Industry's_Questions_to_CORE_DRAFT_RFP_-_7_Nov_19.pdf

W911S019R0001, OE/CORE Responses to Draft RFP

# Source Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

1 RFP 78 L.4.1.6 This is not a MAIDIQ but a single award competitive contract This is not a MAIDIQ requirement. This langauge has been removed.

2 RFP 80 L.4.3.1.1 Based on the statements made in this section, it appears the Government is only allowing subcontractors/teammates who will perform at least 25% of the work to be able to submit a past performance citation. We are requesting the Government to reduce the percentage to 10% for the following reasons:

1) Since the Prime Contractor will be held accountable in keeping the small business goals committed in their proposal for the entire duration of the contract, any small business that is allocated 25% of the workshare will no longer qualify as a small business by the end of the 3rd year of this contract which means the Prime Contractor will be forced to either remove the company from the team in order to keep the small business percentage commitment or drastically reduce the workshare of the said company in order to bring on another small business. Both options will have negative impact on continued mission success.

2) Since the Government is requiring a small business commitment of no less than 36% while breaking that percentage further down to each of the small business categories (e.g. SDB, SDVOSB, Hub zone, etc.), it will be difficult to be able to use any of the small businesses' past performance because mathematically none of the small businesses will have 25% of workshare.

3) Have to meet the 36% small business goals while able to team with qualified companies and use their past performance means the Prime Contractor could potentially only able to perform 29% of the work. For example, as stated above, it is mathematically not possible allocating 25% of workshare to one small business and therefore none of the small business teammates will be allowed to submit a past performance. Therefore, unless the Prime Contractor is willing to only perform 29% of the work in order to allocate 25% to a non-small business, only the Prime Contractor is able to submit past performance citations. This will clearly favor the incumbent and hinders competition. We respectfully request the Government reducing the 25% to 10%, similar to other contracts/solictitations.

The 25% requirement is deleted.

3 RFP 82 L.4.3.1.5 Since the Government is allowing between 4 to 6 past performance citations, the Table should add another row to accommodate Ref. #6.

Past Performance requirements have been reduced to 4 only.

4 RFP 91 M.3.6.4.1 Can the Government clarify if the past performance reference has to be within the past three (3) or five

(5) years as Section M.3.6.4.1 states three (3) but Section L.4.3.1.4.2 states within the past five (5) years?

The solicitation has been corrected for clarification.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

5 RFP 91 M.3.6.4.2 Can the Government clarify if the magnitude of the estimated value between $5M and $9M is per year or the total contract value (TCV)? We are assuming it is per year but want to seek confirmation.

This area has been rewritten.

6 Can the Government please confirm its calculation method for prescribing size standards for business concerns as it relates to the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018? For the purposes of this solicitation is the Small Business Size standard based on a 3 year or 5 year average annual value?

The calculation method used will adhere to the regulations in place at time of issuance of solicitation.

7 We would like to offer NIACS code 541519, Other Computer Related Services with a size standard of

$27.5M or other like NAICS code for consideration for this effort given the size and scope of this opportunity.

No NAICS changes will be made

8 RFP 91 M.3.6.4.2 STATEMENT: M.3.6.4.2. Relevancy ….. Magnitude – The measure of the similarity of the dollar value of actual performed work that exists between the PWS and the Offeror’s references. Magnitude will be evaluated on the dollar amount of work actually performed on the past performance references under the relevant time period established by the solicitation. A past performance reference with an estimated value between $5M and $9M shall be considered similar in magnitude. A past performance reference with an estimated value of less than $5M shall not be considered similar in magnitude, and therefore not relevant. QUESTION: Is it correct to assume that the Magnitude metric of $5M to $9M is based on total period of performance (POP) of the referenced project and so infers that a shorter (i.e.

less than 5 year) duration project would qualify with a smaller annual revenue figure than a full 5-year project?

This area has been rewritten.

9 RFP 88 M.3.5.1 Factor 1 STATEMENT: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach to the four (4) specified PWS functional areas (5.1.1, Information Management (Information Technology (IT) and

Knowledge Management (KM)) support; 5.2.2, Analysis and Control Element (ACE) Threats

Integration; 5.3.4, Operational Environment Center (OEC) Data Science, Models & Simulations

(DSMS); and, 5.3.9, Threat Emulation Force (TEFOR)). QUESTION: 5.3.5 Gaming & Visualization

Support Is historically the largest staffing effort and is becoming significant in training development and application to include Augmented and Virtual Reality. Would the Gov consider identify this as a

Specified Functional Area?

The four areas of evaluation remain unchanged.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

10 RFP 84-85 L.4.5.2.2

L.4.5.3

L.4.5.3.1

STATEMENT: If an Offeror deviates from the 1,920 productive labor year hours required in paragraph L.4.5.3.1 below, it shall fully describe it’s reasoning in the Price Narrative, Volume V Tab

B, and the calculations shall be clearly shown in the Pricing Workbook. Offerors shall use a baseline of 1,920 hours for a productive labor year, as reflected in Attachment 4. If an Offeror deviates from the

1,920 productive labor year hours, it shall fully describe it’s reasoning in the Price Narrative, Volume

V Tab B, and the calculations shall be clearly shown in the Pricing Workbook.

QUESTION: Attachment 4 Pricing Workbook refers to CME, as does Enclosure G – Historical

Support Effort in the draft PWS. The Army defines CME as 2087 hours. Therefore it does not appear that the pricing workbook reference to CME is consistent with the instructions in Section L. Please clarify.

The Enclosure and Workbook does not use the 2,087 hours to define a CME.

11 PWS &

Pricing

82-84 5.3.9.5 STATEMENT: PWS Clearance: Top Secret SCI (TS/SCI) clearance is required.

Pricing Workbook states 5.3.9.3 and 5.3.9.4 require Secret Please clarify.

The Pricing Workbook is correct. Language in the PWS para 5.3.9.5 has been revised to match the Pricing Workbook.

12 RFP 82 L.4.3.1.5 STATEMENT: L.4.3.1.5. Tab F – Past Performance Reference Matrix. In Volume III Tab F of its proposal, the Offeror shall provide a past performance matrix in the format prescribed in Table

L.4.3.1.5 below, depicting the relevance of each past performance reference identified in Offeror’s proposal Volume III Tab E to the four (4) specified areas identified in Factor 1. QUESTION: Is it correct to assume that the Government is simply looking for a check mark in each applicable matrix block signifying relevance of the Reference to the applicable PWS area?

A check mark or Y for Yes, or an X or N for

No is acceptable. The applicable page number from the proposal is also required.

13 RFP 80 L.4.3.1.4 STATEMENT: L.4.3.1.4. Tab E – Past Performance References. In Volume III, Tab E of its proposal, the Offeror shall identify a minimum of four (4) and a maximum of six (6) recent and relevant past performance references the Offeror, and/or its Teaming Partner(s), performance as a Prime or as a subcontractor. QUES: What is the minimum number of past performance references which the prime must provide? QUES: Is it correct to say that the minimum percent workshare (per L.4.3.1.1.) for a teaming partner to provide a past performance reference is 25%?

The minimum number of references have changed to 4 references only and the past performance percentage has been removed.

14 PWS &

Pricing

Workbook

70-76 All of 5.3.6

5.3.7.2

STATEMENT: There is a discrepancy between the PWS and the Pricing Workbook. Workbook section 5.3.6 and 5.3.7.2 does not line up with the PWS section 5.3.6 and 5.3.7.2 and there is no

5.3.6.6 or 5.3.6.7 in the PWS. Please clarify

The language in the PWS and Pricing

Workbook have been revised and are now in alignment.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

15 PWS &

Pricing

Workbook

55-57 5.2.9.3 STATEMENT: PWS Work Location: Ft Eustis, VA.

Pricing Workbook work location is Austin, TX. Please clarify.

The language in the PWS and Pricing

Workbook have been revised and are now in alignment. The work location for Task 5.2.9 is Fort Eustis, Virginia

16 PWS &

Pricing

Workbook

37-39 5.1.4.4 STATEMENT: PWS Work Location: Ft Eustis, VA

Pricing Workbook work location is Ft Eustis and Ft Leavenworth, KS. Please clarify.

Task 5.1.4 (Plans and Operations support) is primarily performed at Fort Eustis, Virginia, but there is a requirement for 1 CME at Fort

Leavenworth, Kansas. Para 5.1.4.4 of the

PWS and line 5.1.4.3 of the Pricing

Workbook have been revised to reflect that 1

CME will work in Kansas.

17 Pricing

Workbook

Line 50 5.2.2.5 STATEMENT: There is a row for PWS Para 5.2.2.5 that is labeled “DATE”. It could be for updates or management of the Decisive Action Training Environment (DATE). However, the corresponding paragraph within the PWS 5.2.2.5 is titled “Clearance, Work Location, and Travel requirements”.

There is not a paragraph within the PWS that deals exclusively with DATE.

Please clarify

The task to produce and update Decisive

Action Training Environment (DATE) products is in PWS para 5.2.2.1 (vice

5.2.2.5).

Therefore, Task 5.2.2.5 has been deleted from the Pricing Workbook.

18 74 of 94 L.1.4.1 Will the Government reconsider its statement that it will not provide formal responses to questions/comments to the Draft RFP? Responses to questions are critical to Offerors so that they can develop high quality proposal responses and help ensure a level playing field for all.

This benefits the Government by promoting highly qualified competition that meets and exceeds

Government expectations and provides best overall value.

To expedite the solicitation and proposal preparation process, the answers to industry's questions are provided along with revised DRAFT solicitation documents. The Government is not providing this information as a request for additional Draft RFP resposnes. If a second Draft RFP is issued, it will be announced on FBO as a separate notice.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

19 10, 11 PWS 1.4.3.7 The draft PWS states that a Top-Secret/SCI security clearance is required. Can this requirement be restated as Top-Secret with SCI eligibility? There is a clear distinction between requiring a current

SCI eligibility required or the ability to attain SCI eligibility with an adjudicated SBPR or T5 investigation acceptable. Absent clarifying the requirement, offerors are forced to bid ONLY staff currently performing on an SCI contract and would exclude qualified personnel with active Top-Secret clearances and unnecessarily narrow the pool of potential candidates for (2) key personnel roles -

Contract Program Manager and Threat Emulation Force Task Lead.

This requirement has been restated as Top-

Secret with SCI eligibility throughout the

PWS.

20 81 of 94

Draft RFP

L.4.3.1.4.3.1/

M.3.6.4.1

Past performance instructions (L.4.3.1.4.3.1) defines recency as within the last 5 years, while the evaluation criteria (M.3.6.4.1) define recency as within the last 3 years. Please clarify what is considered recent.

The solicitation has been corrected for clarification.

21 77 of 94 L.3.9.2 L.3.9.2 includes past performance as being outside of a volume's page limit. Is this in reference to

Volume III Past Performance or Volume IV Small Business Participation? If it does refer to Volume

III, please clarify which parts of that volume are included in the 25 page limit.

L.3.9.2 has been revised.

22 81 of 94 L.4.3.1.4.2 L.4.3.1.4.2 asks for "a list of PWS task areas for which the Offeror believes the reference demonstrates relevance." Should this list include all relevant PWS areas or only the four in L.4.2.2.1 and M.3.5.1?

This is referring to the four in L.4.2.2.1 and

M.3.5.1 only.

23 81 of 94

L.4.2.2.1

M.3.5.1

L.4.3.1.5

Please clarify whether relevance to PWS areas outside of the four in L.4.2.2.1/M.3.5.1 will be considered in the evaluation for past performance relevance. Recommendation: A full mapping of past performance references to the PWS (if evaluated) might be more easily depicted by adding the full

PWS to the Past Performance Reference Matrix in L.4.3.1.5.

This is referring to the four in L.4.2.2.1 and

M.3.5.1 only.

24 80 of 94 L.4.3.1.1

L.4.3.1.4

L.4.3.1.1 requires consent letters for team partners that will perform 25% or more of the proposed effort. Will past performance from contractors performing less than 25% of the work be evaluated under Tab E Past Performance References (L.4.3.1.4)?

The percentage has been removed.

25 82 - 84 PWS 5.3.9 The TEFOR (PWS 5.3.9) requirement represents a niche capability so specialized that its inclusion in the PWS is unduly restrictive of competition and thus undermines the Government’s goals of achieving full and open competition. In order to foster fair competition among qualified bidders, the

Government should eliminate the TEFOR requirement from the PWS and acquire TEFOR services through a separate contract. This would result in stronger competition for the core TRADOC G2 work and allow for a more appropriately focused contract vehicle and competition for the unique TEFOR work including the provision of Threat Emulation equipment.

No. Task 5.3.9 will remain on this requirement.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

26 88 of 94 RFP M.3.5.1 Based on the Government’s evaluation plan, a large amount of the anticipated workload (almost 70% based on historical FTE counts) will not be evaluated in the technical evaluation. For example, Gaming and Visualization (G&V) is not included in the evaluation but the historical CME is 23.

Recommend that the technical evaluation be expanded to include additional areas of the PWS, such as

G&V, to more accurately assess vendor capability and minimize performance risk to the Government.

The four areas of evaluation remain unchanged.

27 70 - 76 PWS 5.3.6 Would the Government consider evaluating gaming and visualization support (PWS 5.3.5) and modeling and simulation (OE M&S, PWS 5.3.6) under Factor 1 / Technical Evaluation?

The four areas of evaluation remain unchanged.

28 70 - 76 PWS 5.3.6 The PWS references a number of information technology systems. Please provide an annex (i.e., supplemental documentation) in advance of final RFP defining the technical architecture of these systems so that all vendors have a uniform understanding of the technical infrastructure they will be supporting.

The technical architecture diagrams are not releasable - they are all either Classified or

UNCLASS/FOUO.

29 89 of 94 RFP M.3.5.3 Will the Government provide the PWS requirements for Factor 3 Evaluation Criteria in order to enable

Offerors to develop responsive proposals to the evaluation criteria? In lieu of defined PWS requirements and a description of the "As Is" technical environment, we recommend that the

Government remove Factor 3 from the evaluation criteria.

See response to Question #132.

30 53 PWS 5.2.6.1.4 PWS requires contractor to Travel to the region of study at least once per year. In order to ensure that all offerors scope this requirement similarly, how many regions are anticipated requiring OCONUS travel? How should for maintaining expertise or conducting specialized research be attributed in the

Pricing Volume? Recommendation: Provide a plug number used by all offerors for coverage of task

5.2.6.1.4.

Task 5.2.6.1.4 requirement for travel has been removed from the PWS with successive paragraphs in 5.2.6. renumbered.

Note: All travel will be a 'Not-to-Exceed' number in the competitive award process.

31 54 PWS 5.2.7.1.2 PWS references a G-29 representative of the OEE, which is most likely a staff section. In order to ensure consistency and fairness of organizational structure will the Government provide a current organizational chart with the PWS?

The latest Organizational Structure Chart for

TRADOC G-2 is provided as a Supplemental

Document.

32 25 - 34 PWS 5.1 Will the Government share additional information about the OEE technical environment through the release of technical documents or through access to a bidder reading room? This will provide bidders a better understanding of the technical environment that needs to be supported and enable bidders to propose "valid and practical solutions" as required in the draft RFP.

A reading room is not available.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

33 74 of 94 L.1.4.1 Will the Government consider releasing a second Draft RFP prior to releasing the Final RFP in order to allow Offeror's sufficient time to prepare/modify proposal response to account for changes resulting from industry comment on the current Draft RFP?

A second draft RFP will not be issued, but the responses to the the draft RFP issued on

August 17 will be posted. See response to

Question #18.

34 84 of 94 and 145 of 158

L.4.5.3 Tab C -

Attachment 4, Pricing

Workbook and

Attachment_1_P

WS Enclosure H-

Labor Categories for T&M

Support

Section L.4.5.3 states that the "T&M Labor" workbook in Attachment 4 identifies the Labor Categories

(LCATS) that may be needed under this contract. Enclosure H of the PWS states that the labor categories and descriptions in Enclosure H are for T&M Support only. Can the government please confirm if the Labor Categories in Enclosure H are only for T&M support or are they applicable to all support that may occur on this contract to include the FFP support?

Enclosure H refers to T&M ONLY. The

T&M labor categories in Enclosure H and the

Pricing Workbook should not intertwine with

FFP labor categories.

35 145 of

Attachment_1_P

WS Enclosure H-

Labor Categories for T&M

Support

Enclosure H of the PWS states that the labor categories and descriptions in Enclosure H are for T&M

Support only. Does the government intend to identify any labor categories and qualifications for the

FFP support?

No. This is a performance based requirement.

It is up to the Offeror to propose the staffing mix to perform in accordance with the PWS.

36 RFP 4 ITEM NO 0007 The description for CLIN 0007 Other Direct Costs permits the application of G&A only. Question: Did the Government intend to allow the application of an indirect burden on Other Direct Costs, but not on

Travel? Question: If the offeror’s approved cost disclosure statement permits the application of overhead in addition to G&A, is that permitted also?

The Travel CLIN description has been updated.

37 RFP 5 ITEM NO 0008 As per CLIN 0007 & X006, Travel has a ceiling of $3.5M annually.

Question: Is this the number to be used in Attachment 4 Section B tab for Travel?

Yes, Tab 'Section B' of Attachment 4 has been updated.

38 RFP 76 L.3.2 Table L.2. shows “Tab A – Table of Contents” for Volumes II, III, IV, and V. Question: For consistency, will the Government also add the requirement for a Table of Contents in Volume I and re-label the Volume I tabs accordingly?

Yes.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

39 RFP 81 L.4.3.1.4.4.2 In reference to submission of CPARS, DRFP L.4.3.1.4.4.2 states, “Failure to submit these requirements may render a reference unusable and will not count against the minimum number of required references as the Government will not be able to consider how well the Offeror performed work on the past contract.” The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that Federal agencies collect contractor performance information (FAR Part 42.15) in CPARS and use that information in source selection evaluations (FAR Part 15); however, some agencies do not submit reports on a timely basis, or in some cases, not at all. Furthermore, CPARS reports apply only to prime contractors and only to government contracts. Therefore, reports on efforts performed as subcontractors or on commercial contracts are not available in CPARS. The requirement to submit CPARS reports will potentially eliminate highly relevant work from consideration and may reduce competition.

Suggestion: Eliminate the requirement for copies of CPARS reports in DRFP L.4.3.1.4.4.2.Suggestion:

To provide efficient means to locate performance information on the CPARS website and through other sources for references provided under Volume III Tab E – Past Performance References, add a requirement for CAGE codes and DUNS numbers to DRFP L.4.3.1.4.2 (p. 80) as follows: “Name of effort, contract and/or task order number, CAGE code and DUNS number, period of performance,…”

Suggestion: Add the following language to L.4.3.1.3 (p. 80) Tab D – Organization Structure Change

History: “To facilitate this relevancy determination, the Offeror shall include in Offeror’s Proposal

Volume III Tab D a chart or schedule including relevant CAGE and DUNS numbers and describing all such changes in the organization of the company and of proposed team members over the past five (5) years.”

The CPARS submission requriement has not changed.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

40 RFP 81 L.4.3.1.4.3.1 DRFP L.4.3.1.4.3.1 states, “To be recent, the effort must have been performed for six (6) months or longer during the five (5) years prior to date for receipt of offers. Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Yet-to-be performed work, experience prior to the last five (5) years, and work performed for less than six (6) months will not be considered.”

DRFP M.3.6.4.1 (p. 91) states, “To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the three (3) years prior to date for receipt of offers. Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Yet-to-be performed work, experience prior to the last three (3) years, and work performance for less than a year (12-months) will not be considered.”

Suggestion: Amend M.3.6.4.1 to define recency as five (5) years prior to the date for receipt of offers, and work performance for a minimum of 6 months. This increases competition and provides all

Offerors optimal opportunity to describe their most relevant and substantive past performance.

The solicitation has been corrected for clarification.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

41 RFP 81 L.4.3.1.4.4 DRFP L.4.3.1.4.4 states, “The Offeror shall submit information substantiating the Offeror’s past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and/or FAR 52.219-9 subcontracting requirements.”

DRFP subparagraphs L.4.3.1.4.4.1 and L.4.3.1.4.4.2 state, “Offerors shall provide a statement indicating whether any negative information has been reported in the past three (3) years concerning the Offeror’s past compliance with FAR 52.219-8 and/or FAR 52.219-9, if applicable”; and “the

Offeror shall include SF 294 and SF 295… information for Government contracts with these reporting requirements for the last three(3)years”.

Comment: It’s unclear whether a statement regarding (1) any negative information reported and/or

(2) eSRS reports are required relative only to Tab E – Past Performance References, or whether information is required on a broader scale. At any time, large businesses may be performing on dozens, or even hundreds, of individual contracts across multiple Government departments. Inclusion of this volume of information could make evaluation by the government extremely burdensome.

Suggestion: Limit statements of negative information reported to those past performance references cited by the offeror only by changing statement in L.4.3.1.4.4.1 to read, “Offerors shall provide a statement with each past performance reference indicating whether any negative information has been reported in the past three (3) years concerning the Offeror’s past compliance with FAR 52.219-8 and/or FAR 52.219-9, if applicable.”

Suggestion: Require eSRS SF 294 Individual Subcontracting Reports only for past performance references cited and eSRS SF 295 Summary Subcontracting Reports only for DOD contracting. This will ensure information for evaluation is limited to relevant past performance and eliminate unnecessary submissions of hundreds of pages of eSRS reports to cover ‘any/all contracts.’

Suggestion: Change statement in L.4.3.1.4.4.2 to read, “…the Offeror shall include SF 294 information for references cited and SF 295… information for DOD contracts with these reporting requirements for the last three (3) years.”

The Government concurs with all 3 suggestions. The solicitation has been updated.

42 RFP 81 L.4.3.1.4.4.3 DRFP L.4.3.1.4.4.3 states, “All Offerors shall provide descriptive information for all small business categories.” Question: Considering reports in the eSRS provide descriptive information, including a breakout of small business subcontracting by socio-economic categories, what if any different information is needed to comply with this requirement?

This line has been removed from the solicitation.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

43 RFP 84 L.4.5.1 The government states that “Primes are responsible for assuring the fully burdened rates for its subcontract correlates with the subcontractor fully burdened rates.” Fully burdened rates submitted by the Subcontractor will not include any additional Prime contractor burdens.

Suggestion: Please confirm that where the Prime has added its indirects and profit to the subcontractor fully burdened labor rates, correlation is between the Subcontractor’s submitted rate to the government and the same subcontractor rate proposed in the Prime’s Attachment 4 prior to Prime burdens.

T&M pricing shall be provided in accordance with FAR 52.216-29 as supplemented by

DFARS 252.216-7002, Alternate A. Offerors may add rows or columns as necessary to the

Excel Pricing Workbook. However, the minimum required information must be clearly provided.

44 RFP 85 L.4.5.3.2 This section states the Government has provided formulas to calculate the Total Evaluated Price in

Attach 4. The Cost Model is currently devoid of any formulas.

Question: Does the Government intend to provide formulas with the final RFP or does it intend for the offeror to complete this task?

Attachment 4 has been updated. However, while formulas are provided in the workbook it is the responsibility of the Offeror to submit a complete and accurate Price

Proposal. If an Offeror identifies an error in

Attachment 4, the Offeror should correct the error and disclose the error and correction in the price narrative.

45 Pricing

Workbook

General

Instructions Tab

Suggestion: Please clarify the second half of this sentence in the General Instructions: “Formulas may be adjusted to accommodate variances in accounting system, however all calculated fields but remain calculation.”

This statement has been updated in the

Pricing Workbook. Also, review solicitation reference L.4.5.4.2 for further clarification.

46 Pricing

Workbook

T&M Labor

Rates Tab

The tab for T&M Labor Rates does not include any columns to permit the application of Prime contractor indirect burdens and fee on Subcontractor Fully Burdened Labor Rates, which represent a cost input to the Prime. Therefore, the “Ceiling Rate” for labor categories marked for a subcontractor only captures only the fixed rate from the Subcontractor to the Prime.

Question: Is the Government’s intent to treat Subcontractor Fully Burdened Labor Rates as a pure pass through? Or may offerors amend the cost model so that all Ceiling Rates represent the price charged by the Prime to the Government?

T&M pricing shall be provided in accordance with FAR 52.216-29 as supplemented by

DFARS 252.216-7002, Alternate A.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

47 Pricing

Workbook

T&M Labor

Rates Tab

The tab for T&M Labor Rates requests that the offeror identify for each labor category whether a

Prime or Subcontractor rate build is being shown. This construct restricts the Prime’s ability during execution to staffing each labor category only with the originally proposed team member and limits the ability of the Prime to provide the best value staffing solution to the Government.

Question: If the Prime intends to bid on all labor categories and has not reserved specific labor categories for subcontractors in advance, may the offeror prepare a T&M Labor Rate for each of its subcontractors so that each equivalent T&M Labor Rate tab represents a rate sheet with the appropriate build-up to the ceiling rate?

Question: Does the Government want Prime offerors to provide the build up for rates proposed in the

Breakdown (FFP) labor categories?

T&M pricing shall be provided in accordance with FAR 52.216-29 as supplemented by

DFARS 252.216-7002, Alternate A.

The Prime Contractor may add tabs to the workbook as appropriate as it pertains to

T&M price submission for itself and its subcontractors. The Breakdown (FFP) tab should NOT include any T&M information.

48 Pricing

Workbook

Breakdown Tab Question: On the Breakdown tab, does the Government seek to have the burdened rate in columns H and M directly linked to the ceiling rate for each labor category in the T&M Labor Rates tab in those cases where the same labor category/location exists in both?

The T&M rates are NOT associated with the

'Breakdown' tab in Attachment 4. The

'Breakdown' tab is for FFP labor ONLY.

49 Pricing

Workbook

General

Instructions Tab

The General Instructions indicate that the prime and all subcontractors shall submit the cost model directly to the Government. However, Note 2 implies that if a subcontractor provides its proprietary indirect rates to the prime, then they do not have to submit the cost model.

Question: Which is correct?

Subcontractors may submit their FFP build-up directly to the Government if they wish to protect their proprietary information.

However, the price proposal and Pricing

Workbook shall contain total prices for each year as well as a total proposed price. T&M buildups for the T&M pricing are NOT required

50 Pricing

Workbook

Tabs The CLINs in the DRFP do not line up with the CLINs in the Cost Model. e.g., CLIN 0008 Travel in the DRFP is CLIN 0007 in the Cost Model. CLINs X007 Travel for the outyears are listed as CLINx

X006 in the cost model. These discrepancies carry through the ODC CLINs which are apparently inverted from the DRFP.

Suggestion: Provide consistent CLIN numbering.

Attachment 4 has been updated.

51 RFP 2 ITEM NO 0002 Question: Does CLIN 0002 include all labor and non-labor costs, including any Contractor-Furnished

Property and Services as per PWS Section C-4?

CLIN 0002 includes all of the FFP support.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

52 PWS 10 1.4.3.7.1 Will the Government allow a Program Manager who has a minimum of 3-5 years managing a military organization similar in size and nature to this requirement as an equivalency to 3-5 years managing a

Government contract similar in size and nature?

Yes. The PWS has been updated.

53 PWS 21 SECTION C- 4 Question: Will the Government provide historical data and projected assets required regarding quantities of Contractor-furnished vehicles, simulated weapons and equipment necessary for the

OPFOR to employ capabilities and to replicate threats in support of TEFOR task 5.3.9, as well as locations and frequency of use? Without such information provided to all bidders, the incumbent (who provides these assets today) will have an advantage associated with understanding the needs for facility sizing and staffing necessary to maintain, store, and deploy the requested assets.

Section C-4 has been revised to provide historical data and projected assets required.

54 PWS 23-24 5.1.1 Question: Which ITSM software does TRADOC G-2 use?

Question: Are offerors required to continue use of that same software or will they be allowed to offer a new solution?

Response to Question #1: For IT service management (ITSM) software, for baseline service tickets, TRADOC G-2 uses

REMEDY in accordance with Army

Enterprise Service Desk requirements. For

G-2 mission systems,G-2 is supported by an internal SharePoint service ticket request system.

Response to Question #2: Yes, Offerors are required to use the same software.

55 PWS 25 5.1.1.1.3 Question: Which specific certifications are required?

Question: Which personnel/labor categories are required to have which certifications?

Suggestion: Consider allowing offerors to propose certifications for each labor category in order to best execute their proposed technical approaches.

Response to Question #1: DODI 8570.01-M provides the certification requirements.

Specific are found on the Cyber Workforce

Program Website https://public.cyber/cwmp/

Response to Question #2: The government will allow offerors to propose certifications for each labor category in order to best execute their proposed technical approaches.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

56 PWS 98 7.3.1 Section 7.3.1 p. 98 states that travel invoices “…shall reflect the Contractor’s actual expense for the item, plus General and Administrative costs.” However, this instruction is contradicted by the Travel

CLIN definition in the RFP (e.g., CLIN 1007, p. 8) that states: “Travel reimbursement is at actual costs only, no indirect costs or profit is allowed.”

Suggestion: Amend both the CLIN definition and the PWS instruction to state that billable travel costs may include the applicable contractor’s indirect burdens in accordance with its approved cost disclosure statement, exclusive without profit.

The travel CLIN definition and PWS paragraph 7.3.1 have been updated to eliminate the contradiction.

57 PWS 143 Enclosure G Will the Government provide a projected number of CMEs required to support PWS Section 5.2.9? Enclosure G on page 143 of the PWS has been modified with two changes as follows in response to this question:

#1. PWS Section 5.2.9 is support to

TRADOC G-2's Deep Future OE cell. The projected number of required CMEs is revised from "Unavailable" to "2".

#2. As a related change, the projected number of required CMEs to support PWS

Section 5.2.1 (Support to ACE Futures

Directorate) is reduced from "4" to "2".

58 PWS 64 5.3.4 STATEMENT: Are there particular data policies and standards that the Government directs the contractor to follow?

DoD and Army data policies include: Army

Data Strategy dated Feb 2016, The Enterprise

Data Analytics Strategy for Army business

2018-2022, and DoD Digital Modernization

Strategy dated Jul 2019.

59 PWS 65 5.3.4.1.2 STATEMENT: Can the Government provide example data sources and technologies used? Examples of data sources and technologies include: websites using a RSS or API and file upload for .pdf, .pptx, .xlsx, and .docx.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

60 PWS 67 5.3.4.4 STATEMENT: Can the work be performed remotely from the contractor location to best optimize labor mix and available resources?

Yes, work may be performed remotely from the Contractor site to best optimize labor mix and available resources.

61 RFP L.4.1.6 “The Offeror shall disclose all subcontractors the Offeror proposes using for performance of services under the MAIDIQ”.

Please clarify this requirement, as it is our understanding that this is not going to be a MAIDIQ.

This is not a MAIDIQ requirement. This langauge has been removed.

62 RFP CLIN 0003 and subsequent years

Allowing Government customer and contractor flexibility between labor categories helps ensure successful tasking and work performance. Therefore, we recommend allowing variation between labor categories in approved Technical LOIs when executing T&M Support Services as long as total approved labor cost is not exceeded.

This is a post-award concern. If a change is needed to a Tech LOI, it shall be coordinated with the COR. However, it is unclear as to why a Tech LOI would require revisions unless the Government requirement changes from what was initially requested.

63 RFP CLIN 0008 and subsequent years

Travel Costs

Section states that no indirect costs may be applied. This appears to be in conflict with FAR Part 31 and contractors DCAA approved Accounting Systems. Recommend the MICC reconsider this to state the same as CLIN 0007 ODCs: Burdened with G&A only.

The travel description has been updated.

64 PWS

RFP

Encl G, p 143

Section L

To allow offerers the opportunity to provide the government the best practical and flexible solution, recommend in addition to the labor categories listed in the draft PWS, the Government allow Offerors to propose additional labor categories.

The T&M labor categories shall remain as detailed in Enclosure H. Each labor category has a specific set of duties and minimum qualifications to provide a clear set of expectations and standards.

65 RFP L.4.3.1.4. Tab E -

Past Performance

References

Section states, “In Volume III, Tab E of its proposal, the Offeror shall identify a minimum of four (4) and a maximum of six (6) recent and relevant past performance references the Offeror, and/or its

Teaming Partner(s), performance as a Prime or as a subcontractor.”

The past performance instructions establish breadth and depth of offeror capabilities to perform the full scope of work to reduce the risk of execution failure. The uniqueness of the G2 Core work scope;

however, may prevent potential bidders from identifying a minimum of four relevant past performance references. Recommend government require a minimum of 3 (not 4) Past Performance citations, and specify that at least 1 must be from the Prime.

The Government does not accept this recommendation of requiring 3 references and requiring 1 from the Prime. Past performance references are considered from the prime and its teaming partners to allow maximum participation and from the team.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

66 RFP CLIN Table T&M CORE Support Services

Would the Government please clarify if they will be providing the ceiling amounts for the offerors to propose or if this amount will only be provided at award?

A ceiling amount has been added to the CLIN description.

67 RFP L.4.5.1 Does the Government expect to see a full cost buildup of each FFP CLIN as part of “required and necessary data to support its proposed prices”? If so, can the offerors provide this detailed pricing in additional tabs within the Attachment 4 Pricing Workbook?

Yes, and yes.

68 RFP &

Pricing

Workbook

L.4.5.3

Tab C

This section requires the offeror to provide a prime hourly rate and subcontractor hourly rate for each

LCAT. Could the offeror propose a single T&M rate for each labor category that covers both the

Prime and Subcontractors?

No, separate rates shall be provided in accordance with FAR 52.216-29 as supplemented by DFARS 252.216-7002, Alternate A.

69 RFP L.4.5.3.2 This paragraph states “To facilitate proposal preparation, the Government has provided the formulas to calculate the Total Evaluated Price in Attachment 4 – Pricing Workbook.”

Please confirm that the Government intends to provide calculations in the final version of Attachment

4.

Attachment 4 has been updated. However, while formulas are provided in the workbook it is the responsibility of the Offeror to submit a complete and accurate Price

Proposal. If an Offeror identifies an error in

Attachment 4, the Offeror should correct the error and disclose the error and correction in the price narrative.

70 RFP Table M.3.7b The Good rating states “TCV (>36% up to 37% SB participation)”.

For consistency, recommend the upper value in column 5 for “Good” be “TCV )>36% up to 38% SB participation”. This will better correspond to the “>38%” for the “Outstanding” minimum requirement.

This percentage has been updated.

71 Pricing

Workbook

Instructions Tab

Section B

Worksheet

States that “Offerors shall not change the Government not-to-exceed dollar amount provided for

Travel, ODCs, and T&M.”

However, the Government did not provide values for the T&M CLINS. Recommend the Government provide the T&M not-to-exceed dollar amounts in the final version.

These NTE values have been provided.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

72 Pricing

Workbook

Breakdown Tab

Labor Categories

Column

Each row represents pricing for a single PWS element which could require multiple labor categories, hours, and burdened rates. Recommend the offeror be allowed to include a separate line for each labor category. Same question for the Labor Hours and Burdened Rate.

The Offeror may add lines as needed, so long as the minimum required information is clearly provided.

73 Pricing

Workbook

Breakdown Tab

Option Year

Prices

The Option Period proposed prices do not provide the same buildup components as the Base Period. Is the Government expecting these values to only include escalation off the Base Year Pricing? This seems unlikely given that the labor mix is likely to change based on efficiencies gained as well as process improvements that are implemented.

While formulas are provided in the workbook, it is the responsibility of the

Offeror to submit a complete and accurate

Price Proposal. If an Offeror identifies an error in Attachment 4, the Offeror should correct the error and disclose the error and correction in the price narrative per the solicitation.

74 RFP L.4.4.1 NAICS Code 541990 has been revised effective 19 August 2019—is the small business size standard

$16.5M vs previous $15.0M

The NAICS small business size standard has been updated.

75 RFP L.4.3.1.1 Tab B If a subcontractor receives less than 25% of the proposed effort and has provided its Past Performance, will they need to provide a Consent Letter as well?

The percentage has been removed.

76 RFP Section L

4.2.2.1; Section

M.3.5.1

Offeror recognizes the importance to the Government’s mission described in the four (4) specified

PWS subtask functional areas. However, an offeror’s ability to address the technical approach for these four functional areas, while important, does not indicate its ability to address a program with the size, scope and complexity of the entire G2 TRADOC Core PWS which places unnecessary risk on the government of unsuccessful program performance. Recommend the government consider including all

26 functional areas (there are 26 total PWS subtasks) in the Technical Approach to enhance the opportunity for each offeror to demonstrate its ability to execute successfully. This would also allow the government to assess each offeror’s understanding of the contract complexity and its ability to execute and manage a program with the depth and breadth of the entire PWS G2 Core scope with minimal risk?

No, the Government will not request a technical response pertaining to all functional areas of the PWS.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

77 M.3.6.4.2 Given the importance of the four (4) specified PWS functional areas to the Government, how will risk of performance be assessed for offerors that are unable to address all four required functional areas?

If the government maintains its position on this criteria, we recommend the government decrease its risk exposure by tightening the scope evaluation to reflect “A reference which demonstrates similar experience in four (4) of the four (4) identified requirements in M.3.5.1 will be considered to have essentially the same scope. A reference which demonstrates similar experience in three (3) of the four

(4) identified requirements will be considered similar in scope. A reference which demonstrates similar experience in two (2) of the four (4) identified requirements will be considered somewhat similar in scope. A reference which demonstrates similar experience in one (1) of the four (4) identified requirements will be considered minimally similar in scope. A reference which does not demonstrate similar experience in any of the four (4) identified requirements will be considered not relevant.

This area has been rewritten.

79 RFP M.3.6.4.2 Under the current Section M criteria, a five-year program that is five years old valued at $1M per year would be deemed similar in magnitude (i.e., $5M total value). The actual size of this contract would be several times larger than $5M total (or $1M per year). That increase in size introduces significant program/contract complexity and results in additional risk to the Government.

Additionally, as currently written, the solicitation does not require past performance references for the prime offeror. Because a prime has broad program responsibilities that extend beyond simply executing on functional areas (i.e., coordination among all team members; staffing; quality control;

schedule and risk management; subcontract management), it would benefit the Government to require at minimum one past performance from the prime offeror to demonstrate their ability to manage a similarly sized program.

To address both points, we recommend the Government consider adding the requirement that the offeror provide at least one relevant past performance reference with an average annual value of $30M or more.

This area has been rewritten.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

80 To increase competition and level the knowledge base, will the Government establish an electronic

“reading room” with all TRADOC G-2 OE CORE program documentation?

A reading room is not available.

81 RFP L.4.2.2.3 TAB F Will the Government provide details as to what is currently being used for the Integrated Decision

Support Tool? (e.g. is it a Government solution or proprietary contactor provided tool, name of the

IDST, etc.)

See response to Question #132.

82 RFP L.4.3.1.4.3.1.

M.3.6.4.1

Will the government please clarify the years of experience for recency. Currently, the years for recency are different between Section L and Section M. Recommend the government change the recency requirement from 3 years to 5 years in Section M to match the 5 year requirement in Section

L.

The solicitation has been corrected for clarification.

83 RFP L.4.3.1.4.1. For Past Performance, will the Government allow a project reference that consolidates multiple TO references issued under a master contract vehicle that is a single award IDIQ as long as the individual

TO references are from the same client/company/agency and demonstrate interrelated requirements?

The Government will accept a project reference that consolidates multiple TO references ONLY if the scope is the same and is considered to be a 'follow-on' action.

84 PWS 1.4.1.2 Will the Government clarify incumbent vs. incoming contractor responsibilities during the Phase-Out period articulated in PWS paragraph 1.4.1.2?

PWS paragraph 1.4.1.2 has been slightly modified. This paragraph pertains to the incumbent Contractor as the incoming

Contractor will be performing in accordance with the phase-in requirements at PWS paragraph 1.4.1.1. The incumbent Contractor is responsible for full performance as well as various out-processing tasks as stated in

1.4.1.2. The incumbent Contractor is

expected to perform in a manner to facilitate a smooth transition (i.e.: avoid obstruction of phase-in/transition period).

85 RFP L.4.5.1. Will the Government confirm that Subcontractors are not required to submit their pricing separately to the Government, e.g. the requirement is optional?

See response to Question #49.

Page

Number Para/ Sec.# Questions/Comment Govt Responses/Notes

86 RFP Section L.4.4., paragraph

L.4.4.4.1.

The successful offeror must meet the 36% minimum small business participation requirement on an annual basis. Since the 36% requirement is based on total contract value (base and all options combined) and given there could be fluctuations in subcontractor participation from year to year, would the Government consider allowing an offeror to fall below the 36% threshold in a given year if prior or subsequent years participation exceeds 36%?

This appears to be a post-award question. The

Government will evaluate the Offeror's adherance to the subcontracting requirements each year using eSRS. Justifications for fluctuations will be reviewed and a determination will be made based on the circumstances.

87 RFP L.4.5.3. The instructions require a prime hourly rate AND subcontractor hourly rate for each LCAT. Is the

Government seeking a single subcontractor rate for each LCAT that applies to all subcontractors, or is the Government seeking a separate rate for each subcontractor for each LCAT, per DFAR 252.216-

7002 Alt A? Recommend the Government seek a single subcontractor rate for each LCAT and make that rate clear in the final RFP.

A separate rate for the prime and each subcontractor for each LCAT is required in accordance with DFARS 252.216-7002

Alternate A.

88 RFP L.4.3.1.4.4.1 &

L.4.3.1.4.4.2

Recommend if CPAR exists, that be the only requirement for that Past Performance reference to be submitted by offerors. Rationale: CPARS.gov states, "Government officials use multiple sources of information when making award decisions. Agencies are instructed to use the Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to create and measure the quality and timely reporting of performance information."

The performance assessment and other information required by the solicitation is required in order to be considered in compliance with submitttal instructions.

89 PWS 5.1.1.2 The main paragraph states 3 platforms/networks. However, the sub paragraph 5.1.1.2.2 states 7 distinct networks. Please list all 7 and their operating status.

The language in the PWS par 5.1.1.2 has been revised to be clear. There are 8 distinct networks and they are listed in para 5.1.1.2.2

90 RFP

PWS

M.3.5.1/ PWS

area 5.1.1.1

What helpdesk ticketing system is being used, and what are required helpdesk hours for both Ft. Eustis and Ft. Leavenworth?

S…