W911S0-19-R-0002-0004 Amendment - Released.pdf

W911S019R0002

0011284476

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. The purpose of this modification is to provide answ ers to questions submitted by Industry.

2.The Government has provided fifty (50) responses to questions received from Industry. (See SF30 Continuation Page). The remaining responses w ill be provided in a subsequent amendment.

3. As a result of Government responses to industry questions the PWS and Section L are revised. Please see attached highlighted areas.

4. Point of contact for this amendment is Ms. Natisha Felix, natisha.m . felix.civ@mail.mil, 757-501-8164.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 71

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Apr-2020

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W911S019R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Feb-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

27-Mar-2020

CODE

MICC - FORT EUSTIS

705 WASHINGTON BLVD

FORT EUSTIS VA 23604

W911S0 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTION & ANSWER RESPONSES

1. Reference: Section L.6.1 (RFP Page 119) Small Business Participation.

Discussion: The RFP states, “For estimating purposes at the IDIQ Contract Level, offerors shall use the $240M IDIQ ceiling over the five-year ordering period and assume an even distribution of funded work annually.”

Question: Is it the Government’s intent to have Offeror’s Plans assume three IDIQ contract awards, making an even distribution of work per awardee $80M over the five-year ordering period (i.e., $16M/year)?

Government Response: Yes, for estimating purposes at the IDIQ Contract Level, offerors shall use the $240M IDIQ ceiling over the five-year ordering period and assume an even distribution of funded work annually for the three IDIQ contract awards. Please note:

Section M.1.1 also states the Government contemplates awarding a ‘target’ of three (3) IDIQ contracts as result of this solicitation; however, it reserves the right to award more, less or none at all. For estimating purposes Offerors shall assume three (3) IDIQ contract awards will be issued.

2. Reference: L.6.1.1 (RFP Page 119) Discussion: Small Business Subcontracting Plan includes the following note, “**The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted as an individual file, separate from the Small Business Participation Proposal submission.”

Question: Will the Government clarify if the 10 page limit for Volume 4 applies to the combination of the Small Business Participation Plan and the Small Business Participation Proposal?

Government Response: The 10 page limit in Volume 4 applies only to Small Business Participation. It EXCLUDES the Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

3. Reference: RFP Section L.3.3. TAB C: Element 3. Key Personnel (RFP Page 116).

Question: Is there a page limit or preferred length for resumes included for PM and

APM?

Government Response: The Government does not have a page limit nor a preferred length for resumes.

4. Reference: RFP Section L.5 Volume 3; Past Performance (RFP Page 116)

Question: Please confirm that CPARS are excluded from the 10-page limit for the volume.

Government Response: CPARS reports are excluded from the 10 page limit for Volume 3

- Past Performance.

5. Reference: RFP Section L.5 Volume 3: Past Performance (RFP Page 116-117).

Question: Can the Government confirm that an IDIQ contract may only be used in a single reference, with the allowance for any number of relevant task orders to be combined within that single use? This means the three incumbents would be limited to a single use of their current contract, and does not unfairly favor incumbents from using the current contract multiple times. Additionally, an IDIQ contract may only be used by the prime that holds/held the contract. This eliminates the risk for repetitive citations across multiple offerors/teaming structures.

Government Response: Section L.5, Volume 3 – Past Performance. Section L.5.2 has been updated to reflect each task order performed under an IDIQ shall be considered a separate past performance reference.

6. Reference: RFP Section L.5.3.3.2 Volume 3: Past Performance (RFP Page 117).

Question: Please confirm that SF 294 and SF 295 (or Individual Subcontracting and Summary Subcontracting Reports in eSRS) information is exempt from the 10-page limit from the volume.

Government Response: The SF 294 and SF 295 are EXCLUDED from the 10 Page limit.

7. Reference: RFP Section L.5.5 Volume 3: Past Performance (RFP Page 117).

Discussion: Additional Submission Requirements.

Question: Please confirm information required in this sections (i.e., Consent Letters, L.5.5.2. Commercial Client Authorization Letters and L.5.5.3. Organization Structure Change History) is exempt from the 10-page limit from the volume.

Government Response: The Consent Letters, Commercial Client Authorization Letters and Organization Structure Change History are EXEMPTED from the 10 page Limit.

8. Reference: RFP Section M.6.4.4.2 Volume 3: Past Performance (RFP Page 126-127).

Questions: Is the Government making an individual evaluation of relevance, specific to all 5 Task Areas, for each past performance reference?

Government Response: The Government will make one relevancy determination for each past performance reference in accordance with paragraph M.6.4.4.2 of the solicitation.

9. Reference: RFP Section M.6.4.4.1 Volume 3: Past Performance (RFP Page 126).

Questions:

a) Is it the Government's intent with Section M.6.4.4.1 (Recency), to exclude evaluation of any work performed prior to 19 March 2017?

b) If it is the Government's intent to exclude evaluation of work performed prior to 19 March 2017, then how does the Government plan to evaluate recent past performance references that have Periods of Performance that originated prior to 19 March 2017, but have not yet ended, or ended within the past three years?

c) Will the Government only evaluate the years on the past performance reference that only fall within the past three years for magnitude?

Government Response: The Government intends to exclude from consideration any past performance experience performed prior to 19 March 2017. In the case of a past performance reference which began prior to 19 March 2017, that portion of performance which was performed after 19 March 2017, may be considered when determining recency, relevancy, and quality

10. Reference: RFP Section M.6.4.4.1 Volume 3: Past Performance (RFP Page 126).

Question: Will the Government consider revising its definition of recent to more simply state, "work completed or ongoing within the past 3 years of the solicitation close date"?

Government Response: The Government will not revise the definition of recency.

11. Reference: RFP Section M.6.4.4.2 Volume 3: Past Performance (RFP Page 126-127).

Question: Will the Government consider weighting "relevance" more favorably in the following order:

1. Army

2. Other DoD

3. Other Federal

4. Commercial/non-Government

Government Response: The Government will not consider weighting relevance based on the requiring activity.

12. Reference: L.3.3. TAB C: Element 3. Key Personnel.

Discussion: The Offeror shall provide letters of commitment for the proposed PM and

APM.

Question: Will the Government please confirm that Letters of Commitment are excluded from the page count?

Government Response: Commitment Letters are EXCLUDED from the page count.

13. Reference: Section L.5.5.3. Structure Change History

Question: Please confirm that Consent Letter are outside the page limits.

Discussion: Organization Structure Change History. The Offeror shall provide information regarding the organization structure change history of the Offeror and its Teaming Partners.

Question: Will the Government please confirm that the requirement to provide Organization Structure Change History for teaming partners only applies to teaming partners submitting a Past Performance reference?

Government Response: Offerors are required to include in its past performance volume a chart or schedule describing all such changes in the organization of the Offeror and “Teaming Partners” over the past three years. Offeror shall show how these changes impact the relevance of any “identified” past performance efforts. The Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror(s), Organization Structure Change History must be both specifically applicable to the efforts “identified” by the Offeror in the past performance volume of its proposal, and “general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources”.

14. Reference: RFP Section M.6.4.4.2 Volume 3: Past Performance (RFP Page 126-127).

Question: How does the Government intend to evaluate magnitude with respect to the $240M shared capacity of the new requirement, as the collective work of the incumbents is approximately 60% of this contract value? Ref: Booz Allen Hamilton ($64.7M) | Cubic (Valiant) ($37.8M) | Janus Research Group ($34.8M) (according to GovWin).

Government Response: Magnitude will be evaluated using the dollar amount of work actually performed on the past performance reference under the relevant time period established by the solicitation. A past performance reference with a magnitude of approximately $8 Million or more per year under the relevant time period established by the solicitation shall be considered of similar or greater magnitude to the Solicitation.

15. Reference: RFP Section M.6.4.4.2 Volume 3: Past Performance (RFP Page 126-127).

Question: Can the Government define how it intends to evaluate magnitude for a single past performance reference?

Government Response: Magnitude is defined as combined OR individual (Prime, Sub-contractor or Business Relationship) work effort that demonstrates that the Offeror has managed performance similar to the tasks in the MATOC PWS with a dollar value equal to $8 Million or more. Magnitude will be evaluated using the dollar amount of work actually performed on the past performance reference under the relevant time period established by the solicitation.

16. Reference: RFP Section M.6.4.4.2 Volume 3: Past Performance (RFP Page 126-127).

Question: Is it the Government’s intent to evaluate magnitude for all past performance references submitted?

Government Response: The Government will assess each recent past performance reference submission to determine its similarity in scope and magnitude relative to this requirement.

17. Reference: RFP Section M.6.4.4 Volume 3: Past Performance (RFP Page 126-127).

Discussion: The Government intends to evaluate Past Performance for 1. Recency, 2.

Relevancy (Scope and Magnitude), and 3. Quality.

Questions:

a) Will the Government clarify if each individual reference is evaluated across these elements?

b) Will the Government clarify if there is an overall evaluation for each of the three elements on the total composite collection of references provided?

c) If there is an individual evaluation for each reference for 1. Recency, 2. Relevancy (Scope & Magnitude), and 3. Quality, will the Government further define "Scope"?

d) If there is an individual evaluation for each reference for 1. Recency, 2. Relevancy (Scope & Magnitude), and 3. Quality, will the Government further define "Magnitude" as it relates to an individual reference?

Government Responses:

(a) The Government will evaluate each past performance reference for Recency. Only those past performance references determined Recent will be further evaluated for Relevancy and included in the overall evaluation of Quality to determine the past performance assessment rating.

(b) The Government will not perform an overall evaluation of Recency and Relevancy.

The Government will perform an overall evaluation of Quality to determine the past performance assessment rating. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, considering general trends, source of information, and usefulness of the information, and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment rating. In determining the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance, the Government shall consider the offeror’s business relations, quality of service, schedule, customer satisfaction, and compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9.

For the combined references provided the Government will establish ONE performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

(c) Scope is the measure of similarity of the scope of the MATOC PWS and the Offeror’s past performance. Scope shall be assessed by comparing the requirement to perform the 5 PWS Task Areas to the Offeror’s past performance reference.

(d) Magnitude is the measure of the similarity of the dollar value that exists between the current requirement and the past performance reference. Magnitude will be evaluated using the dollar amount of work actually performed on the past performance reference under the relevant time period established by the solicitation. Magnitude is defined as combined OR individual (Prime, Sub-contractor or Business Relationship) work effort that demonstrates that the Offeror has performed work similar to the tasks in the MATOC PWS with a dollar value equal to approximately $8 Million or more.

18. Reference: L.5.3.1 and L.5.3.3.2

Discussion: "L.5.3.1. For each past performance reference, the Offeror shall provide a copy of all completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs). L.5.3.3.2.

For Large Businesses, the Offeror, or Teaming Partner, shall include SF 294 and SF 295 (or Individual Subcontracting and Summary Subcontracting Reports in eSRS) information for Government contracts with these reporting requirements for the last three years limited to 3 references. Provide the approved subcontracting plans and teaming agreements and explanations of any shortfalls and plans to increase small business participation. Provide any information concerning long term relationships with small business subcontractors, such as mentor protégé agreements. "

Question: Will the Government please confirm that this information is excluded from the page count?

Government Response: CPARS, SF 294 and SF 295’s are excluded from the 10 page limit for Volume 3 – Past Performance.

19. Reference: L.2.2

Discussion: Proposal Format. Each volume shall have a cover sheet clearly marked as to volume number, title, solicitation identification and the offeror's name. All text shall be single spaced. Printing shall be easily readable (12-pitch type or 10 point proportional spacing). 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: Will the Government please consider inserting the Volume # after the offeror name in the file naming convention?

Government Response: Yes, the Government will include Volume # in the file naming convention? File names shall be “Company Name – Volume #, Initial” for the submission. File name of later submissions (if necessary), shall be “Company Name – Volume #, Revision X with X indicating the number of the revision.

20. Reference: RFP

Discussion: Contract Start Date

Question: Will the Government please provide an anticipated start date for the contract, in order for the Offerors to provide consistency in the Pricing model?

Government Response: For purposes of consistency Offerors shall use the contract start date of 1 Oct 2020.

21. Reference L.5. Volume 3: Factor 3 Past Performance, L.5.5.1 Consent Letters. Page 118

Discussion: The RFP requires the Offeror to provide Consent Letters authorizing the release of past performance information executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner that will perform 25% or more of the proposed effort.

Question: What is the intent of this requirement, ie if they are doing less than 25% do they not need to submit a consent letter? Is this somehow tied to what is sometimes called a major vs minor subcontractor (this is not mentioned anywhere else in the RFP)?

Can the government please clarify the 25% performance goal?

Government Response: The Offeror shall provide Consent Letters authorizing the release of past performance information executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner that will perform 25% or more of the proposed effort.

22. Reference: L.5. Volume 3: Factor 3 Past Performance. Page 117

Discussion: The RFP does not specify if only task order/stand-alone contracts are acceptable as valid Past Performance contracts.

Question: Is it allowable to use an IDIQ and consolidate multiple task orders under one Past Performance?

Government Response: No, each past performance reference provided must be associated with a specific Task Order/Delivery Order or stand-alone contract.

23. Reference: RFP (Page 1-125)

Discussion: The RFP has changed drastically from the Draft RFP, with 50+ new requirements in PWS Section 5 alone.

Question: Will the government consider allowing two more weeks for submission, in order to allow bidders ample time to provide the best possible solution?

Government Response: The RFP proposal due date is extended to April 23, 2020, 10:00 a.m. EST.

24. Reference: Part 1 – General Information, 1.6.7.5.3 Security Requirements (Page 9)

Discussion: The RPF states: Contractor personnel (to include Subcontractors) performing work under this contract must be US Citizens, shall have the appropriate security clearance at time of individual Request for Task Order proposal submission.

Question: What is the minimal security level for contractors and subcontractors?

Government Response: The minimum security clearance required for contractor and subcontractor employees is Secret. Additionally, the RFP requires a Top Secret Facility Clearance, in accordance with RFP paragraph 1.6.7.5.3, and RFP Attachment 3, DD 254.

25. Reference: Part 5 – Specific Tasks, 5.2.5.7.11 surge capability - Page 33

Discussion: The RPF states: The contractor shall be capable of providing expandable teams to support surge requirements for both prototyping and simulation experiments.

The contractor shall periodically augment the team with surge personnel. Surge personnel are temporary in nature.

Question: What is the estimated surge requirement per location?

Government Response: JMC conducts physical integration and evaluations of the network, capability packages, and other adaptive core capabilities to provide Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy (DOTMLPF-P) and provides recommendations to the Army.

JMC requires contractor support to provide expert analysis, planning, assessments, and execution. JMC surge requirements will change from event to event. JMC may require senior level specialized skills and experience to assist in higher and lower levels of command. JMC may need surge assistance in many specialized areas that are not required or authorized on the JMC TDA. Such as: Senior Air Defense, Cyber, Electronic Warfare (EW), Information Operations (IO), Information Warfare (IW) ETC.

JMC surge locations – All across United States (CONUS), USEUCOM and

USINDOPACOM (OCONUS).

Surge requirements will be determined at the task order level.

26. Reference: PWS Para 5.3.1.9 - Page 35

Discussion: Regarding the FORGE database used by the Futures Integration Division (FID) and referenced multiple places throughout the PWS (first referenced in Para 5.3.1.9)

Question: Is this database part of the DISA-provided services available through FORGE.mil or is this a database unique to the AFC?

Government Response: The Forge database referenced in this PWS is an AFC unique database and application designed to support tasks within the top down futures development process.

27. Reference: PWS Para 5.3.1.14 - Page 35

Question: What is meant by the term “Vertical Modernization” used in the PWS, Paragraph 5.3.1.14? It does not appear to be part of the “2019 Army Modernization Strategy – Investing in the Future”?

Government Response: The term vertical integration (and vertical modernization) is used to describe integration of DOTMLPF-P solutions across echelons within formations for MDO Force Aim Point designs (e.g. Theater, Corps, Division, Brigade, etc.). This also includes integration within a functional domain (e.g. Maneuver, Fires, Sustainment, etc.)

with horizontal integration being across functional domains and formations within the same echelons.

28. Reference: Section L.7 - Page 120

Question: Will teammates be required to submit pricing to the government in a separate sealed package?

Government Response: Teaming partners and subcontractors may separately submit their pricing proposals in accordance with RFP paragraph L.1.4 and Amendment 0002, which provided that proposals may be submitted by electronic mail only. The Teaming Partner’s or Subcontractor’s email must clearly identify the name of the Prime Contractor they are partnering with on the requirement.

29. Reference: Section L.2.1 - Page 113

Question: Would the government consider increasing the page limit for Volume II:

Technical Approach? Responding to all of the PWS Requirements in five Task Areas is difficult within the 30 page limit.

Government Response: The Government will increase the page limit for Volume II “Technical Approach” from 30 pages to 40 pages.

30. Reference: Page 115, paragraph numbers L.2.1 and L.2.2

Discussion: Require the Offeror to submit digital copies of the proposal on CD-ROM Disk/DVD. Please consider the following:

Questions:

a) Given the tight turnaround between the solicitation’s release date and the submission date, would the Government consider eliminating the requirement for the offeror to provide digital copies on CD-ROM Disk/DVD?

b) If not, would the Government consider allowing digital copies on CD-ROM Disk/DVD to be submitted a few days after the email submission deadline?

Government Responses: Due to the COVID 19 Novel pandemic, hand-delivery of CD ROM Disk or DVDs are no longer accepted by the Government. In accordance to solicitation amendment W911S019R0002-0002, proposals shall be submitted by email only. proposals shall be submitted by email only. Offerors are cautioned that in the event an electronically submitted proposals is not received by the exact time specified for receipt of offers, the Government will follow the requirements of FAR 52.215-1, incorporated in the RFP by reference, in determining whether the proposal may be considered. For this reason, it is recommended, but not required, that an offeror confirm electronic receipt of its proposal by the Government prior to the date and time specified for receipt of offers in the RFP and Amendments.

31. Reference: PWS - Page 116, L.2.2 (j)

Discussion: “The documents will be formatted in a standard business font (Arial, Times New Roman, Courier New) with a 12-point font.”

Question: Would the Government consider allowing a smaller size font, but still legible, for graphics, diagrams, charts, and other figures?

Government Response: Letter size and spacing requirements for illustrations and tables can be at the discretion of the offeror but must be easily readable. See RFP paragraph L.2.2(j).

32. Reference: Page 116, L.2.2 (j) - PWS

Discussion: “Page limits do not include cover, resumes. On the same page, under L.3.3.

Tab C: Element 3. Key Personnel, the PWS states: “The offeror shall provide resumes of key personnel”

Question: Would the Government please confirm that the resumes for each proposed key personnel are not included in the 30-page limit for Volume I?

Government Response: Page Limits do not include covers, resumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages and cross reference indices if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. Pages will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted.

33. Reference: Page 2, Section B.1.4

Discussion: The IDIQ Contract Ceiling is $240,000,000. The Instructions for Attachment 8, Pricing Worksheet, indicate the Offeror’s proposed Labor Categories’ fully burdened hourly rates and the estimated annual hours of services to be acquired under the contract, as well as not to exceed (NTE) amounts for the material and travel other direct costs (ODC), will constitute the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price in Section B. As the fully burdened hourly rates are ceilings, it is possible that applying the required Level of Effort included in Attachment 8 will result in a Total Evaluated Price that exceeds the stated contract ceiling of $240,000,000.

Question: Can the Government please confirm that the required Level of Effort is illustrative and that the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price is not bound by the IDIQ Ceiling of $240,000,000?

Government Response: While the indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) multiple-award task order contracts (MATOCs) awarded under this RFP will have a collective ceiling of $240M for an ordering period of five years, there is no requirement than an offeror propose a total evaluated price (TEP) equal to or less than $240M.

Attachment 8, FCC Pricing Sheet, will be incorporated into the award. Should a contract be issued to the offeror, the final proposed labor category rates will become the maximum rate allowable (ceiling rate) for each labor category under the resultant contract when pricing task orders (TOs) and TO modifications under the IDIQ MATOC.

The proposed fully burdened labor (ceiling) rates may not be adjusted except as provided by FAR Clause 52.222-43. However, the actual labor hours reflected in Attachment 8, FCC Pricing Sheet, used to calculate the TEP, are illustrative and may not reflect actual labor hours performed under the IDIQ MATOC after award.

34. Reference: Page 71, Section I

Discussion: 52.222-42, the wage information provided on Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires, appears to include both base salaries plus fringe benefits combined.

Question: If this is the case, would the Government please provide salaries and benefits separately, or indicate what percentage of the total amount are benefits?

Government Response: No, the information provide in Clause 52.222-42 was provided “FOR INFORMATION ONLY: IT IS NOT A WAGE DETERMINATION”. Offeror’s are responsible for providing salary and benefit information for proposed labor categories.

35. Reference: PWS Paragraph 5.5

Discussion: The final version of the PWS refers to support to materiel solution development and prototyping specifically. PWS Task 5.5.1 indicates offerors must be prepared to “pursue required Army materiel capabilities using early and repetitive prototyping.” A reasonable interpretation of PWS 5.5.1 would be that awarded offerors would be expected to expand their support to FCC to include development of materiel systems solutions. That would represent a significant change to FCC operations.

Question: Will the Government please clarify if awarded offerors will be expected to develop materiel systems and solutions as part of the FCC effort? Will the Government please clarify if the current NAICS, 541690, is the correct NAICS should Materiel System development be required under the MATOC?

Government Response: The awarded offerors will NOT be expected to develop materiel systems and solutions as part of the FCC effort. This refers to the overall objectives of AFC and its TDFDP to pursue prototyping as a means to achieve positive materiel development outcomes. The NAICS code for this requirement is 541690.

36. Reference: RFP Paragraphs L.2.1 and L.2.2

Discussion: Paragraph L.2.1 references the page limits for each volume. Paragraph L.2.2.(j.) directs the use of 8.5 x 11-inch paper. Tables, graphics, and charts, providing large amounts of information can be more efficiently provided in 11 x 17-inch fold out paper.

Question: Will the Government allow offerors to use 11 x 17-inch paper for large tables and graphics? If so, will each 11 x 17 page count as 1 or 2 pages in the page count?

Government Response: A page shall be an 8 ½ X 11” sheet of paper.

37. Reference: RFP Paragraph L.4

Discussion: Paragraph L.4 indicates that the offerors “shall demonstrated experience in performing all five task areas”. Volume II is limited to 30 pages maximum, limiting the ability to show understanding, capability to perform, risks/risk mitigation, and experience for all five task areas. At the same time, Volume III, Past Performance, includes 10 pages demonstrating offerors experience.

Question: Will the Government also use Volume III, Past Performance, to assess offerors experience and the overall evaluation for Volume II, MATOC Technical Approach? Or will only the “experience” detailed in Volume II be considered? If only Volume II information will be considered to evaluate experience can the Government define what they consider to be the differences between the Volume II “Experience” and the Volume III “Past Performance?

Government Response: Experience is what (work) the offeror has done, and past performance is how well the offeror did it. The Government will not consider information contained in an offeror’s proposal Volume III, Past Performance, when evaluating and rating the offeror’s proposal for Evaluation Factor 2 – MATOC Technical Approach, which should be reflected in Volume II of the offeror’s proposal.

The Government will evaluate offeror’s proposal Volume II, Factor 2 - MATOC Technical Approach, to determine if the offeror has a clear understanding of the five (5) PWS Task Areas and has the capability to perform them successfully. By contract, the Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s and its teaming partner’s recent and relevant past performance to determine the offeror’s probability of performing the solicitation’s requirements.

38. Reference: RFP Paragraph L.5.2

Discussion: Paragraph L.5.2 directs that all past performance efforts must be performed “during the past three (3) years prior to the date for receipt of offers”. Typical DoD RFPs allow the use of past performance conducted during the past 5 years, particularly for large IDIQ contracts that have the potential of having multiple tasks that are relevant.

Allowing 5 years also potentially increases the number of offerors that can submit proposals, thus increasing the competition.

Question: Will the Government allow to provide Past Performance for efforts that have been conducted for at least 6 months during the past five (5) years prior to the date for receipt of offers?

Government Response: To be recent, an effort must have performed for six (6) months or longer during the three (3) years prior to the date for receipt of offers.

39. Reference: RFP Paragraphs L.2.2.(i) and L.3.3

Discussion: L.3.3 requires the offeror to provide resumes and letters of commitment for the Program Manager and the Alternate Program Manager. Typically, letters of commitment are only required when an individual is not currently employed by the Offeror. Also, the letters of commitment are not specifically mentioned as being excluded from page limits in L.2.2.(i), even though resumes are excluded.

Question: Will the Government please confirm that letters of commitment for the PM and APM are only required if the proposed individuals are not currently employed by the Offeror? Additionally, will the Government please confirm that any required letters of commitment are excluded from page limits and add them to the language in RFP Paragraph L.2.2.(i)?

Government Response: The Offeror shall provide letters of commitment for the proposed PM and APM. Letters of commitments are EXCLUDED from the page count.

40. Reference: PWS Paragraph 5.1.6

Discussion: The last sentence in the cited task indicates that “Contractor shall conduct end-to-end analysis of BDP-based experimentation, to include Operational Views, Technical Views and component mission threads, to inform the Army Concept Framework and requirements determination.”

Question: Given the Army’s historical use of BDP, is reference to “mission threads” meant to account for the remainder of DOTMLPF-P requirements (Training, Leadership and Education, Personnel, etc.)?

Government Response: “Mission threads” relate to architecture in this case. In addition, Battlefield Development Plan analysis of experimentation will account for all DOTMLPF-P requirements, with a focus on doctrine (how to fight), organizations, and materiel.

41. Reference: Attachment 8

Discussion: Tab “Section B”. CLINs 0002 and 0003

Question: Please confirm the plug figures of $5M for travel and $5M for ODCs are total values and not annual values.

Government Response: The $5M travel and $5M travel plug figure are for pricing purposes and do not represent annual values.

42. Reference: Attachment 8

Discussion: Tabs “Section B” and “Fixed Price Labor”. CLIN 0001 – 45 Days Phase-In Labor

Question: Please confirm that the Phase-In Hours are for IDIQ evaluation purposes only, and that any specific Phase-In requirements would be specified at the task order level.

Government Response: Yes, the Phase-In Hours are for IDIQ evaluations purposes.

There will be Phase-In requirements at the IDIQ level. Phase-In requirements will also be specified at the task order level.

43. Reference: Attachment 8

Discussion: Tab “Fixed Price Labor”

Questions:

a) Please confirm that all offerors must propose the hours per labor category exactly as prescribed in Attachment 8.

b) In order to simplify both the bidding and administration of task orders under this FFP IDIQ, please confirm that the government is seeking one team-wide ceiling labor rate per labor category.

Government Responses: Offerors shall propose for labor categories as prescribed in Attachment 8. The Government is seeking one team-wide ceiling labor rate per labor category.

44. Reference: Attachment 8 and RFP Section B

Questions:

a) Please clarify whether the Section B CLINs on page 3 are to be completed and included in the offeror’s Price Proposal, or if completing the Section B CLINs within Attachment 8 is sufficient.

b) If Section B CLINs on RFP page 3 are to be completed, please confirm that CLIN 0001 on RFP page 3 should represent the summation of the two CLIN 0001s (Phase In Labor – 45 Days + Labor – Years 1 – 5) contained in Attachment 8’s tab “Section B.”

Government Response: Offerors shall complete Section B of the RFP. CLIN 0001 pricing will represent Phase-In Labor and labor for years 1-5 (contained in Attachment 8).

45. Reference: Attachment 8 and RFP Section B. Page 3

Discussion: The IDIQ CLINs in Attachment 8 list a unit of ‘Lot’ whereas the IDIQ CLINs as provided on RFP page 3 list a Unit of ‘Each.’

Question: Please clarify which is correct and which will be used in the award of the

IDIQ.

Government Response: IDIQ CLINS 0001, 0002, and 0003 will be revised in the RFP to reflect a unit of “Lot” vs “Each”.

46. Reference: Attachment 8 and RFP Section B. Page 3

Question: Please clarify whether each CLIN’s Unit Price is to be completed and if so, confirm that given a quantity of ‘1’ the unit price should be equal to the Total Amount for each CLIN.

Government Response: The quantity of one (1) is correct. Offerors shall complete Section B of the RFP. CLIN 0001 pricing will represent Phase-In Labor and labor for years 1-5 (contained in Attachment 8).

47. Reference: Section L.7 and Attachment 8

Discussion: Section L.7.2.1 states that “In Attachment 8, the Offeror shall provide a fully burdened labor rate, including profit, for each labor category, for each year of contract performance.”

Question: Please confirm that the requirement is for a single team-wide rate per labor category to establish the MATOC ceiling rate per category. As such, please confirm that subcontractors are not required to submit a separate Attachment 8 file which contains cost detail, full MATOC estimated hours, and a completed Section B.

Government Response: In Attachment 8, the Offeror shall provide one fully burdened labor rate, including profit, for each labor category, for each year of contract performance. Should a contract be issued to the offeror, the final proposed labor category rates will become the maximum rate allowable (ceiling rate) for each labor category under the resultant contract when pricing TOs and TO modifications under the IDIQ MATOC. The proposed fully burdened labor (ceiling) rates may not be adjusted except as provided by FAR Clause 52.222-43. The offeror is not required to propose subcontractor rates for each labor category in Attachment 8.

The Solicitation incorporates FAR 52.222-46. An offeror may, but is not required to, provide subcontractor rate information in order to support its proposed Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees (TCPPE). Similarly, an offeror may provide more specific subcontractor rate information in its proposal Volume IV – Factor 4 – Small Business Participation.

48. Reference: Section L.2. Page 83

Discussion: L.2.2 (j) - Letter size and spacing requirements for illustrations and tables can be at the discretion of the offeror but must be easily readable.

Question: Based on the format of Attachment 5 can we assume the Past Performance Reference is considered a table by the government.

Government Response: Yes, Attachment 5, Past Performance Reference is considered a table.

49. Reference: Section L.5.1. Page 118

Discussion: L.5.1 - The Offeror shall identify five (5) recent and relevant past performance references the Offeror and/or its Teaming Partner(s) performed either as a Prime or Subcontractor utilizing Attachment 5 of this solicitation.

Question: Based on the format of Attachment 5 can we assume the Past Performance Reference is considered a table by the government.

Government Response: Yes, Attachment 5, Past Performance Reference is considered a table

50. Reference: VOLUME 3: Factor 3 – Past Performance L.5.3.1. Page 115

Question: Will the government allow for an introduction/summary page at the beginning of the 10-page past performance volume that will be excluded from page count?

Government Response: To Government will not allow for an introduction/summary page be excluded from the 10-page past performance volume.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0001

The unit of issue has changed from Each to Lot.

CLIN 0002

CLIN 0003

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

UNITED STATES ARMY FUTURES COMMAND (AFC)

FUTURES AND CONCEPTS CENTER

(FCC)

MISSION SUPPORT SERVICES INDEFINITE

DELIVERY/INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ)

MULTIPLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT (MATOC)

PART 1

GENERAL INFORMATIONON

1. General: This is a non-personal services Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple-Award Contract (MATOC) to provide Futures and Concepts Center (FCC) Mission Support Services (MSS). The Government anticipates a maximum ceiling value of $240M over the life of the FCC MSS IDIQ MATOC. The Government will not exercise supervision or control over contractor personnel. The Contractor is responsible for the conduct and performance of contractor personnel.

1.1 Description of Services/Introduction: The Contractor shall provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and non- personal services necessary to perform FCC MSS as defined in this Performance Work Statement (PWS) except for those items specified as Government furnished property and services. The Contractor shall perform to the standards in this contract and awarded TOs.

1.2 Background: FCC is a subordinate organization of U.S. Army Futures Command (AFC) and is located at Fort Eustis, Virginia. FCC is one of the leading organizations that assists the Army in preparing for current and future warfighting challenges. The successful development and integration of Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities and Policies (DOTMLPF-P) solutions by FCC is critical to improving the capabilities of the Army warfighter. FCC actively supports the Army's transition to a future force -one that is focused on developing adaptive leaders and organizations, modernizing equipment, and revolutionizing training. Because the combat operations in which the Army participates are inherently Joint, FCC cannot accomplish its mission in isolation. FCC must coordinate its activities with the AFC staff, TRADOC’s subordinate schools and Centers of Excellence (CoEs), other Army commands (ACOMs), the Services, and Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental and Multi- national (JIIM) partner organizations. FCC’s website can be found at https://armyfuturescommand.com/ .

1.3 Objectives: The IDIQ MATOC will acquire support services for the FCC to execute its mission to develop, evaluate, and integrate warfighting concepts, requirements, and solutions for the Army across the domains of DOTMLPF to provide Soldiers and units the capabilities they need to support Combatant Commanders’ operations in a JIIM environment. FCC requires contractor(s) with the capability to manage multiple task orders (TOs) simultaneously at multiple locations. The Contractor shall also be capable of recruiting and providing a team of highly qualified personnel that will be able to handle FCC’s complex mission requirements.

1.4 Scope: Through task orders issued under this IDIQ MATOC, the Contractor shall provide mission support services for FCC, FCC subordinate organizations, and Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of the Army (DA) agencies working initiatives in support of FCC, in the following five (5) Task Areas: Concept Development Support, Experimentation and Evaluation Support, Capability Developments Support, Information Technology, Information Management, Data Management and Graphic Design Support, and the Army Futures Command Modernization Process and Futures Development Process. FCC subordinate organizations include: G-3/5/7; Future Operational Environment and Learning Director’s Office Joint and Army Concepts Division; Future Warfare Division; Joint Wargaming Division; Sustainment Division; Maneuver, Robotics, and Soldier Division; Maneuver Support and Protection Division; Fires and Aviation Division; Mission Command, CEMA, and Intelligence Division; Combat Systems Integration Division, Architecture Integration and Management Division, the Joint Modernization Command and The Research Analysis Center (TRAC). The Contractor shall also provide assistance to any HQDA and AFC tasker which will inform and shape decisions regarding organization design and equipping of the future force

1.5 Ordering Period. The Ordering Period will be five (5) years from the date of award of the base contract. The five

(5) - year Ordering Period may be extended six (6) months in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.

Individual task orders may contain option year periods of performance.

1.6 General Information

1.6.1 Quality Control: Quality Control is the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor is responsible for the delivery of quality services to the Government). The Contractor shall develop and maintain an effective quality control program to ensure services are performed in accordance with this PWS. The Contractor shall develop and implement procedures to identify, prevent and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. The Contractor’s quality control program is the means by which he assures himself that his work complies with the requirement of the contract. See paragraph 1.6.19.3 for Quality Control Plan (QCP) requirements.

1.6.2 Quality Assurance: The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s performance under this contract in accordance with (IAW) the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). This plan is a government-only document primarily focused on what the Government will do to the ensure contractor has performed in accordance with the performance standards of the contract and issued task orders. It defines how the performance standards will be applied, the frequency of surveillance, and the minimum acceptable defect rate(s), which will further be defined at the task order level

1.6.3 Federal Government Holidays: The Contractor is not required to perform services on days when legal public holidays are observed by federal employees whose basic workweek is Monday through Friday unless an exception is specified in the individual task order. Legal public holidays are established in 5 U.S.C. §6103 and include:

New Year’s Day 1st day of January Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday 3rd Monday of January Washington’s Birthday 3rd Monday of February Memorial Day Last Monday of May Independence Day 4th day of July Labor Day 1st Monday of September Columbus Day 2nd Monday of October Veterans Day 11th day of November Thanksgiving Day 4th Thursday of November Christmas Day 25th day of December

1.6.4 Hours of Operation: Unless an exception is specified in the individual task orders, the Contractor shall conduct business between the hours of 0630 through 1830 hours Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays or when Government facilities are closed due to local or national emergencies, administrative closings, or similar Government instructed facility closings. The Contractor shall at all times maintain an adequate workforce for the uninterrupted performance of all tasks defined within individual TOs. When hiring personnel, the Contractor shall keep in mind that the stability and continuity of the workforce are essential.

1.6.5 Place of Performance: Individual task orders will specify the place of performance. However, work under this IDIQ MATOC shall be performed predominately at Government facilities on Fort Eustis, Fort Bliss, White Sands Missile Range, the National Capital Region, Fort Benning, Fort Gordon, Fort Huachuca, Fort Lee, Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leavenworth, Fort Rucker, Fort Sam Houston, Fort Sill and Austin, Texas. When feasible and upon approval by the Primary or Supporting CORs, work may be performed at remote locations.

1.6.6. Type of Task Orders: TOs awarded under this IDIQ MATOC will be firm-fixed-price (FFP) with cost reimbursable contract line item numbers (CLINs) for Other Direct Costs (ODC) for travel and/or materials. Firm Fixed Price Level of Effort (FFP LOE) task orders can also be awarded. Orders may be issued orally by the Procuring Contracting Officer.

1.6.7 Privacy Requirements/Security.

1.6.7.1 Personnel Security: Contractor employees must be US Citizens and shall be required to submit to a Government background check in order to be issued a DoD Common Access Card (CAC). These background checks will be performed by the Government Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS): The Installation Security Office will submit all background investigations on Contractor personnel requiring CAC and/or network access.

Contractors shall submit information into JPAS for each Contractor employee providing support under individual TOs. In the event the Contractor does not have access to JPAS, the Contractor shall submit a Visit Authorization Letter (VAL) to the Organization's Security Manager for all Contractor…