stated. No additional requirements other than what is stated in the PWS Para. 5.1.3.4.1

65 PWS Paragraph 5.1.4.2 S-4 Support Operations Section requires a Secret clearance, what are the other requirements for that position?

The requirement to be able to lift 50lbs or more has been added to this PWS paragraph. Additionally, the same requirement has been added to PWS para

5.1.4.1.1 for warehouse environment support along with a forklift certification up to 25k forklift.

66 PWS Paragraph 5.1.4.3 S-4 Support Operations Maintenance Section requires a Secret clearance, what are the other requirements for that position?

There are no additional requirements other than what is stated in PWS Para. 5.1.4.3

67 PWS Paragraph 5.1.5.1 What are the required certifications for the paragraph 5.1.5.1 Help Desk

Support?

There are no additional requirements other than what is stated in PWS Para. 5.1.5.1.e.

68 PWS Paragraph 5.3.3.1 Operational Advisor Training Course Support lists as the requirements for that position (1) Combat experience and or previous AWG operational advisor experience as a plus, and (2) a TS security clearance. What are other requirements for that position, such as Training Development Course

Certification?

No additional requirements other than what is stated in the PWS.

69 PWS Paragraph 5.3.3.2 Communications Training Support lists as the requirements for that position

Combat experience and or previous AWG operational advisor experience as a plus, and a TS security clearance. What are other requirements for that position, such as Training Development Course Certification?

No additional requirements other than what is stated in the PWS.

70 Paragraph 5.3.5.6 Construction Fabrication. (AWTC, Fort A.P. Hill, VA) lists as the requirements for that position (1) SECRET security clearance (2) Possess and maintain a valid State of Virginia driver’s license (operator’s license) (3) and additional licenses such as commercial Driver’s license, HAZMAT certifications, considered a plus. What other requirements are needed, such as experience in horizontal or vertical construction, electrician, etc.?

No additional requirements other than what is stated in the PWS.

71 PWS Paragraph 1.5.3.7 Paragraph 1.5.3.7 states the physical fitness level required for deployment.

Many of the SOW paragraphs have a statement worded to the effect that the requirements of paragraph 1.5.3.7 apply to that position. The following paragraphs DO NOT have such a statement, yet they mention travel to

OCONUS locations. Do the requirements of 1.5.3.7 apply to the following positions (paragraphs)?

5.1.1.1 Medical Planning Support

5.1.1.2 Medical Training Support

5.1.3.1 Operational Support

5.1.3.2 Plans Specialist – Group Operations

5.1.3.3.1. KM Administrative Support

5.1.3.3.2 KM Programmer Support

5.1.3.4.1. Operational Support.

5.1.4.2. S-4 Support Operations Section

5.1.4.3. S-4 Support Operations Maintenance Section

5.1.4.3a. AWG Fort George G. Meade Armament Repair

5.1.4.3b. Small Arms Maintenance Support

5.1.5.3 Server/System Support

5.3.2.1 Assessment and Selection Support. Ft. Meade, MD

5.3.3.1 Operational Advisor Training Course Support. (OATC) (Ft Meade

MD)

5.3.3.2 Communications Training Support. Ft Meade MD

5.3.4 Leadership Development Troop (LDT): (AWTC, Fort A.P. Hill, VA)

5.3.5.1 AWTC Operations Support. (AWTC, Fort A.P. Hill, VA)

5.3.5.2 AWTC Range Services (Urban Complex). (AWTC, Fort A.P. Hill, VA)

The requirements are as stated in the PWS. With the exception of Para., 5.3.3.1, which has been revised to reflect physical fitness level requirement.

72 What are the historical numbers of personnel provided by the contractor for support to each of the following elements (by paragraph) of the AWG? (see attached)

The historical numbers would be misleading due ot the descoping and/or rescoping of the PWS requirements contained in this solicitation.

73 What are the historical hours per year provided for support to each of the following elements (by paragraph) of the AWG? (see attached)

The historical hours per year would be misleading due ot the descoping and/or rescoping of the PWS requirements contained in this solicitation.