IndustryQuestions-W911S017R0007-V2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Maneuver Center of Excellence (MCoE)
- Solicitation number
- W911S017R0007
About this file
This document provides a presolicitation notice for a multiple award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract to provide services and training support to the United States Army Maneuver Center of Excellence located at Fort Benning, Georgia. The contract will have a five year ordering period and is anticipated to be awarded on a firm fixed price basis. The requirement includes a broad range of training concepts, strategies, doctrine development, analysis and instruction services focused on maneuver force organizations. Services will support the development of training for armor, infantry, Stryker, airborne and special forces brigades as well as emerging capabilities through live, virtual and constructive training methods and exploitation of technologies. The notice specifies that proposals are not currently being accepted and the anticipated release date for the request for proposal is March 2017, with the North American Industry Classification System code of 541990 and small business size standard of $15 million. No additional information will be provided until release of the solicitation.
2nd Set of Industry Questions
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment4-PastPerformanceQuestionnaire-Word.docx | DOCX document | |
| W911S0-17-R-0007-00002.pdf | ||
| Attachment1-Worksheets_W911S017R0007.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| W911S0-17-R-0007-00001-4Oct17.pdf | ||
| Attachment1-Worksheets_W911S017R0007.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| IndustryQuestions-W911S017R0007-4Oct17.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment2_CDRL3_W911S017R0007.pdf | ||
| Attachment3-DD254_W911S017R0007.pdf | ||
| Atttachment2_CDRL1_W911S017R0007.pdf | ||
| W911S0-17-R-0007-27Sep17.pdf | ||
| IndustryQuestions-W911S017R0007.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment2_CDRL2_W911S017R0007.pdf | ||
| W911S0-17-R-0007-17Feb17.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 13
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Industry Questions
| MANEUVER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE (MCoE) |
| Fort Benning, GA |
| Industry Questions - W911S0-17-R-0007 |
| Q# | QUESTIONS/COMMENTS | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE |
| 1 | Reference(s): RFP Section J, Attachment 1, Total Evaluated Price Worksheet. Question/Comment: RFP Section J, Attachment 1, Total Evaluated Price Worksheet, pages 63 through 73 identify pricing worksheets required for completion by contract year. Will the Government provide these worksheets in Microsoft Excel format with formulas intact so that all bidders are working off of the same worksheets/formulas? | Yes, word document deleted and replaced with Microsoft Excel, will be uploaded separately from solicitation. |
| 2 | Reference(s): RFP Section L, Past Performance Questionnaire/Section J, Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire. Question/Comment: RFP Section L, Past Performance Questionnaire, page 119 and Section J, Attachment 4 page 79 both state completed past performance questionnaires are to be submitted by 12 October 2017. Is this accurate or should this be 27 October 2017 when all proposals are due? | Past performance questionnaires submission date extended; see block 9 of solicitation. |
| 3 | If the government is using a full and open competition why has the government elected to reserve awards to only one disadvantaged socioeconomic group and limit competition by other disadvantaged groups? | The Government's acquisition strategy is based on the results of the the market research and the need for the Government to achieve select Small Business goals. |
| 4 | As planned there will only be 3 awardees from the full and open competitors outside the SDVOSB reserve that can only compete for Task Ares 4 task orders. Why are the non-SDVOSB full and open competitors being asked to demonstrate capabilities in TAs that they cannot compete unless by some miracle not one of the four SDVOSB’s is not found acceptable? | The question misstates the Government's ordering procedures with respect to Task Area 4; specifically, Section H.1, subparagraph b states, "Task orders for Task Area 4, alone or in combination with another tasking area, will be competed among offerors awarded unrestricted MAIDIQs." To receive a MAIDIQ award, offeror’s must demonstrate capability in all six (6) Task Areas. |
| 5 | If companies are full and open awardees but are not SDVOSB and cannot compete for set-aside work in TA 1,2,3,5, and 6, how does the government intend to compete TA work among all awardees if a SDVOSB awardee is not found acceptable for a TA Task Order? Is a SDVOSB awardee that was found unacceptable on a task order proposal going to be allowed after a debrief to compete if the decision is made to open the competition to all awardees? | (1) Competition for task orders will be governed by the fair opportunity process in FAR 16.505(b) and the ordering procedures in Section H.1 of the solicitation. (2) "SDSVOSB concerns with Reserved contracts will be permitted to compete against offerors with unrestricted MAIDIQ contracts for task orders that include Task Area 4" as stated in Section H.1, subparagraph b. |
| 6 | Is it the government’s future intent to move this contract vehicle to a total SDVOSB status? | The Government has not made any determinations about the acquisition strategy for future versions of this contract. Any determinations about that strategy will be based on the results of market research, including the task order history of these contracts. |
| 7 | Reference(s): Section H.1, Ordering Procedures, states in Paragraph H.1.a that “Task orders for Task Areas 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, or any combination thereof, shall be set-aside for competition solely among SDVOSB concerns if two or more contracts have been awarded and the “Rule of Two” has been met.” Then Paragraph H.1.b states that “Task orders for Task Area 4, alone or in combination with another tasking area, will be competed among offerors awarded unrestricted MAIDIQs.” Question/Comment 1: Since the government intends on setting aside Task Areas 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 for competition solely among SDVOSB concerns, will the government allow large business bidders to only demonstrate their capability, understanding, and willingness to satisfactorily perform only Task Area 4, since that is the only task area that they will ever be allowed to compete for and work? | The question misstates the Government's ordering procedures with respect to Task Area 4; specifically, Section H.1, subparagraph b states, "Task orders for Task Area 4, alone or in combination with another tasking area, will be competed among offerors awarded unrestricted MAIDIQs." To receive a MAIDIQ award, offeror’s must demonstrate capability in all six (6) Task Areas. |
| 8 | Reference: RFP, Page 118, Section L.4.3 states: "Past Performance Information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners (collectively, partners) proposed to perform 25% or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed Price." Question: Are Offerors allowed to include past performance references in Volume II: Factor 2 - Past Performance from subcontractors who are proposed to perform less than 25% of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price, provided that all Offeror and subcontractor past performance references are included within the 15 page limit for this Volume? | Yes |
| 2ND SET OF INDUSTRY QUESTIONS | ||
| 9 | Ref: Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet. Question: The Specific Relevant Contracts form does not match up with the instructions given on pg. 80. Can the Government please correct? | Attachment 4, Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet has been updated. |
| 10 | Ref: L.2.2(k). Question: The documents will be formatted in a standard business font (Arial, Times New Roman, Courier New) with a 12-pitch type or 10 point proportional spacing. The offeror will not utilize compressed spacing. Does this font size include graphics, and tables? | No, There are no font size restrictions for graphics and tables. Instructions to Offerors, Section L.2.2(k). has been revised. |
| 11 | Question: Considering the timing of question submissions and allowing the Government sufficient time to answer industry questions, please consider a proposal due date extension to allow industry necessary time to respond to Government answers accordingly. | No proposal due date extension will be granted. |
| 12 | References: *L.2.1 pg 116 Table: Factor 2: Past Performance; Page Limit: 15 |
* L.4.3: ...The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter, executed by each partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.
Discussion: Page limit on past performance is 15 pages, but the required content of Summary page, Consent Letters, Client Authorization Letters, and Organization Change Histories would consume a large portion of the page count and dramatically restrict the ability to show meaningful past performance across the six TAs.
Question: Please confirm that the Government will exclude the Consent Letters, Client Authorization Letters, and Organizational Change Histories from the 15-page past performance page count.
| Instructions to Offerors, Section L.4.3 and Section L.4.6 have been revised. Consent Letters Client Authorization Letters, Past Performance Questionnaires, and the Organization Structure Change History are excluded from the 15-page Past Performance page limit. | ||
| 13 | Does the government require Consent Letters for subcontractors that are not submitting past performances with the prime's proposal? | Reference Instructions to Offerors, Section L.4.3., "Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners (collectively, partners) proposed to perform 25% or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price." |
| 14 | a. Will past performance questionnaires be a consideration factor in determining if a proposal is "Acceptable" during the evaluation phase? b. If there are no past performance information in CPARS or PPIRS for a particular contract reference, will the PPQs have the same value as a CPARS/PPIRS rating in the evaluation phase? | Question a: "See Section L.4.5 of the Solicitation which indicates that the Government may use a variety of sources, including Past Performance Questionnaires, when evaluating offeror's past performance." Question b: "PPQs may be used, alone or in conjunction with other information, to assess how well a contractor has performed on its past performance references." |
| 15 | There is a requirement to address the Quality Control Plan (QCP) in the Technical Volume of the proposal. Is there also a requirement to submit a separate QCP after award? If so, when is the QCP due? | Reference PWS, Section 1.6.1, "The Contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) must be acceptable to the government. Subsequent changes to the Contractor’s QCP must be accepted by the Contracting Officer (KO) at least five (5) business days prior to execution." |
| 16 | Ref: PWS para 1.6.5.15. Question: PWS para 1.6.5.15, Key Personnel states “The Contractor shall provide a fully dedicated Program Manager (PM) who shall be responsible for the performance of the work.“. There is no corresponding CLIN to support full time, dedicated effort for this individual. While there is a Program Manager labor category that may be used for Task Orders, there is no overarching CLIN to support the requirement for a fully dedicated PM. Small businesses generally do not have enough room in their burden rates to carry a full time person until sufficient task order work is awarded. Please clarify how this requirement should be addressed. | Reference Instructions to Offerors, Section L.5.3 “Contractor Pricing for MAIDIQ. The Offeror’s proposal shall be for a five year ordering period. The Offeror is required to complete Attachment 1 – Total Evaluated Price Worksheets. The worksheets identify the Labor Categories and estimated annual hours of services to be acquired under the contract.” There will not be a separate CLIN for the program manager as it is included in Attachment 1. |
| 17 | Ref: RFP Section L.4.6 Past Performance Questionnaire. Question: Should copies of past performance questionnaires that are to be returned to the KO be included in the past performance volume? If so, will the questionnaires be included in the 15-page volume limit? | Past Performance Questionnaires will not be included in the 15-page volume limit. |
| 18 | Ref: PWS para 1.6.5.15. Question: PWS 1.6.5.15. Key Personnel states the PM and Alternate PM qualifications are: “Bachelor’s degree in any field with 15 years of experience in management of projects and leading teams OR Master’s degree in any field with 12 years of experience in management of projects and leading teams.” Regarding the experience requirement, will 15 or more years of military management/ leadership experience qualify a candidate for this position? | Military experience may satisfy the experience requirement if it demonstrates the required length of exerience "in management of projects and leading teams. |
| 19 | Attachment 5, Wage Determination Attachment 5 includes wage determination WD 15-4527 -3 dated 6/13/2017. A new revision of this WD has been published, WD 15-4527 -4 dated 8/1/2017. Should the contractor use obsolete version -3 or current version -4 for pricing? | Attachment 5, Wage Determination 15-4527 has been updated. |
| 20 | Reference:The table in RFP section L.2.1 states that there is a 15 page limit for the Past Performance Volume, while RFP section L.4.6 states that Specific Relevant Contracts Format - Sheets are limited to 3 pages per reference. Question A: Based on the page limits, please confirm that offerors may submit a maximum of 5 past performance references? Question B:Is there a minimum number of past performance references required? | Question A: The solicitation does not limit the number of past performance references that may be submitte. Question B: No |
| 21 | Reference:RFP section L.2.2 (b) states: “Digital copies on CD-ROM Disk shall be provided in Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and/or Excel and shall adhere to all proposal preparation instructions with the exception of the requirement for three ring binders.” Question: May offerors submit digital copies in PDF format? | No |
| 22 | Reference:RFP section L.2.2 (d) states: “File names should be “Company Name – Initial” for the first submission. File name of later submissions (if necessary), shall be “Company Name – Revision X’ with X indicating the number of the revision.” Question: How should the offeror distinguish the different files? For example, would “Company Name – Volume X – Initial” be acceptable? | Reference Instructions to Offerors, Section L.2.2.(d), paragraph revised to include Volume X. |
| 23 | Reference:RFP section L.2.2 paragraphs (d) – (g) state that each volume must contain: 1. Cover Sheet; 2. Table of Contents; 3. Glossary of Abrreviations and Acrononyms; 4. Cross-Reference Matrix. However, RFP section L.4.6 gives specific instructions for how to structure the Past Performance Volume, which does not list a Cover Sheet, Glossary, or Cross-Reference Matrix. However, RFP section L.4.6 gives specific instructions for how to structure the Past Performance Volume, which does not list a Cover Sheet, Glossary, or Cross-Reference Matrix. Question: Please clarify if the Past Performance Volume should include a Cover Sheet, Glossary, and Cross-Reference Matrix? | Reference Instructions to Offerors, Section L.4.6., section revised to include Cover Sheet and Cross-Reference Matrix. |
| 24 | Reference:RFP section L.2.2 (j) States: “Page Limits do not include covers, resumes,volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, cross reference indices, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal.” Question:Please clarify what “volumes” means in this statement? | Reference Instructions to Offerors, Section L.2.2.(j), paragraph revised; "volume" wording removed. |
| 25 | Reference:RFP section L.2.2. (k) states: “The documents will be in formatted in a standard business font (Arial, Times New Roman, Courier New) with a 12-pitch type or 10 point proportional spacing.” Question: Will the Government accept 10pt font in any of the listed fonts for the main text of the proposal? | Offerors may use 10 point font size in the proposals main text. |
| 26 | Reference: RFP section L.4.6 states: “Past Performance Questionnaire - See Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire. For the contracts identified on each Specific Relevant Contract Reference, the offeror shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts.” Question: Will the Government please provide the Attachment 4 – Past Performance Questionnaire in Microsoft Word format? | Yes, uploaded separately from RFP as a word document. |
| 27 | Reference: RFP section L.4.6 requires offerors to complete a Past Performance Questionnaire for each Specific Relevant Contract Reference. Question: If a CPAR exists for a Specific Relevant Contract Reference, can the offeror submit a copy of the most recent report in place of the Past Performance Questionnaire? | No |
| 28 | Reference:RFP section L.5.1 states: “The Pricing proposal (with the exception of the Pricing Worksheets) shall be in Microsoft Excel and shall be compatible with Microsoft Office 2013.” Question A:Please clarify what information is required in the Pricing proposal, other than the Pricing Worksheets? Question B:Please clarify what format the Pricing Worksheets should be provided in, if not Microsoft Excel? | Question A: See Instructions to Offerors, Section L.5.1" Question B: Total Evaluated Price Worksheets shall be provided in Microsoft Excel. |
| 29 | Reference:RFP section M.4.1 states that the Past Performance areas of evaluation include: Business Relations, Quality of Service, Schedule, Customer Satisfaction, Compliance with Socio-Economic Goals; However, none of those topics are listed in RFP Attachment 4 (neither the Past Performance Questionnaire, nor the Specific Relevant Contract Sheets), Question: Please clarify where offerors should provide the information in the bullet list? | Information can be provided in Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet (Attachment 4 of RFP. |
| 30 | Will the government include 52.219-4 within the solicitation for the Full and Open competition in accordance with 48 CFR 19.1307, “Price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns,” which states “The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.219–4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions conducted using full and open competition”? | FAR clause 52.219-4 inserted. |
| 31 | Will the government reserve 1 or more small business awards for HUBZone small businesses? | The Government only intends to reserve contracts for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business. |
| 32 | Can the government please clarify the non-reserved (3) awards? If after the 4 SDVOSB reserved awards are made and the next 3 LPTA proposals are SDVOSBs does the government intent to award the 3 remaining awards to additional SDVOSBs (still considered SB)? This could potentially be 7 SDVOSB awardees. M.1.1. The Government intends to award up to seven (7) Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (MAIDIQ) contracts utilizing full and open competition with up to four (4) of those contracts reserved for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB). After determination of the LPTA SDVOSB offerors to receive awards under the reserve, the Government will make award of contracts from the remaining LPTA small or large businesses up to the 7 contract maximum. (Pg123) | The statement in the question is accurate; the Government could potentially award contracts to seven (7) SDVOSBs. |
| 33 | Does the government want to see any level of cost build up of indirects or just the completion of the Total Evaluated Price Worksheet? | Completion of the Total Evaluated Price Worksheet. |
| 34 | There are no positions by title or descriptions given to support Task Area 6 TADSS such as Exhibit Specialist, Material Expediter, General Clerk, Material Handler, Woodcraft Worker, etc. These are very specific to TA 6 and historically fill TA 6 requirements. Is that the intent of the government or does the government expect to add these type of positions at the TO level or at award? | Attachment 6 of RFP identifies some Common Labor Categoriesthat could be used to perform Task Area 6. Additional labor categories may be added during contract performance as specified in Section H.3. |
| 35 | On SCHEDULE B ADDENDUM continued on page 5 states this MAIDIQ contract maximum is $168M for the total collective requirement for the life of the contract. Is this amount correct and the requirements have gone down from $450M on the previous contract to $168M on this one? | Yes, this amount is correct. |
| 36 | In section L.4.6 it states consent/authorization letters by each partner or teammate. If we are not presenting any Past Performacne from that teammate or partner are we required to submit these letters? • Consent Letters executed by each partner, authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information (A sample consent letter is attached as Attachment 4). • Client Authorization Letters for each identified effort for a commercial customer authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance. | Per Section L.4.2., Instructions to Offerors, "Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners (collectively, partners) proposed to perform 25% or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. " |
| 37 | Question 1: The ordering period shows 29 December 2017, request the ordering period (award) to start 1 January 2018. Most companys annual size determination (revenue) is done by calendar year. This would ensure companies that potentially are transistioning out of a Small Business entity into a Large Business do not take advantage of the last couple of days in the calendar year preventing a true SB entity from being awarded a contract when they are actually a Large Business. Question 2: Also requrest that the size determination as a SB be based off award date (1 Jan 2018) not proposal submission date. Case in point some of the incumbent MCoE SB suite primes will no longer be small business after 1 January 2018. 252.216-7006 ORDERING (MAY 2011) (a) Any supplies and services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of delivery orders or task orders by the individuals or activities designated in the contract schedule. Such orders may be issued from 29 December 2017 through 28 December 2022. | Question 1: The ordering period's start date is a projected start date. Question 2: Both the FAR and the SBA's Regulations require assessment of a small business status at the time of the initial offer. The Contracting Officer does not have the authority to change the regulatory requirements. See FAR 19.301-1 and 13 CFR 121.404 . |
| 38 | Ref: Section L, page 118, paragraph L.4.3. RFP states, Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners (collectively, partners) proposed to perform 25% or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. Question 1: Is the 25% by Task Order, or the entire IDIQ. Question 2: If this is a by Task Order requirement will the government increase the overall page count to allow for additional past performance references? | Question 1: Instructions to Offerors, Section L.4.3. language has been revised to address the total proposed price of the MAIDIQ. Question 2: There will not be an increase to the overall page count to allow for additional past performance references? |
| 39 | Ref: Section L, page 119, paragraph L.4.6. Organization Structure Change History. Should the offeror only include the change history for organizations submitting past performance for this volume? If all teammates must be included will the government consider increasing the page count, or removing this section from the page count. | Offerors are required to submit past performance information for the organizations identified in Section L.4.3 Organization Structure Change History will not be included in the 15-page volume limit. Instructions to Offerors, section L.4.6 has been revised. |
| 40 | Question 3: In section L.4.6, do the Specific Relevant Contracts Format attachments (limited to 3 pages each) count against the 15-page limit for Volume II - Past Performance? | Reference Instructions to Offerors, section L.4.6, Specific Relevant Contracts Format paragraph revised to exclude Specific Relevant Contract Sheets from Past Performance Volume 15-page limit. |
| 41 | The RFP states that the Government will use the Lowest Price Technically acceptable (LPTA) Methodology, however; in section M.5 the RFP states that the price factor will not be scored or rated. Could the Government please clarify if price will be evaluated? | Reference Section M of RFP - Basis of Contractor Award and Evaluation Criteria; Section M.5. Factor 3: Price, Section M.5.1., "The Price factor will not be scored or rated. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for price reasonableness and pricing balance IAW FAR 15.404-1. Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, balanced and complete." |
| 42 | 1. Reference: L.2.2 Proposal Format (g) Cross-Reference Matrix: Each volume shall contain a cross-reference matrix to assure that all requirements are addressed and easily accessible to the evaluators. The cross reference matrix shall provide a single integrated index for the entire proposal. … The format of the cross-reference matrix shall be identical for all volumes. (p. 116) Discussion: These instructions are ambiguous. Question: Are offerors to include cross-reference matrices that are specific to each individual volume, or the identical matrix in every volume? | Reference Instructions to Offerors, Section L.2.2.(g), paragraph has been revised for clarification. |
| 43 | [Section L.4] How many Past Performance references are allowed? As there are 6 Task Areas and the offeror must demonstrate experience in all 6, are we allowed 6 Past Performance references and PPQs? If so, can the page limit be extended from 15 pgs.? | The solicitation does not require submission of a specified number of past performance references. Reference Instructions to Offerors, section L.4.6 has been revised. Past Performance Questionnaires will not be included in the 15-page volume limit. |
| 44 | [Section 1.6.5] Does the offeror and all of its subcontractors need a Secret Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission? | Yes |
| 45 | Does the Executive Order 13706 apply to this contract? If so, what is the correct number of man hours (billable) per year for positions under this contract? | Yes, Executive Order 13706 applies to this contract. The solicitation has been amended to include FAR 52.222-62, Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706. Consult the FAR clause and SBA regulations for further guidance. |
| 46 | Ref: Amendment 1, Attachment 4 page 15 states “Please return this completed questionnaire via email NLT 27 October 2017 to:” In Amendment 1, Section L, paragraph L.4.6 the due date was deleted by strike through, “… not later than 12 October 2017.” Question: The two strike throughs on due dates for the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) is confusing. Please clarify that the due date on the PPQs is the later date 27 Oct 2017 that was changed in the Amendment 1 , Attachment 4. Question: Please confirm that the PPQs are now due 27 October 2017. | Yes, PPQs are due NLT 27 Oct 17. |
| 47 | Ref: Solicitation W911S0-17-R-0007, Section L.3.1 TAB A: SUBFACTOR 1 - Management and Staffing Approach., page 118 states: "The Quality Control Plan (QCP), as a minimum, shall address continuous process improvement; procedures for scheduling, conducting and documenting inspections; discrepancy identification and correction; corrective action procedures to include procedures for addressing Government discovered non- conformances; procedures to identify and correct the root cause of issues and to prevent re-occurrence of discrepancies; procedures for trend analysis; procedures for collecting and addressing customer feedback/complaints, and a process to monitor personnel compliance with security, training, and qualification requirements. The QCP shall identify any relevant Industry Standards and/or certifications (e.g., ISO, SAE, IEC, etc.) that are part of the QCP.” Discussion: To develop a compliant Quality Control Plan will require a 6-10 pages to adequately address the nine requirements listed in Section L.43.1. With the Mission Capabilities Volume I limited to 70 pages over 10% of the Volume I proposal page count will be consumed to fulfill the QCP requirement Dedicating such a large percentage of the Volume I page count detracts from the page count available to more important areas such as Management, Staffing and the Technical Approach to the six Task Areas. In mayny other government solicitation the QCP is due10 days after award to avoid such page consumption in the proposal. Another alternative is to exclude the QCP from the page count. Question1: Will the government make the QCP due 10 days after award of the contract? Question2: Will the government exclude the QCP from the page count? | Question 1: No. Question 2: Yes |
| 48 | Reference: Section C, PWS, para 5.4.2, page 23Discussion: The PWS states that each doctrinal publication “is scheduled for review every two years.” TRADOC Regulation (21 May 2014) states that Army doctrine proponents “Review all their doctrine publications at least every 18 months for relevancy and currency…” Question: What is the appropriate standard for the review of doctrinal publications? | The standard is the current Regulation. However, the standard may be subject to waivers, based on operational tempo, personnel availability, TRADOC priorities, and similar factors. The PWS reflects the historical/average time for estimating purposes, and does not replace or override any regulation. |
| 49 | Reference: Section C, PWS, para 5.4.2, page 23. Discussion: The PWS states “The MCoE is the proponent for 115 doctrinal publications…” Question: Is this number limited to FMs and ATPs or does it include training publications such as Training Circulars? | Doctrinal publications include FMs, ATPs, and training publications. |
| 50 | Reference: RFP, FAR 52.219-9, ALT II, page 62, Alternate II (DEVIATION 2016-O0009)(AUG 2016). Discussion: RFP states “Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall include a subcontracting plan.” Neither Section L or M show the subcontracting plan proposal instructions or evaluation criteria. Question: Is a subcontracting plan required at time of submission or will the Government request this at a later date? If required, will the Government clarify the Volume/Tab location for the submission of the subcontracting plan. | Instructions to Offerors, Section L.3.1 has been revised to address Small Business Subcontracting Plan submission. |
| 51 | Reference: RFP, Schedule B Addendum, B. 1.2, page 4, Reimbursable ODCs-Material. Discussion: Contractors’ indirect rate elements on cost, including M&H, are audited annually and approved by DCAA and DCMA. Question: Would the government remove the requirement for a material and handling rate cap for the life of the contract? | No |
| 52 | Reference: PWS, 1.6.1. Quality Control, page 7 and RFP L.3.1. Quality Control Plan (QCP), page 118. Discussion: The PWS discusses the need and minimum requirements to be included in the Mission Capability Volume. The Mission Capability Volume is limited to 70 pages to address all components of Management, Staffing, QCP and the understanding and Capability to perform all tasks limiting an offerors ability to sufficiently address all requirements. Question: Will the Government exclude the QCP from page count or increase page count for the Mission Capability Volume to 80 in order to allow offerors space to address requested elements. | No |
| 53 | The subject solicitation contains Clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. The provided pricing sheets reference options as well. However, Section B only provides for a total pricing for a five year ordering period and the PWS indicates a 5 year ordering period. Offeror requests clarification as to whether this contract is in fact based on a 5 year ordering period or whether it is a Base and four 12-month option periods. | The Government intends to award contracts with a five year ordering period. Task orders issued under the contracts may include option periods. |
| 54 | FAR Clause 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan, is included in the solicitation; however, the RFP does not state where the Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be located in the offerors proposal response. The Offeror requests clarification on where the plan should be included in our response. | Instructions to Offerors, Section L.3.1 has been revised to address Small Business Subcontracting Plan submission. |
| 55 | Under RFP Section L.5.1. it states: “The Pricing proposal (with the exception of the Pricing Worksheets) shall be in Microsoft Excel and shall be compatible with Microsoft Office 2013.” Does this mean a cost narrative in Adobe format is not required? | No |
| 56 | Ref: PWS 5.6, Instruction. Question: Instructors working in a TRADOC environment require specific training to prepare them for the classroom. For example, the Army Basic Instructor Course (ABIC) and the Support Cadre Training Course (SCTC) are commonly required for instructors who will teach initial entry training (IET). In some settings, the Government provides mandatory training on a cost-reimbursable basis IAW the Army Chief of Staff's Letter dated XX2014. Will the Government provide information on what courses will be required and how the MICC will handle payment for these courses? | Contractor training requirements will be specified in task orders and, when appropriate, governed by Memorandum, HQDA, G-3/5/7 (DAMO-TRI), 4 August 2017, subject: Contractor Attendance at Army Provided Training. Contractors are required to provide employees who are qualified and meet all standards necessary for contract performance. On occasion, task orders may require contractors to participate in command unique training in skills they are not required to bring to the job. This type of training is considered mandatory/required, the cost of which is the responsibility of the Army/Command. |
| 57 | Ref: Technical Exhibit D, p. 31. Question: The chart depicting the distribution of task order awards provides important information on the relative value of awards across the task areas. The information provided is not consistent with contract spending available from other public sources. For example, the total annual value across all task areas in the chart = $4,430,200. Government spending through MCoE reported by Deltek indicates an average of $15M+ per year with no year less than $11M. Request the Government verify the values provided in this chart. | While Industry's math is correct (the chart's last row indeed totals $4.4M), the comparison logic is flawed. The chart in Exhibit D provides the AVERAGE ANNUAL VALUE PER TO (not the total face value), but it does not give the total number of TOs awarded or the total value; therefore, one cannot extrapolate from this chart the average value (spending) per year, as cited in the Deltek average. The AVERAGE VALUES PER TO are verified correct. For clarity, additional information is provided: over the life of the MATOC, a total of 82 task orders have been awarded, ranging from $68K to $7.5M (total face value), and averaging $1.5M (total face value) per TO. These numbers do NOT include the ~$20M in potential task orders which were deferred or cancelled during FY17. |
| 58 | Ref: RFP Total Evaluated Price Work Sheets; WD 15-4527 rev 3. Question: The Total Evaluated Price worksheets use estimated annual hours that are a multiple of 1920. This suggests MCoE anticipates a standard work year to include 1920 hours of direct labor. Prior to January 2017, this was often a valid assumption given 80 hours of holidays (10 days) and 80 hours of vacation. However, the wage determination guide provided incorporates EO 13706 mandating 56 hours of Sick Leave per year. This drives the typical number of direct labor hours to 1864. Offerors who provide rates based on a 1920 year will be underfunded to support the additional cost of 56 hours of Sick Leave. Will the Government convert its Total Evaluated Price model to a standard work year of 1864 hours? | Reference Instructions to Offerors, Section L.5.3.6 the worksheets are for evaluation purposes for the MAIDIQ contract. Adjustments to direct hours will be determined at the task order level. |
| 59 | Ref: L.5. VOLUME 3: FACTOR 3 – Price, .5.3.3. Question: The paragraphs states that the "Offeror shall identify on the Total Evaluated Price Worksheets which labor categories are subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards." However, there is not an area on the worksheets to add the information, if required. Does the government intend to adjust the worksheet to address this requirement? Are offerors permitted to add a column to each performance year tab and provide a “yes” or “no”? | Attachment 1, Total Evaluated Price Worksheets updated to include column to address Service Contract Labor Standards. |
| 60 | Ref: L.5. VOLUME 3: FACTOR 3 – Price, L.5.3.4. Question: The paragraph states that "The fully burdened labor rates proposed for each year cannot be adjusted except for instances where the labor categories are subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards and a revision is permitted under the provisions of FAR Clause 52.222-43." Please clarify that with a 5 year ordering period, in the event there is an update to the wages, H&W, vacation, etc. under the applicable wage determination, that the contractors will have the opportunity to request a yearly rate adjustment, as applicable. | Fully burdened direct labor rates under Service Contract Labor Standards will be adjusted in accordance with FAR Clause 52.222-43. Section L.5.3.4 of Instructions to Offerors also states: “Therefore, offerors are cautioned to include inflation where warranted.” Exempt fully burdened direct labor rates could warrant inflation, if in accordance with the offeror’s standard accounting practices. |
| 61 | Ref: L.6. VOLUME 4: – General. Question: L.6.3. TAB C, Section K (Representation, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors). Please confirm/clarify that contractors are required to submit the Section K or the SAM record but not both documents. | Reference L.6.3. TAB C, Section K (Representation, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors). "The offeror shall ensure that Section K is submitted thoroughly completed with all blocks in each certification/representation completed truthfully and completely;" SAM is to be included in Section K. |
| 62 | Ref: Solicitation L.5. VOLUME 3: FACTOR 3 - Price. Question: As the result of each offeror’s analysis of the PWS tasks and the information provided in Attachment 6, are offerors authorized to deviate from the Estimated Annual Hours for each labor category as shown in Attachment 1 of the solicitation in the submitted/proposed Total Evaluated Price Worksheet? | No. Reference Instructions to Offerors, Section L.5.3 “Contractor Pricing for MAIDIQ. The Offeror’s proposal shall be for a five year ordering period. The Offeror is required to complete Attachment 1 – Total Evaluated Price Worksheets. The worksheets identify the Labor Categories and estimated annual hours of services to be acquired under the contract.” |
| 63 | Ref: Solicitation L.5. VOLUME 3: FACTOR 3 - Price. Question: If an offeror proposes a $0 fully burdened labor rate for labor categories where the offeror anticipates providing the service at no direct cost to the government or does not anticipate using that labor category for Task Order competitions, will the offeror's pricing be considered non-compliant, unbalanced, or high performance risk? | Offerors are required to provide fully-burdened labor rates for all labor categories listed in Attachment 1 for evaluation purposes. Failure to provide the required information could result in the elimination of a proposal from the competition. |
| 64 | Ref: Solicitation L.5. VOLUME 3: FACTOR 3 - Price. Question: Differences between fully burdened labor categories may appear unbalanced due to an offeror’s application of different fringe and/or overhead pool rates for selected labor categories and/or a prime contractor’s weighting of individual subcontractor labor category rates when completing the Total Evaluated Price Worksheets. How specifically will FAR 15.404-1(g) be applied to assess potential performance risk given that the pricing volume requires only fully burdened labor rates for each labor category? | Price analysis will include analysis of the pricing worksheets and the pricing narrative. If the pricing of the fully burdened labor categories may appear unbalanced, the pricing narrative should address the issues in a manner sufficient to make an evaluation of balance and performance risk. |
| 65 | Ref: Solicitation L.4 and M.4 Past Performance. Question: Will a neutral rating be assigned if an offeror determines that they do not have relevant past performance and as a result, elects to not submit past performance information? | Offerors are required to submit complete proposals to be eligible for contract award. Offerors who determine that they do not have relevant past performance should clearly explain the basis for that conclusion in Volume 2. The Government reserves the right to use other sources of data when evaluating the offerors' past performance. Offerors will be rated Acceptable under this factor if the Government determines that an offeror does not have any relevant past performance or has a sparse record of past performance as stated in the note to Section M.4.3. |
| 66 | Reference: (1) “B.3 – Phase-In. Phase-In will be priced at the TO level if required.” (2) “1.6.5.22 – PHASE IN (PI) PERIOD: Phase-In requirements will be identified and priced at the task order level, if needed.” Question: The Government has provided CLIN 0001 for Phase-In services however, as stated, Phase-In will be determined at the Task Order level. Should the Offeror leave the amount section on Section B CLIN 0001 Blank or enter $0.00? | |
| Phase-In pricing will be determined at the Task Order level; Offerors should leave CLIN 0001 blank. | ||
| 67 | Reference: “L.2.2.(e) – Indexing. Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. This Index is for informational purposes only and will not be evaluated.” Question: Is tab indexing the physical dividers to be used to separate proposal sections? | |
| Yes | ||
| 68 | References: RFP Section L.4.6 - Submission Requirements, Past Performance Questionnaire. Question: If we are a subcontractor on multiple teams, can our past performance contract customer submit a single Past Performance Questionnaire that can be used to support each team’s proposals? If so, how would the government prefer us to designate on the Past Performance Questionnaire the prime contractors we are supporting | |
| No | ||
| 69 | Question: We understand that the government intends to answer contractors questions by 19 Oct 17 and thereby not extending the submission date of 27 Oct 17. As a small business we are at a disadvantage on an IDIQ this large to react to any changes to a solicitation within 7 days. Question: Will the government consider extending the submission date to 17 Nov 17? | No proposal due date extension will be granted. |
| 70 | Question 1: Is there an incumbent and if so who is the incumbent? Question 2: Are they eligible to bid as prime? | The prior contracts expired in July 2017; those offerors are eligible to submit offers for the follow-on contracts. |
| 71 | Ref: Solicitation, Section L.3.1. Page 27Solicitation, Section L.3.1. Page 27. Question: The Instructions state: Resumes for the Key Personnel (program manager and alternate) that clearly depict the minimum qualifications for these key positions as identified in the PWS; any additional positions that the Offeror has identified as key at the MAIDIQ or task order level, the rationale for that designation, and the qualifications that will be required of these key positions (i.e., degree, certifications, licenses, relevant experience). Question: Will the government suggest addtional key positions? | No |
| 72 | Ref: Solicitation, Section L.3.1. Page 28. Question: Will the government consider excluding the QCP from the Volume I page count? | Reference Instructions to Offerors, Section L.3.1., paragraph revised to reflect that the QCP is excluded from the 70-page Mission Capability page limit |
| 73 | Can the Government update each labor category listed in Attachment 6 – Common Labor Categories to provide education requirements and minimum years of experience. | Attachment 6 contains the labor categories most used from an historic perspective, and covers a wide range of skills, abilities, educational levels, and experience across multiple requirements - a general guide for what to anticipate from task orders, which will define in detail any specific experience and educational requirements. Further detail at the MATOC IDIQ level would be impractical (for example, an AV Tech (para A.1) whose task was to set up a podium mic and speakers (sound equipment) for ceremonies could be high school/almost no experience, but an AV Tech whose task was in support of a Smart Classroom connected to the Benning intranet would need significantly more experience and specialized education.) Therefore, guidance for proposal purposes: For the labor categories which do not specify education, the implied requirement is a high school diploma or equivalent. For the labor categories which do not specify minimum years of experience, the Contractor shall use its discretion in determining a level of experience which results in a likelihood of success. |
| 74 | Attachment 6, paragraph 3 (Note) says “… and a “C” is used to identify functions which are or could be at corporate level.” Could the Government define corporate level? (i.e. contractor facility) |
| Attachment 6, all references to corporate level "C" have been deleted. The contractor shall perform services at the places of performance specified in PWS 1.6.4. | ||
| 75 | Section C 1.6.4 calls out the place of performance. Can the Government please confirm if there is an ability to have contractor site work on this vehicle. | The contractor shall perform services at the places of performance specified in PWS 1.6.4. |
| 76 | Attachment 1 – Worksheets_W911S017R0007 Excel document provides a single rate per labor category. Will the Government provide an updated Attachment 1 to allow for contractor and Government site rates. | The contractor shall perform services at the places of performance specified in PWS 1.6.4; separate rates shall not be proposed based on the place of performance. |
| 77 | Reference(s): RFP Section J Attachment 6 Common Labor Categories (pp 94-99). |
Question/Comment: In RFP Section J Attachment 6 Common Labor Categories, many of the labor category descriptions omit required qualifications such as degree/field, years of relevant experience, and specialized training/certifications. We interpret this to mean that basic qualifications for labor categories with no qualification requirements are high school diploma and 0 years of relevant experience. Will the Government consider adding minimum qualifications for all labor categories to ensure selection of contractors able to provide personnel with technically acceptable capabilities at the offered rates?
| No; Offeror's interpretation is valid, if qualifications are not listed a person with a High School diploma and 0 years of experience meets the basic qualifications. Attachment 6 reflects the Government's determination of the minimum qualifications for the listed labor categories. | ||
| 78 | Per PWS 1.6.4 work location is specified as Ft Benning GA. Can contractor perform tasks 1 through 4 at contractor location and Task 5 (instruction) at Ft. Benning? | The contractor shall perform services at the places of performance specified in PWS 1.6.4. |
| 79 | PWS 52.222-42 Statement of equivalent rates. Is this based on Ft. Benning GA region? | Yes |
| 80 | What are the Pricing volume sections government is looking for? | Total Evaluated Price Worksheets. |
| 81 | Ref: L.1.4. Proposals shall be submitted in hard copy and on CD ROMs, in the formats and quantities noted below, to the address listed below. Email and/or Facsimile submissions will not be accepted. Question: Will the government accept hand delivered proposal? If so, please provide the contact information of the person who will be accepting hand deliveries. | Question 1: Yes. Question 2: See Instructions to Offerors, Section L.1.4. |
| 82 | 1. References: L.3.1. TAB A: SUBFACTOR 1 - Management and Staffing Approach. [page 118 of 126], 4th bullet down…”Resumes for the Key Personnel (program manager and alternate) that clearly depict the minimum qualifications for these key positions as identified in the PWS; any additional positions that the Offeror has identified as key at the MAIDIQ or task order level, the rationale for that designation, and the qualifications that will be required of these key positions (i.e., degree, certifications, licenses, relevant experience).” PWS 1.6.5.15. Key Personnel [page 12): “The Contractor shall provide a fully dedicated Program Manager (PM) who shall be responsible for the performance of the work. The PM is considered key personnel by the Government. The name of this person and an alternate who shall act for the Contractor when the PM is absent shall be designated in writing to the KO. The Program Manager or alternate shall have full authority to act for the Contractor on all contract matters relating to daily operation of this contract. The Program Manager or alternate shall be available between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday except Federal holidays or when the Government facility is closed for administrative reasons. Qualifications for all key personnel are listed” *L.3.1 & PWS 1.6.5.15 in the solicitation seem to contradict each other (I.E both PM and Alternate PM are key personnel in L.3.1, yet no mention of Alternate PM being key in PWs 1.6.5.15]. Question 1: Are both PM and Alternate PM positions considered key personnel? Question 2: If so, does the government want resumes in our proposals for both of these positions? |
| Question 1: Yes. Question 2: Yes | ||
| 83 | Can the Government please confirm that pursuant to 1.6.5.21, Offerors should review all federal contracts and disclose only those contracts the Offeror determines has OCI clauses that could impact an offeror's performance of MCoE services? | An Offeror has the responsibility to disclose all potential OCIs related to MCoE, even if other contracts do not have an OCI clause. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .