ISRMAT Industry QA_A0002.pdf

W911S022R0002, ISRMAT Questions and Answers Amendment 0002

Question # Source Doc/ Reference Discussion Questions Govt Responses/Notes 1 RFP Page 69, 75 Section I contains Contractor Fill-ins not identified as being provided anywhere for response. Even if

Contractor has already registered in sam.gov and does not require the fill-ins, contractor assumes some response to validate sam.gov registration may exist.

Will the USG please identify where Section I contractor fill-ins should be provided in response? If contractor has completed registration at sam.gov and does not require completion of contractor fill-ins, where should contractor provide that assertion?

If the vendor meets the requirements to provide Section I fill-in clauses separately, include in Volume I, Tab D.

If the vendor has verified its sam.gov registration and meets the requirements of applicable Section I and Section K provisions/clauses, please state so in Volume I, Tab D.

2 RFP Page 94 L.3.2, L.3.4

RFP Section L.3.2 notes that Tab C pricing workbook is to be provided in excel. RFP Section L.3.4 notes that Vol IV, Tab C Workbook is not required to meet page dimension restrictions.

Will the USG confirm that the pricing workbook should ONLY be provided in excel?

And that a pointer to the excel file within the Price Volume Tab C would be sufficient to support Tab C Price Volume requirements?

Or is the mention of the workbook not needing to meet page dimension requirements meant to suggest that contractor should also paste the excel file into the Price Volume in Tab C?

Yes, the pricing workbook should ONLY be provided in Excel.

Yes, a pointer in the narrative to the separately attached Pricing Workbook is acceptable.

No, pasting is not necessary.

3 RFP Page 94 L.3.6

RFP section L.3.6 notes that page numbering should be in consecutive order and identify the Volume and Tab, if applicable, and then notes example: “Vol. 1 – Tab A – page 1 of 20”.

Will the USG confirm if each tab is to begin new numbering to ensure each tab meets the page count requirements? Or if the Volume should be numbered sequentially from start to finish?

There is no preference. The USG expects the numbering to be sequential and easy to identify. Each proposal will be reviewed for page count conformity.

4 RFP Page 94 L.3.4

Tab D is noted at the Total Compensation Plan. The Total Compensation Plan, Tab D, does not appear to have any Section L instructions for completion.

Will the USG please provide specific Section L instructions for Tab D Total Compensation Plan? Volume IV, Tab D has been removed from the RFP.

5 RFP Page 22, 97

PWS 1.2.7, L.4.2.3.2

Key Personnel qualifications spelled out in PWS Section 1.2.7 do not mention specific certifications.

Section L.4.2.3.2 references provision of proof of certifications.

Will the USG please confirm if any specific certifications are required for the PM and/or CENTCOM Trainer? If so, is proof required in the form of copies of certifications?

Certification requirements for Key Personnel are provided at PWS at paragraph 1.2.7. Resumes are the only required documentation for Key Personnel.

6 RFP Page 96 L.4.1.6

RFP states that contractor shall provide, “The Offeror shall state its Level of Facility Clearance (FCL) and any other information required by RFP Attachment 1, DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification.”

Will the USG confirm if contractor shall provide a completed DD254, or simply place DD254 required information in the Volume I Tab G response?

There is no preference. The USG was intending to see the contents placed in Tab G and if it has an active Top Secret (TS) Level of Facility Security Clearance, but will accept a completed DD 254 form.

7 RFP Page 97 L.4.2.3.1

The scenario described in (a) includes the team arriving in Erbil, Iraq, but states the ISRMAT is supporting TAAC-South, a former mission in Afghanistan

Will the USG confirm the specific Iraq unit the ISRMAT will support ? The scenario will be in Eribil CENTCOM efforts, there is no specific unit. This scenario is for evaluation purposes.

8 RFP p.32

PWS 5.1.1

PWS 5.1.1 states “the contractor shall provide ISR Mobile Advisory Teams (ISRMATs), consisting of eight ISRMAT SMEs in theater (Mission Manager plus three teams of two), plus eight ISRMAT SMEs in CONUS.”

Government initially identifies eight ISRMAT SMEs in theater, but lists Mission Manager plus three teams of two, for a total of seven SMEs.

Please clarify the number of SMEs required in theater. PWS paragraph 5.1.1 has been updated to accurately reflect the total number of SMEs.

9 RFP p.32

PWS 5.1.1

PWS 5.1.1 states “the contractor shall provide ISR Mobile Advisory Teams (ISRMATs), consisting of eight ISRMAT SMEs in theater (Mission Manager plus three teams of two), plus eight ISRMAT SMEs in CONUS. Exact deployment locations are subject to change. Planned distribution of teams are as follows: 3 SMEs in support of operations assisting in the Arabian Gulf, currently based out of Bahrain;

one SME at the CJFACC in Qatar; 2 SMEs in Iraq; 2 SMEs in support of operations in Lebanon; 8 SMEs (including the program manager) in CONUS as the rotational pool; 3 SMEs at CENTCOM as the CONUS-based training element. 8 SMEs in CONUS assist the CENTCOM-based team training units prior to their deployment; supporting ISR interoperability training of multi-national partners; assisting the Intelligence Community with assessments of ISR processes and capabilities in theater; TRADOC Centers of Excellence in the development of training and doctrine; and documenting lessons learned and best practices for the Army and Joint communities.”

Please confirm that the complete level of effort required is 16 FTE, composed of 8 FTE in theater (to include the mission manager) and 8 FTE in CONUS (to include the program manager). If not, please state the total number of FTEs required.

PWS paragraph 5.1.1 has been updated to accurately reflect the total number of SMEs.

Question # Source Doc/ Reference Discussion Questions Govt Responses/Notes 10 RFP pgs. 22 and 97

PWS 1.2.7; L.4.2.3.2

RFP states resumes for personnel determined as key under this contract at PWS para 1.2.7 shall be provided.

PWS 1.2.7 identifies key personnel of this contract as the Program Manager and the CONUS-based CENTCOM training team.

Please confirm whether the offeror is required to provide resumes for a Program Manager and CONUS-based CENTCOM Training Team Lead ONLY, or the entire CONUS-based CENTCOM training team.

Resumes are required for Program Manager and the CONUS-based CENTCOM Trainers. PWS paragraph 1.2.7.2 has been updated for clarification purposes. There are no 'Team Leads' for the CONUS-based CENTCOM Trainers.

11 RFP p. 97 L.4.2.3.2

RFP does not specify whether resumes are included in page count. Please confirm resumes are not included in the 35-page limit and may be provided as an attachment to Volume II:

Mission Capability.

Resumes will not be included in the 35 page limit for Volume II- Mission Capability. RFP Section L.3.9.2 has been revised to exclude resumes from the page limit.

12 RFP Attachment 1-DD 254 pgs. 1 and 2 1(b) and Section 11

The DD254 1(b) identifies Top Secret Safeguarding. However, the following are identified in Section 11:

(a) Checked: Have access to classified information only at another contractor’s facility or a government activity (Applicable only if there is no access or storage required at contractor facility.)

(b) Unchecked: Receive and store classified documents only

(c) Unchecked: Receive, store, and generate classified information or material Unchecked: Fabricate, modify, or store classified hardware

As this section states no access or storage allowed at the contractor’s facility with no authorization to receive, store, or generate classified information or hardware, should the Top Secret Safeguarding requirement be removed from the DD254?

The overall arching classification of the contract is a Top Secret.

The bidding contractor must have a facility clearance listing of Top Secret to be awarded the contract. The ISRMAT contract indicates the awarding company will not store classified information at their location the classified information will be store at a government facility. The DD Form 254 is a requirement for all classified contracts. The ISRMAT contract will have instructors that will go out and teach classes.

Several classes will be taught at the top secret level and the instructors must have a clearance at the top secret level to instruct the class.

13 RFP W911S022R0002;

L.4.3.1.4.3 (p. 99)

COVID significantly impacted existing OCONUS training and support contracts, and in many cases derailed the release of new OCONUS-based FSR support contracts over the past two years. Will the government please revise the past performance reference period of performance from within the past three (3) years to within the past five (5) years to mitigate the impact that COVID had on OCONUS training and support contracts?

The past performance requirements have been updated to accept this recommendation.

14 RFP W911S022R0002;

PWS; 5.1.1 (p. 32)

Will the government please confirm the total level of effort is 19 FTE -- 8 theater-based SMEs, 8 CONUS pool SMEs, 3 CENTCOM CONUS-based training SMEs -- for this opportunity?

PWS paragraph 5.1.1 has been updated to accurately reflect the total number of SMEs. Note: Exact deployment locations and mixture of teams are subject to change as stated in the PWS.

15 RFP W911S022R0002;

1.2.7 (p. 22)

Will the government please verify and confirm that the total number of Key Personnel is four (1 Program Manager, 3 CENTCOM CONUS-based training SMEs)?

Correct, there is 1 Program Manager and a total of 3 CONUS-based CENTCOM Trainers.

16 RFP W911S022R0002;

Table L.1, L.4.1.6

The title of Tab G for Volume I within the cited table and the section L instructions are different. Can the government please clarify the correct title for this tab?

RFP Section L.3.2 Volume I Tab G has been renamed from "Compliance with DD 254" to "Adherence to DD Form 254".

17 PWS 1.2.15 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) On Page 6 of the PWS, typical ODCs are listed to include items such as DBA insurance and Uplifts on pay and NTE amounts are given between $11,000-$12,000 per year. In Section 5.1.1, however, eight ISRMAT SMEs are assigned to OCONUS locations. Are the ODC NTE amounts for each year for evaluation purposes only?

Yes, all Government provided NTE CLINs are for evaluation purposes. These are the Government's estimates each year. Please note, the ODC estimated values have been adjusted to include the Government's estimated value of DBA Insurance. Do not adjust the ODC value listed in the Pricing Workbook.

18 RFP Schedule B CLIN(s) ending 006 Is the plug number in CLINs ending 0006 based on historical calculations or is it simply for purposes of solicitation response?

All Government provided not-to-exceed amounts are based on estimates and historical expenditures.

19 PWS 1.2.2 Phase-in Period/Transition The USG states "during the phase-in period, the Contractor shall prepare to assume full responsibility for all areas of operation." Does this include OCONUS sites? If so, is the Phase-In Travel/ODC figure for evaluation purposes only?

Yes, phase-in includes OCONUS sites as needed.

Yes they are for evaluation purposes but they are also the Government established estimates for each year. They shall not be changed, and will only be adjusted if needed and if funds are available.

Question # Source Doc/ Reference Discussion Questions Govt Responses/Notes 20 PWS 1.2.15 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) The USG states "for proposal purposes, a Contract Line Item Number shall be established at an estimated Not-to-Exceed amount for each year." Are these Not-to-Exceed values for evaluation purposes only? Upon award, will the Contractor be able to submit updated Travel/ODC values?

The ODC and travel amounts are established by the Government as not-to-exceed Cost CLINs. They shall not be changed, and will only be adjusted if needed and if funds are available.

21 PWS 5.2.1 ISR Tactical Controller Support The optional support team will be stationed in theater. Is the contractor expected to include the ODC costs associated with in theater labor as part of this FFP CLIN?

No.

22 PWS 5.2.2 Special Operations Command Europe Support The optional support team will be stationed in theater. Is the contractor expected to include the ODC costs associated with in theater labor as part of this FFP CLIN?

No.

23 PWS 5.2.2 Special Operations Command Europe Support The optional support team will be stationed in theater. Will these positions be pre approved in the ECOPS system prior to exercising option to avoid deployment delays? The optional support team will not be permanently stationed in theater. PWS 5.2.2. will be revised to clarify that the ISRMAT contract positions are positions in CONUS on a rotational basis. Contractors will not be permanently assigned to positions in Europe requiring business clearances, etc. When TRADOC G-2 receives requests from SOCEUR for ISRMAT support, that support will be provided by ISRMAT Contractors located in CONUS who would go TDY to support the SOCEUR unit with short-term ISR training and advisory assistance. At the end of each mission, the Contractors will return to

CONUS.

24 PWS 5.2.3 ISR Tactical Controller Trainer The optional support will be expected to deploy to theater. Is the contractor expected to include the Travel/ODC costs associated with in theater labor as part of this FFP CLIN?

No.

25 PWS 52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984) The USG states the expectation is to award an FFP contract from this solicitation, but also states in Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 that Contractors will be expected to invoice monthly on the basis of costs incurred. Can the government clarify if the contract to be awarded will be FFP with Cost Reimbursable CLINs?

Yes, the contract will be awarded FFP but have Cost Reimbursable CLINs for travel and ODCs only. All labor is

FFP.

26 RFP Section M Basis of Award Would you please clarify the Government’s intended Basis for Award criteria for this requirement?

Section M.1 (Basis for Contract Award) indicates that the award will be made on a Low-Price, Technically-Acceptable (LPTA) basis, while Section M.2 indicates that award will be made on a best value basis (“the Government intends to award contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offerors whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation”) (emphasis supplied). Given the Solicitation seeks knowledge-based professional services supporting complex intelligence operations outside the United States, we would interpret the provisions in DFARS 215.101-2-70 to be inconsistent with the use of an LPTA evaluation scheme.

In accordance with DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1), the Contracting Officer documented the contract file describing the circumstances justifying the use of the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) best value source selection process. This documentation addresses the factors listed in DFARS 215.102-2-70(a)(1)(i-vii). DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(2) does not prohibit the use of the LPTA best value source selection process for knowledge-based services. The Contracting Officer determined it is not practicable or necessary to use the LPTA best value source selection process as the basis for award for this requirement.

Question # Source Doc/ Reference Discussion Questions Govt Responses/Notes 27 PWS 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 Optional Services Is travel permitted as Government-provided, i.e. MilAir? The contactor should use commercially available air transportation when reasonably available. Military Aircraft Transportation (MilAir) may be available for contractor use under limited circumstances. MilAir availability, reimbursement, and cost is determined in accordance with Army Directive 2017-05 (Secretary of the Army Policy for Travel by Department of the Army Senior Officials); The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) (Uniformed Service Members and DoD Civilian Employees); DoD Directive 4500.56 (DoD Policy on the Use of Government Aircraft and Air Travel); DoD Instruction 4500.43 (Operational Support Airlift (OSA)); and DoD Instruction

4515.13 (Air Transportation Eligibility).

28 RFP Section M Basis of Award The incumbent contract was awarded on an LPTA basis, yet FPDS shows the price was modified at the end of the base year. This appears to be consistent across all option periods, effectively adding more than $2.8M to the incumbent contract. As the scope has not significantly changed between the 2018 PWS and current RFP PWS (excluding additional Key Personnel), will the Government provide historical workload data to support this increase?

The increased value is derived from a contract modification to add an additional optional task in the 2018 PWS and exercising some of the defined optional tasks.

The additional optional task is in the current solicitation.

All necessary information is contained in the current PWS.

29 PWS 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 Optional Services Regarding current contract, which, if any, optional services were ordered under PWS 5.2? ITC Support and ITC Trainer optional support tasks have historically been exercised.