W911S0-19-R-0002-0006 - 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 modif ication is to provide answ ers to questions submitted by Industry and extend the proposal due date to 27 May, 2020, 11:00 EST.

2. The Government has provided one hundred thirty seven (137 ) responses to questions received from Industry. (See SF30 Continuation Page)

3. As a result of Government responses to Industry questions the PWS, Section L, Section M, Attachment 4 (FCC Labor Categories) and Pricing Workbook (Attachment J8) have been 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 1 229

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-May-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 X is extended, 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

01-May-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 modified:

QUESTION & ANSWER RESPONSES

1. Reference: Section L.1

Discussion: L.6.1.1 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Businesses Only).

Separate from the Small Business Participation Proposal, large business offerors shall also submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9. The offeror shall provide the Small Business Subcontracting Plan with the Offeror’s proposal submission. See Attachment #6 for the INDIVIDUAL SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN Template.

Questions: Understanding the Small Business Subcontracting Plan for Large Businesses shall be a stand-alone separate volume, will the Government please identify if it should be associated with a Volume Number (i.e., Volume VII, Volume IV-B, etc.?)

Government Response: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be associated with Volume IV: Factor 4 – Small Business Participation.

2. Reference: Section L.2. Page 115

Discussion: L.2.1 - Volume IV – Small Business Participation – 10 Page Limit

Question: Will the Government consider increasing the page limit within the Small Business Participation Volume, to allow adequate space for discussing the required basis for selecting each proposed teaming partner and its complexity of support?

Government Response: The Government will NOT increase the 10 Page Limit for the Small Business Participation Volume.

3. Reference: Section L.5

Discussion: 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: With regard to the requirement to provide copies of SF294s, SF295s, subcontracting plans and teaming agreements, will the Government consider deleting this requirement from the Past Performance volume in lieu of the Offeror providing confirmation of compliance with SB subcontracting goals for 3 of the past performance references in the SB Subcontracting Plan volume? Copies of the requested data could be as much as 300 pages or more. We don’t believe it’s the Government’s intent to request this volume of information for its review and evaluation. Should the Government not be amenable to removing this requirement from the Past Performance volume, please confirm the requested information is not included in the 10 page limitation for the volume, as there is no way the requested information can be provided within that restricted page count.

Government Response: No, the Government will not remove the requirement from the Past Performance volume. The SF 294, SF 295, subcontracting plan, and teaming agreements are excluded from the 10-page limit.

4. Reference: RFP Section L.

Discussion: For each past performance reference, the Offeror shall provide a copy of all completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs). Teaming Partners may submit CPARs directly to the points of contact responsible for receiving proposal submissions no later than the closing date and time identified in block 9 of the SF 33. The Offeror shall identify in its proposal whether CPARs for a past performance reference will be separately submitted by a Teaming Partner as described above.

Question: In the event a CPAR is not completed and/or will not be completed by the submission, will the government allow a questionnaire? If so, will the government provide a format?

Government Response: No. Offerors shall use Attachment 5 – Past Performance Reference Sheet.

5. Reference: Section C - Part 5 (Page 38/5.6)

Question: This requirement appears to be misplaced. Would it be more appropriately placed within Part 1 General Information?

Government Response: The Small business Utilization has been removed from PWS section 5.6 to PWS section 1.6.22

6. Reference: Attachment 8: Pricing Workbook

Questions: a) Please confirm that an offeror cannot modify (i.e. move hours from one labor category to another, reduce/increase the number of hours per category) the total number of annual hours for each labor category as provided in Attachment 8.

b) Please confirm that an offeror cannot modify (i.e. add a labor category either as a level in an established labor category or create a new category) the labor categories as provided in Attachment 8.

Government Responses:

(a) Offeror’s shall NOT modify (i.e. move hours from one labor category to another, reduce/increase the number of hours per category, add or delete labor categories) in the provided Attachment 8 Pricing Worksheet.

(b) Attachment 8 has been revised. Offerors cannot modify the labor categories.

7. Reference: Attachment 4: FCC Labor Categories

Questions: Please confirm that offerors cannot anticipate that the Government will allow additional labor categories to be added to their IDIQ contract post award either to address Task Order requirements or to offset labor category rates which may have been proposed at the IDIQ level to reduce an offeror’s Total Evaluated Price.

Government Response: The Government’s minimum requirements for labor categories are in Attachment 4- Labor Category Descriptions of the PWS. New labor categories may be required for task order requirements as FCC’s mission responsibilities are finalized; however, only the Contracting Officer can authorize the addition of new labor categories after award of the IDIQ. Contractors may augment a labor category at the task order level; however, the labor type and cost shall NOT change. Augmenting a labor category is not defined as adding a new labor category.

8. Reference: Section L.

Discussion: 114 of 124/L.2.1 and 120 of 124/L.7.2.1 and L.7.2.2

Questions: Reference the table in section L.2.1. In accordance with section L.7.2.1 and L.7.2.2, please confirm that Tab A in Volume V - Price should be Tab A - Pricing Workbook (Attachment 8) (not Table of Contents), and that Tab B should be Tab B - FCC Labor Categories (Attachment 4).

Government Response: Volume V- Price in table L.2.1 has been revised as follows: Tab A - Pricing Workbook (Attachment 8), Tab B- Price Narrative, and Tab C - Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees. (FAR 52.222-46) & Pricing Workbook.

9. Reference: PWS 5.3.1.4 Page 34

Question: Can the Government clarify the relationship between the Agile Process and the Army Futures Command Modernization Process and Futures Development Process as Agile Process explain using 2012 article cited in Request for Proposal? Is Agile Process still viable?

Government Response: The Agile process was replaced by AFC Top-Down Futures Development Process.

10. Reference: Section L.5.3.3. Page 117

Discussion: To meet this requirement: “The Offeror shall submit information substantiating the Offeror’s, or its Teaming Partner’s, past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and /or FAR 52.219-9 subcontracting requirements.”

Question: Does the government intend for this information to be included in the Past Performance Volume or Volume 4: Small Business Participation Plan.

Government Response: Yes, the Government intends for the information in paragraph L.5.3.3 to be included in Volume 3 - Past Performance Volume.

11. Reference: VOLUME 3: Factor 3 – Past Performance L.5.3.3. Page 117

Question: Is the FAR 2.219-8 and /or FAR 52.219-9 subcontracting requirements document be excluded from the 10-page limit for the past performance volume?

Government Response: The requirements in paragraph L.5.3.3 have been removed from Volume III – Past Performance and placed under paragraph L.6.1.4., Volume IV- Small Business Participation. The SF 294, SF 295, subcontracting plan, and teaming agreements are excluded from the 10-page limit.

12. Reference: VOLUME 3 Factor 3 Past Performance. L.5.1 Page 117

Discussion: L.5.1 appears to suggest all the prime’s teaming partners need to provide past performance

Question: Please confirm that this is incorrect and only the prime’s teaming partners past performances utilized as one of the prime’s five (5) past performances need to be submitted.

Government Response: 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.

13. Reference: VOLUME 3: Factor 3 – Past Performance L.5.3.3.3. Page 118.

Question: Does the descriptive information for all small business categories count toward the 10-page limit?

Government Response: Subparagraph L.5.3.3.3 is removed from Volume 3 – Past Performance and placed under Volume 4 – Small Business Participation under L.6.1.4.

The information requested will count towards the 10-page limit. See Revised Section L in amendment 0006.

14. Reference: VOLUME 3: Factor 3 – Past Performance L.5.3.3.4. Page 118.

Question: Does the long-term relationships information count toward the 10-page limit or is this information outside the specified page count?

Government Response: Subparagraph L.5.3.3.4 is removed from Volume 3 – Past Performance and placed under Volume 4 – Small Business Participation under L.6.1.5.

The information requested will count towards the 10-page limit. See revised Section L in Amendment 0006.

15. Reference: VOLUME 3 Factor 3 Past Performance. L.5.3.3.2. Page 118.

Discussion: It is our understanding that L.5.3.3.2 requires that only the Offeror and all Large Business Teaming Partners are required to submit a SF294 and/or 295, and this requirement does not include Small Business Teaming Partners.

Question: Can the Government confirm?

Government Response: Yes, Large Businesses, Offeror or Teaming Partners, 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 three (3) references. This requirement does NOT apply to Small Business Teaming Partners.

16. Reference: VOLUME 3 Factor 3 Past Performance. L.5.3.3.2. Page 118.

Questions: Is this requirement for the Prime and all its Large Business Teaming Partners?

Government Responses: Yes, Large Businesses, Offeror or Teaming Partners, 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 three (3) references. This requirement does NOT apply to Small Business Teaming Partners.

17. Reference: VOLUME 5 Factor 5 Price. L.7.2.2. Attachment 2 Wage Determination.

Discussion: Section L.7.2.2 states that Offerors shall identify on the Attachment 4, which LCATs are subject to SCA. Attachment 2 Wage Determination incorporates 13 different Wage determinations for 15 different locations.

Question: For labor categories that Offerors identify as subject to SCA, what location should Offeror’s, or their subcontractors, assume as the primary place of performance for direct labor purposes to ensure we are meeting the minimum wage determination rate?

Government Response: The primary location will be Fort Eustis, VA., however, performance could be performed at other locations. The Offeror should develop maximum ceiling labor rates with this in mind.

18. Reference: Attachment 1. Page 74

Question: Would the Government please provide the latest version of the Army Futures Command Top-Down Development Process?

Government Response: Yes, the AFC Top-Down Futures Development Process, dated 01 October 2019 is attached to Amendment W911S0-19-R-0002-0006.

19. Reference: L.5.2.2. Page 117

Question: Please elaborate on the criteria of magnitude in relation to the dollar value comparison described in 5.2.2. Is the dollar value of “the current requirement” $48M (3 year amount assuming 3 contractors) or some other value? Please consider that the dollar amount of the past performance to be compared with is limited to a three year value.

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 $3 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.

20. Reference: L.5.3.1. Page 117

Question: Are “all completed” CPARs the CPARs for the past three years? (the ones that count for the purposes of the past performance) or all CPARs on the referenced contract? or all CPARs on the referenced program (if the program spans more than one contract)?

Government Response: For each past performance reference, the Offeror shall provide a copy of all completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs). Teaming Partners may submit CPARs directly to the points of contact responsible for receiving proposal submissions no later than the closing date and time identified in block 9 of the

SF33.

21. Reference: L.5.5.2. Page 118

Question: Please confirm that Commercial Client Authorization Letters are only required for past performances with commercial clients, and not required for Government contracts.

Government Response: Commercial Client Authorization Letters are only required for past performances with commercial clients.

22. Reference: L.6.1.1. Page 119

Question: Will the Government please reconsider the level of detail required in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, given that this is a MATOC? A large business may team with different small businesses in different socioeconomic categories with different specialties across the 5 task areas. If the large business only wins orders in two of the 5 task areas, it may exceed socioeconomic goals in two areas and miss in others. We recommend an overall level of small business commitment (30%) with the socioeconomic categories varying based on the orders won.

Government Response: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan provided is designed to be consistent with FAR 19.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements and FAR clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (“subcontracting plan”). Other formats may be acceptable, including commercial or master subcontracting plans; however, failure to include the essential information exemplified in this individual plan template may be cause for delay in acceptance or rejection of a bid/offer.

23. Reference: Part 1 – M.6.5. Page 128-130

Question: Could the Government please confirm that the term “categories” used in M.6.5 refers to the five small business socio-economic categories?

Government Response: Yes, the term “categories” refers to small business socio-economic categories.

24. Reference: 5.3.3

Question: Will the government please describe the requirements for an authoring tool and enterprise architecture needed to provide a solution for developing, managing and collaborating on the 11 steps of the Top Down Development Process?

Government Response: The current requirements will be to forge with a SQL relational database foundation, provide HTML user interface and dashboard functionality; and plan to migrate to the AFC MS Azure cloud leveraging MS Dynamics, Power Platform (App, Flow and BI) and other potential graphic user interface (GUI).

25. Reference: PWS Section L.7. Page 121-122

Question: Would the Government please confirm that there is not a requirement for subcontractors to submit pricing data to the Government?

Government Response: Subcontractors are NOT required to submit a pricing proposal to the Government. See revised Section L.7 in Amendment 0006.

26. Reference: 5.5.1 Page 38

Question: Will the government please provide an overview of the governance strategy needed to tie each of the process flow elements (ex: development process) to maintain enterprise standards from CFTs, FCC and AFC

Government Response: This is explained in Attachment 1 – 11-Step Process AFC Top- Down Futures Development Process of Attached in Amendment W911S0-19-R-0002- 0006.

27. Reference: Attachment 8 and Attachment 4 L.7 - Page 120

Question: The Engineer Labor Category has a description in Attachment 4 but no space to bid a rate in Attachment 8. Please clarify.

Government Response: The Engineer labor category has been added to the Revised Attachment 8.

28. Reference: RFP Attachment J.8

Discussion: FCC Pricing Workbook distinguishes 4 LCATs (Systems Operations Research Analyst I, II, IV, and V). The same 4 positions have discrete listings in RFP Section I 52.222-42 STATEMENT OF EQUIVALENT RATES FOR FEDERAL HIRES.

However, only one LCAT description is provided Section C Performance Work Statement, Attachment 4 FCC Labor Categories.

Question: Could the Government please provide LCAT descriptions that better delineate requirements among Systems Operations Research Analyst I, II, IV, and V?

Government Response: Yes, the Government will split the LCATs (Systems Operations Research Analyst I, II) into two (2) separate LCATS on Attachment J.8. See revised Attachment J.8. The Government will no longer utilize Levels IV and V.

29. Reference: RFP Section M.6.4.4.3 Volume 3: Past Performance

Questions: Can the Government confirm if no CPAR is available, a Past Performance Reference (PPQ) will be accepted and evaluated with the same weight

Government Responses: Yes, if a CPAR is not available the Government will still evaluate the past performance reference in accordance with the solicitation.

30. Reference: Reference: RFP

Discussion: Attachment C Travel Authorization Request Form

Question: Will the Government please provide the Separate MS Excel file?

Government Response: Attachment C, Travel Authorization Request Form is provided with this amendment.

31. Reference: L.5. Volume 3: Factor 3 Past Performance, L.5.3.1. Page 117

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”

Discussion: The RFP states “For each past performance reference, the Offeror shall provide a copy of all completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPAR’s).

Question: If the work was performed as a subcontractor (as allowed in L.5.1.), a CPAR will not be available. Also, there are many cases where the government did not issues a CPAR. If a CPAR is not available, is the contract still valid to use as a past performance and will it be scored equal to contracts with a CPAR?

Government Response: Yes, if a CPAR is not available the Government will still 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.

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.

32. Reference: L.6 Volume 4 – Small Business Participation and Attachment 6 – SB SCP Template (Page 119-121 and 84-07)

Discussion: These two reference are quite different. Which one is required to be submitted with our proposal and which requirement will be evaluated? Attachment 6 requires goals for AbilityOne, HBCU/MIs, ANCs, and Indian Tribes where section L does not.

Question: Please clarify which is required for submission.

Government Response: Offerors are required to submit a Small Business Participation and a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. In accordance with Sections M.6.5.1 of the RFP “Factor 4. Small Business Participation Factor - All offerors (both large and small) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractor) in the performance of this requirement”.

33. Reference: Part 1 – General Information, 1.6.11.1 Program Manager (PM) and Alternate Program Manager (APM)

Discussion: The RFP requires the PM and APM to have a Top Secret Clearance (TS).

The government has greatly restricted the amount of contractors that can hold an active TS clearance.

Question: a) Will the government accept a PM or APM who has held a TS clearance in the past and is still listed as “Eligible” in JPAS? Access for these types of upgrades are normally approved in a timely manner. Or alternatively, can the requirement for a TS be reduced to a Secret Clearance?

b) What is the security requirement driving the need for have a Top Secret Clearance for the PM and APM?

Government Response: The Government has revised the minimum security clearance level for the PM and APM to a Secret Clearance.

34. Reference: Part 1 – General Information, 1.6.6 Type of Task Orders - Page 7

Discussion: The RFP states: Orders may be issued orally by the Procuring Contracting Officer.

Question: What is the process to issue orders orally?

Government Response: In urgent situations it may be necessary to issue an order orally.

Oral orders will be confirmed in writing.

35. Reference: Part 5 – Specific Tasks, 5.4.1.5.4 Strategic Engagement Management Software -

Discussion: The RFP states: Build and maintain Strategic Engagement Manager software used to record and access engagements.

Question: What is the Army currently using for Strategic Engagement Manager software? What is the scope, cost, and scheduling requirement for this new software?

Government Response: The Army does not have an enterprise Strategic Engagement Manager software. The scope, consistent outreach to build support for Army modernization, focuses on developing the requisite authorities, talent, resources, and tools for future engagements. Cost and scheduling requirements are determined at the task order level.

36. Reference Attachment 5 - Page 83

Question: In the first block of the Past Performance Reference-Att 5, should this read Contract Name instead of Contractor Name?

Government Response: No, the first block should read Contractor Name. Offerors shall indicate if the performance type was as prime, subcontractor/team member, joint venture, etc.

37. Reference: Page 113, L.1.4

Discussion: Lists the address that Offerors should mail their CD-ROM/DVD digital copies to as: 705 Washington Blvd, Suite 126; Fort Eustis, VA 23604. Please consider the following:

Question:

a) Is it possible for the Offeror to deliver the CD-ROM Disk/DVD in person to the address provided?

b) If yes, would the Government kindly provide further information on how to gain access to the base?

Government Response: No, 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. Because proposals will only be accepted by electronic commerce, Offerors are encouraged to verify receipt of their proposal no later than 5 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals. Any questions regarding whether a proposal was timely electronically received by the Government will be resolved in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, which is incorporated in the solicitation by reference.

38. Reference: L.3.1. Page 116

Question: Could the Government please provide any forecast of task orders anticipated under the FCC MATOC, or release dates of fair opportunity requests under the previous

ID/IQ, to allow the offerors to better understand the anticipated volume of task order requests?

Government Response: No, the Government will not provide anticipated task order information. The Government, in accordance with element 1, desires the Offeror to demonstrate an understanding and ability to plan, execute and manage multiple task orders simultaneously under the MATOC.

39. Reference: Section L.5.3.1 Page 116

Question: If CPARs have not been provided by the government for an effort used for past performance, will the government still accept this effort as past performance?

Government Response: Yes, if a CPAR is not available the Government will still evaluate each past performance reference in accordance with the solicitation.

40. Reference: Pages 121-122, Section L.7

Discussion: Volume 5- Factor 5 Price, does not include any specific instructions for providing subcontractor pricing information. However, the Instructions worksheet in Attachment 8, Pricing Workbook, state: “The completed enclosed spreadsheets shall be part of the cost/price proposal. This is a required flow down requirement, and therefore shall be submitted for the prime offeror AND for any and all divisions and subcontractors proposed to perform effort in response to this solicitation.” We have the following questions regarding these instructions.

Questions:

a) Can the Government please confirm that the intent of these instructions is to create a separate set of fully burdened rates for each Prime Offeror and each proposed subcontractor that would be used for purposes of pricing individual task orders, as this would provide the most realistic pricing?

b) If so, can the Government please clarify how a Prime Offeror should indicate its applicable indirect charges and profit being applied to the Subcontractor’s burdened rates in the Pricing Worksheet, as this is not possible in the current format of the Pricing Worksheet?

c) If so, and since it would not make sense to receive a full pricing matrix and “total evaluated price” from each Prime and each of its Subcontractors, can you please confirm that the fully burdened rates for each organization for each labor category should be presented without level of effort, simply as a rate card or rate table format?

d) If subcontractors are required to submit separate burdened rates from those of the Prime Offeror, will the Government allow offerors to propose a mix of Prime and subcontractors’ rates in the Pricing Matrix, so as to provide the Government with the most cost-competitive and realistic price proposal, reflecting the participation of both Prime and subcontractors’ staff?

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 52.216-4. 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.

41. Reference: RFP Paragraph M.6.3

Discussion: Task Area 5, Army Futures Command Modernization Process and Futures Development Process cites an 11-step Top Down Futures Development Process. This process is still in draft form and subject to change over the course of MATOC proposal development. It is not clear to us how the government intends to evaluate an offeror’s response to a Task Area for which there is no standard, Army-approved, doctrinal process.

Questions: Will the Government please clarify how it intends to evaluate an offeror’s response for Task Area 5 given that the 11-Step Top Down Futures Development Process is not yet finalized and approved?

Government Responses: A finalized copy of the Army Futures Command Top-Down Futures Development Process is provided in this amendment. See Attachment 1.

42. Reference: PWS Paragraph 5.2

Discussion: Regarding the following sentence – “Experiments and evaluations reduce the risk to warfighters by providing credible analytical underpinnings to support decision making and identifying and verifying acceptable solutions for required changes in

DOTMLPF-P.”

Questions: Is the Contractor responsible for assessing capabilities extent within the human dimension (Training, Leadership and Education, Personnel, etc.) and policy as well as materiel solutions?

Government Response: The contractor may be assigned tasks to assist government personnel in developing assessments of capabilities across DOTMLPF including the human dimensions of Training and Leader Development and Education, as well policy and materiel. This applies across all tasks within the Performance Work Statement.

43. Reference: PWS Paragraph 5.2.5.9

Discussion: The discussion of support to OE development is not clear given references to both Future OE Directorate and the TEFOR. The TEFOR is currently supported under a different contract vehicle within TRADOC G2.

Question: How does this task relate to the extant Threat Emulation Force (TEFOR)? Is the PWS asking the Contractor to develop a similar capability or is this direction to work/coordinate with TEFOR and the FOED?

Government Response: The Threat Emulation Force (TEFOR) requirement will not be utilized by FCC. The PWS has been revised to remove this task. See updated PWS with Amendment 0006.

44. Reference: PWS Paragraph 5.5.4

Discussion: PWS 5.5.4 states the Contractor shall help support the development of capabilities (what the Army can do) that provide affordable solutions to meet warfighter needs.

Question: Is this a direct report requirement to FCC or an FCC subordinate entity?

Government Response: This is in support of the work that the FCC subordinate functional Divisions (e.g. Fires, MASD, SUSD) and the enabling Divisions (e.g. AIMD, CSID) perform in capability determination, which involves the identification of gaps in what the Army can do, the associated risks, and the development of solutions to resolve or mitigate unacceptable risks.

45. Reference:

Discussion: L.7.2.2 states that the Offeror shall identify on the Attachment 4 which labor categories are subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA) Labor Standards.

Question: Will the Government please clarify which tab in the pricing volume Attachment 4 belongs?

Government Response: Attachment 4 – FCC Labor Categories shall be included in Tab D of Volume V – Price. See revised section L included in this amendment.

46. Reference: RFP Attachment 8

Question: Will the Government allow offerors to modify Attachment 8 to account for multiple fringe rates?

Government Response: Yes, in Attachment 8, it may be necessary for each offeror to revise the number of rows and columns to account for multiple fringe rates. However, the general format shall be maintained.

47. Reference: RFP Paragraphs L.5.5.1 and L.5.5.3

Discussion: L.5.5.1 states “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.”

L.5.5.3 states “Since 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.” Because the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror(s), it seems that they would need consent letters from all teaming partners and not just the ones that will perform 25% or more of the proposed effort.

Question: Will the Government please clarify if the requirement for consent letters and organizational structure change history applies to all teaming partners, or just those partners projected to perform 25% or more of the work?

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. The Offeror shall provide information regarding the organization structure change history of the Offeror and its Teaming Partners. Offeror shall 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.

48. Reference: RFP Paragraph L.5.3.1

Discussion: L.5.3.1 states “For each past performance reference, the Offeror shall provide a copy of all completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs).” If the Offeror is proposing an IDIQ contract as a past performance reference, there may be numerous task orders (TOs) under that IDIQ, in addition to the relevant TOs being cited.

Question: Will the Government please confirm that CPARs are only required to be submitted for the relevant, cited TOs under the IDIQ?

Government: Yes, in accordance with L.5.3.1. A Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) shall be provided for each past performance reference. The past performance reference could be a task order or other contract.

49. Reference: Section F - 52.211-11 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--SUPPLIES, SERVICES, OR

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (SEP 2000)

Discussion: If the Contractor fails to deliver the supplies or perform the services within the time specified in this contract, the Contractor shall, in place of actual damages, pay to the Government liquidated damages of (To be determined at the Task Order Level) per calendar day of delay. First, including the LD clause in this procurement conflicts with Government policy. FAR 11.501 instructs COs to “consider the potential impact on pricing, competition, and contract administration” and to use the LD clause “only when”

(1) timely performance is “so important” that Government will expect to suffer damage, and (2) “the amount of such damage would be difficult or impossible to estimate.” FAR

11.501 makes clear that liquidated damages “are not negative performance incentives.”

Second, having a broadly applicable clause with an unspecified amount of damages calls into question whether the clause would be enforceable.

Question: At this time, specific task order requirements have not been identified;

therefore, the Government cannot establish liquidated damages amounts. Liquidated Damage amounts will be established at the Task Order level when timely performance is so important that the Government may suffer if the delivery or performance is delinquent.

FAR 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages-Supplies, Services or Research and Development will remain in the Solicitation in accordance with FAR 11.503(a) and 11.501(a).

Government Response: No, FAR 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages-Supplies, Services or Research and Development will remain in accordance with FAR 11.503(a) and 11.501(a).

50. Reference: Section F - 52.211-11 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--SUPPLIES, SERVICES, OR

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (SEP 2000)

Discussion: (a) If the Contractor fails to deliver the supplies or perform the services within the time specified in this contract, the Contractor shall, in place of actual damages, pay to the Government liquidated damages of (To be determined at the Task Order Level) per calendar day of delay.

Question: If the Government keeps FAR 52.211-11 in the IDIQ RFP, how and at what point will the amount be determined?

Government Response: At this time, specific task order requirements have not been identified; therefore, the Government cannot establish liquidated damages amounts.

Liquidated Damage amounts will be established at the Task Order level when timely performance is so important that the Government may suffer if the delivery or performance is delinquent. FAR 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages-Supplies, Services or Research and Development will remain in the Solicitation in accordance with FAR

11.503(a) and 11.501(a).The Contracting Officer will make the determination of the amount of the specified damages per calendar day in accordance with the clause.

51. Reference: RFP Sections I, L

Discussion: "FAR 52.215-20, 52,215-21 - The RFP includes FAR clauses 52.215-20 (Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data) and 52.215-21 (Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modifications). FAR clause 15.402 instructs when these two clauses should be applied to a solicitation, and states that Certified Cost or Pricing Data shall not be required when there is adequate price competition. Regarding Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, FAR 15.403-3 (b) states that when adequate price competition exists, generally no additional data are necessary to determine the reasonableness of price”.

Question: Given this acquisition will result in a multi-award IDIQ, where there is clearly an expectation of competition and there will be competition into perpetuity at the task order level, respectfully request the removal of 52.215-20 and 52.215-21 as well as the requirements in Attachment 8 for Other than Certified Cost and Pricing Data (e.g. the Labor Cost Detail).

Government Response: The Government will not remove FAR clauses 52.215-20 or 52.215-21. Pursuant to DFARS 216.505-70, if only one proposal is received for a task order exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, the Government shall request Certified Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data per DFARS 215.371-3. Attachment 8 – FCC Pricing Worksheet has been revised and Attachment 9 – Sample Employee Total Compensation Plan is added within this amendment. These revisions will allow Offerors the opportunity to provide their own salary and fringe benefits paid directly to the employee. Please note Attachment 9 is a sample. The fringe benefits listed are not considered mandatory or all inclusive.

Offerors may adjust the sample accordingly. A compensation plan shall be submitted for EACH labor category deemed a professional employee. 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.

52. Reference: Task Area 5.4

Discussion: Discussions: 5.4.5.11-18. / 5.4.5.22-27. Task Area 5.4.5.22-27 seem to be duplicates of 5.4.5.11-18.

Question: Will the government validate that these are in fact duplicates, and remove as applicable?

Government Response: The duplicated subparagraphs have been removed. See updated

PWS.

53. Reference: Part 5

Discussion: 5.2.5.2- Cybersecurity

Question: Which labor category is expected to provide Cyber Security expertise? What certifications should that position have?

Government Response: The Government will not provide the skill mix in order to successfully accomplish this task. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide it to the Government. Attachment J.4 – FCC Labor Categories, has been updated and provided in Amendment 0006.

54. Reference: Section C.5.5.3. Page 38

Discussion: “AFC has developed an 11-step pre-Materiel Development Decision (MDD) process that requires extensive analytical support from the Futures Integration Directorate’s (FID) functional divisions that are part of the AFC Futures and Concepts Center (FCC).”

Questions:

a) Please provide a copy of the 11-step pre-Materiel Development Decision process.

b) Is there a difference between the 11-step pre-Material Development Decision process and the 11 step "Top Down Futures Development Process, Phase 1"? Please provide a copy of the Top Down Futures Development Process, Phase 1.

Government Response: The AFC Top-Down Futures Development Process, dated 01 October 2019 is provided in this Amendment. There is no difference between the two mentioned processes.

55. Reference: 52.222-42 Page 70

Discussion: Page 70 52.222-42- provides monetary wage-fringe benefits for information only for a subset of the labor category listed in Attachment 4 but is missing the following labor categories: Data Warehouse Specialist, Database Administrator, Information Assurance (IA) Analyst, Help Desk Support/Computer User Support Specialist, Operational Architect, Quality Assurance/Test, Senior Operational Architect, Software Developer, Systems Administrator, Web Developer.

Question: Can the government provide monetary wage-fringe benefits for the above referenced labor categories?

Government Response: FAR 52.222-42 and Attachment 4-FCC Labor Categories have been updated in this Amendment 0006.

56. Reference: PWS Section I. Page 70

Discussion: 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent rates for Federal Hires (May 2014)

Question: Can the Government confirm that the monetary rates referenced within the clause are inclusive of both wage and fringe amounts?

Government Response: Yes, the monetary rates are inclusive of both wage and fringe amounts.

57. Reference: RFP Attachment J.8

Discussion: FCC Pricing Workbook lists an LCAT, “Defense Systems Senior Military Analyst/Defense Systems Research Analyst”; however, this position is split into two separate positions in RFP Section I 52.222-42 STATEMENT OF EQUIVALENT RATES FOR FEDERAL HIRES: Defense Systems Senior Military Analyst / Exceeds GS Equiv. Rate / $225,904.97 and Defense Systems Research Analyst / GS-14 / $126,865.54.

Question: To ensure accurate and competitive pricing, will the Government consider two LCATs for Attachment J.4 FCC Pricing Workbook?

Government Response: The Government has amended RFP Section I 52.222-42 and Attachment J.8 to reflect one (1) labor category vice two (2) in solicitation amendment W911S0-19-R-0002-0006

58. Reference: RFP Section I

Discussion: 52.222-42 STATEMENT OF EQUIVALENT RATES FOR FEDERAL HIRES provides information for many, but not all, of the LCATs provided in RFP Attachment J.8 Pricing Workbook.

Question: Will the Government provide information for the following LCATs:

• Data Warehouse Specialist

• Database Administrator

• Help Desk Support/Computer User Support Specialist

• Information Assurance (IA) Analyst

• Operational Architect

• Quality Assurance/Tester

• Senior Operational Architect

• Software Developer

• Systems Administrator

• Web Developer

Government Response: Attachment J.8 Pricing Workbook has been updated to reflect the LCATS required to support this effort. FAR 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires has also been updated to reflect the same. Please see revised Attachment J.8 and FAR 52.222-42 attached with this amendment.

59. Reference: Part 5 – Specific Tasks, 5.2.5.7.13 range operations - Page 33

Discussion: The RFP states: The Contractor shall perform range support operations functions in order to operate a range as specified in range and terrain regulations. The Contractor shall provide trained and certified personnel to perform the following range functions: Range Safety Officer (RSO), Ammunition Handler, Combat Life Saver (CLS), Range Safeties, Certified Tower Operator, demolition training and range support personnel.

Question: What are the locations and number of the ranges the contractor will operate?

Government Response: This task is no longer required and is removed from the PWS.

See updated PWS.

60. Reference: RFP Section L

Discussion: "FAR 52.215-22 - The RFP includes FAR clause 52.215-22 Limitations on Pass-through charges – Identification of Subcontract Effort.

FAR 15.408 includes the instructions for when to include 52.215-22, and it states that, “(B) For DoD, insert the clause when-

(1) The total estimated contract or order value exceeds the threshold for obtaining cost or pricing data in 15.403-4; and

(2) The contemplated contract type is expected to be any contract type except-

(i) A firm-fixed-price contract awarded on the basis of adequate price competition;”

We acknowledge that the contracting officer can determine that the clause is appropriate regardless of the contract type, however, given that this is a multiple-award FFP IDIQ where competition will continue under the vehicle at the task order level, and identification of subcontract effort under a FFP contract is onerous for the contractor”

Question: We request that the government remove 52.215-22 from this IDIQ. If the government has determined that this program requires this additional clause that is otherwise discouraged by the FAR under these contractual and competitive circumstances, would the government share that rationale with the offering community?

Government Response: The Government cannot predict with any level of certainty if there will be adequate price competition in response to task order requests during the 5-year contract period of performance. Therefore, FAR 52.215-22 Limitations on Pass- Through Charges-Identification of Subcontract Effort will not be removed from the solicitation. This clause is mandatory for task and delivery orders when there is no adequate competition.

61. Reference: Section L.7.2

Discussion: Section L.7.2 States: "It is expected that all contracts awarded will be based upon adequate price competition; therefore, the Offeror is not required to provide certified cost/pricing data with its proposal.