HUMINT questions and answers.pdf

1. Does the customer intend to maintain possession of the contractor-provided technical equipment after conclusion of the first exercise iteration? If so, can it be assumed the customer will bring the contractor-provided technical equipment to subsequent exercise iterations or does the customer expect the contractor to provide issuance of new technical equipment for each exercise iteration?

Answer: No. Equipment is to be provided at each exercise.

2. Can the customer identify contract award amounts, and contract numbers of previous HST

VALEX support contracts?

Answer: No

3. Can the customer provide the locations of previous HST VALEXs and locations where they expect to conduct future exercises?

Answer: Previous locations: Atlanta, GA; New Orleans, LA; Pensacola, FL; Jacksonville, FL, National Capital Region (D.C.).

Expected future locations: Nashville, TN; Various other metropolitan locations.

4. What is the anticipated location of the pre-coordinated planning conferences mentioned in para. 1.4?

Answer: Fort Benning, GA

5. Para. 4.2.1 Mentions the contractor participating in PDSSs for each training location. What is the expected number of days each PDSS will last?

Answer: 1-2 days

6. ODC costs are to be submitted for the base plus 4 years as part of pricing as an FFP. However, no guidance is provided in terms of escalation costs nor locations where training is to be held.

The contractor is left to make a determination on costs for lodging, travel, rental vehicles and associated costs resulting in those costs independently while keeping it IAW JTR. This will result in a widely varying pricing for ODCs from individual responders who use own methodology to determine ODC pricing. Can the government provide locations and an escalation percentage for this proposal which will allow all responders to be judged equally on

ODC pricing?

Answer: Nasvhille, TN is the located on the exercise to take place April/May 2021. Expected future locations will be various other metropolitan locations. We cannot specify locations for future exercises that will take place in FYs 22, 23, 24 etc. as the unit requires permission from City governments before we can commit to holding the exercise there. The awarded vendor will be given the location of future training exercises 3-4 months prior to execution.

7. The Key Personnel section 1.6.11 notes as key personnel the Contract Manager/Exercise

Controller and an alternate as key personnel. It discusses the Contract Manager only in this section. Section 1.4.6 mentions the Exercise Controller and notes he/she may function as a role player/surveillant as well, and Section 4.2.4 mentions the Exercise Controller and notes the potential dual hatted role. Our in-depth experience in conducting these exercises suggests that the

Contract Manager and Exercise Controller are separate and distinct positions. With the Contract

Manager focusing on executing and administering the non-operational requirements of the contract, and the Exercise Controller focused solely on the Validation Exercise (VALEX). Does the government intend for the Contract Manager and the Exercise Controller to be two separate positions?

Answer: Yes.

8 Is there a separate position identified to support backside requirements, i.e. rental vehicles, houses, equipment, etc.?

Answer: No.

9. Section 1.4.6 states that the Exercise Controller should be there on Training Day Three. Our experience has proven that the Exercise Controller’s interaction with backside personnel, unit cadre, logistics, etc. on site from Day One allows the Exercise Controller time to reconnoiter the physical environment, align the scripting and player movement to the exercise environment, identify physical locations, and synchronize exercise timing to ensure completion of all exercise goals IAW 75RR METL’s. Would the government entertain a change to allow the Exercise

Controller to arrive on Day One vs Day Three? We would recommend that the EC, Backside, HI

Lead, and SV Lead arrive as early as possible. This ensures that the EC has established good communications with the respective leads and ensures that any/all challenges that arise prior, during, and post exercise are communicated. This is key to providing the unit with the most realistic, and seamless training opportunity.

Answer: Yes. I don’t see an issue with that change.

10. Section 1.6.4 notes the Type of Contract as a 60-month Base Year only. We are not familiar with that language and understood the contract to be a base year plus four option years. Could the government clarify this paragraph?

Answer base and four option years

11. Section 1.6.5 notes the classification required for this contract is UNCLASSIFIED. In our extensive past performance conducting similar scale exercises, we have seen value in having a classification assigned to this exercise. This has been the norm with past exercises in which we have participated. Would the government consider changing this paragraph to require some classification? We believe some level of classification this will enhance the realism of the training and validation to be conducted.

Answer: Yes. This training should be considered classified—PWS listing it as unclassified is incorrect/misleading.

12. Section 4.2.3 notes that role players may serve as surveillance team members when not engaged in their role-playing duties. In our more than ten years of conducting similar and larger scale exercises, we do not recommend this as this will severely limit the quality of the role player exercise play. Would the government consider rewording this paragraph to eliminate this overlap? Our talented IC’s can dual hat as Targets and SV team members, or as HI RP’s and either Targets or SV members. However, if we compliment a team of 8 HI RP’s to dual hat as surveillance team members, will this reduce the training value to the customer. What would the customer prefer?

Answer: There is no preference to dual hat surveillance and role player personnel.

13. Technical Exhibit 1 (pg 46) states in PRS#4 that the contractor provides role players certified at least one certification higher than their students. Could the government provide the estimated certification levels of the students?

Answer: Student certification levels will vary based on mission requirements but, as a general guideline, most students will be either a CAT 3 or CAT 2 collector.

14. Technical Exhibit 2 (pg 47) states the requirement for a static site capable of accommodating

4-8 people within 10 miles of training area with an overall accommodation at least 14 people and must be approved by the government. This requirement is not mentioned anywhere else in the solicitation to include Part 3 Contractor Furnished Items and Services. Could the government provide a more thorough explanation of what this requirement is? Is it a TOC? Is it a classified space? Does it require a separate stand-alone structure?

Answer: Static site is lodging for duration of the exercise. 1.4.5.1. Lodging will consist of one rental house for eight (8) students and one rental house for four (4) O/C/T cadre per VALEX iteration.

15. Does the Title Page count in the page count for the Technical Volume?

Answer NO

16. While we understand the contract period to be the base year plus 4 option years, Submission

Instructions (para A.11 pg 55) call for pricing using a Period of Performance of one Base Period and two 17 month Option Periods, not pricing for the entire Period of Performance of base year plus four option years. Is our understanding correct?

Answer Pricing will be based of a base and four option years.

18. We are confused about the characterization of this solicitation. Submission of Offers para A.

6 (pg 55) states the evaluation factor is the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA).

However, para B Basis for Award (pg 55) states a single award will be made to the offer with the

LPTA to the government (i.e., which provides the greatest overall benefit to the government in response to the government in response to the requirement, price and non-price evaluation factors considered and goes on to state that the government may award to other than the lowest price or technically outstanding. Para B.2 (pg 55-56) states the government may establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals. In para C. Evaluation Criteria (pg 56) it states the government reserves the right to evaluate the lowest priced proposal first and if acceptable, award it to that offeror and if the first is not acceptable, evaluate the second lowest price and award if acceptable and so on. Based upon our analysis this solicitation seems to be a best value rather than LPTA. Can the government clarify the characterization of the solicitation?

Answer: This requirement will be awarded by the Low-Priced Technically Acceptable.

This requirement, will be evaluated based on the minimal requirements that are evaluated on an “acceptable”/”unacceptable” basis. The Award will be made to the offeror whose technical proposal is acceptable and whose cost/price is the lowest proposed. Tradeoffs between cost an non-cost factors is not permitted

19. Are offerors to provide vehicles for students and O/C/Ts, as well? If so, will this be a separate CLIN, or is this expected to be quoted in an existing CLIN? If so, which one?

Answer: Contractor will furnish rental cars for contract employees, government will furnish rental cars for service members.

According to “3.2.2.6. Provide lodging for each student (up to 8) and O/C/T (Up to 4) IAW the

Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) for lodging at all geographic CONUS locations.”

20. Will this be a separate CLIN, or is this expected to be quoted in an existing CLIN? If so, which one?

Answer: Yes the Lodging costs for the students can be a separate CLIN. We will not support separate CLINs for each student being provided lodging, but instead 1 CLIN for all Lodging costs.

According to “4.2.6. Contractor shall at a minimum be able to provide the following personnel with the specific requirements listed below. Proof of similar past performance, certificates, and operational experience is required for all of the following:”

21. There were no specific requirements that followed pertaining to this section. Can the

Government list out and make these requirements that require proof available to offerors?

Answer: Requirements are listed in PWS 4.3 through 4.3.1.7

In the Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 1.4 Scope of Work , it states “The Contractor must have previously supported at least two (2) HST VALEXs in the preceding 24 months and have at least four (4) years working with JSOC units.” Would the Government consider removing this requirement or allow a contractor to have similar past performance with another

Government entity?

Answer: Similar/past performance in similar exercises will be considered, however, previous support to HST VALEXs are preferred.

22. Box 14 of the SF1449 identifies this acquisition as an “RFQ”; however Section L.

Submission Instructions refers to “the requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

Is this acquisition an RFQ or an RFP? Does this alter the basis for award? Answer is a

RFP and this does not alter the basis for award

23. SectionL.B.1. Basis of Award identifies the award strategy as LPTA, but goes on to state

“the Government may award to other than the lowest price or technically outstanding proposal.” Will the proposals be evaluated as an LPTA effort with the lowest quote being read for technical acceptance or will all non-price proposals be read and evaluated?

Answer: This requirement will be awarded by the Low-Priced Technically Acceptable.

This requirement, will be evaluated based on the minimal requirements that are evaluated on an “acceptable”/”unacceptable” basis. The Award will be made to the offeror whose technical proposal is acceptable and whose cost/price is the lowest proposed. Tradeoffs between cost an non-cost factors is not permitted

24. Section L.A.5. Submission Instructions identifies Wage Determination WD-2015-4527, but does not identify specific DOL Occupation Codes. Is the contractor expected to identify the appropriate DOL Occupation Codes in the response?

Answer: Yes

25. Section L.C. (2);Subfactor 3: Experience; As a minimum standard is the 6 years of experience determined based off of a “singular offeror” or a combination of the offeror, teaming partners or key personnel that may comprise the response to the technical capability?

Answer: Singular Offeror. Experience requirement cannot be combined amongst individuals

26. Section L.C. (4) Past Performance identifies past performance requirements, but there is no mention of this section in Volume I (Technical Submission) or Volume II (Price

Submission). Where in the proposal should the Past Performance section be included?

Answer: 1.4 Scope of Work: Contractor shall provide services in order to support planned and future HST VALEXs. The Contractor must have previously supported at least two (2) HST VALEXs in the preceding 24 months and have at least four (4) years working with JSOC units. Services shall include the delivery of all required materials and providing contracted role players to simulate sources and individuals conducting hostile reconnaissance operations. The contractor agrees to travel to pre-coordinated planning conferences for up to two days and be on site for the duration of the exercise.

27. PWS Section 1. Overview; what is the current MICO METL and the 35CMF CTL that is being utilized? Can the government provide the METL and the CTL at an unclassified level?

Answer: See Attached METL document.

28. PWS Section 1.4. Scope of Work; will the government provide the last locations for the

VALEXs conducted in the past 24-48 months. In accordance with PWS Section 1.6.14

Contractor Travel the contractor is responsible for all travel related expenses and without knowledge of these locations pricing cannot be completed and included in the overall bid.

Answer: Previous locations: Atlanta, GA; New Orleans, LA; Pensacola, FL; Jacksonville, FL, National Capital Region (D.C.).

Expected future locations: Nashville, TN; Various other metropolitan locations.

29. PWS Section 1.4. Scope of Work states, “Contractor must have previously supported at least two (2) HST VALEXs in the preceding 24 months.” Does support to similar

USSOCOM contracted validation exercises supporting Naval Special Warfare, Naval

Special Warfare Development Group, Army Special Operations and Marine Special

Operations suffice?

Answer: Similar/past performance in similar exercises will be considered, however, previous support to HST VALEXs are preferred.

30. PWS Section 1.4.3. Scope of Work; can the government provide a specific or general area designated as ODTAAC or DTAAC that the client will be preparing to operate in? If not designation by GCC would suffice, i.e. CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM, EUCOM, INDOPACOM.

Answer: Expectation is contractor is prepared to support exercises where the scenario takes place in any GCC. Specifics to scenario will be discussed on an exercise basis during a pre-exercise planning conference.

31. PWS Section 1.4.5.1 Scope of Work; due to COVID restrictions lodging for up to 8 students may not be feasible, will two rental houses with (4) students each be acceptable? Will the government set COVID restrictions or guidelines that differ from the

CDC or local county, city, municipality guidelines?

Answer: Yes, two rental houses with 4 students each would be acceptable but not preferred.

32. PWS Section 1.6.5. Security Requirements and Technical Exhibit 3 identifies the work under this effort as “UNCLASSIFIED.” Based on more than a dozen years providing

HUMINT training and roleplaying, we are surprised to see this statement. Will any of our personnel be required to have security clearances and access to classified information?

Answer: The DD254 Contract Security Classification Specification document included in the contract solicitation states that this contract requires a Top Secret Clearance to enter unit facilities

33. PWS Section 1.6.5.(7) Security Requirements states “Vendor must obtain a Facility

Clearance… prior to the start of the contract awarded period of performance.” Should a qualified contractor with “four (4) years working with JSOC units” per PWS 1.4 Scope of

Work already have an existing Facility Clearance?

Answer: Unit will coordinate to obtain facility clearance for any individuals required to travel on to Fort Benning, GA.

34. PWS Section 1.6.8 Special Qualifications identifies a requirement for four years of previous experience while PWS Section 1.4. Scope of Work references 24 months previous experience. Is the requirement for total experience four years or two years?

Answer: 4 years

35. PWS Section 3.2.2. Contractor Furnished Items identifies “$400.00 in Intelligence

Contingency Funds (per student).” Should this section read “Simulated-Intelligence

Contingency Funds? Is the contractor expected to issue and account for these funds including associated purchases and operational expenses?

Answer: These are real monetary funds that will be distributed to each student prior to the start of the exercise to allow for purchases related to specific training objectives.

36. PWS Section 3.2.3. Contractor Furnished and PWS Section 4.2. Backside

Support/Logistical Support both reference contractor responsibilities for travel and expenses. Is the contractor responsible for all travel expenses? Are those expenses reimbursed by the government at the JTR rate? In order to include travel expenses as part of the overall bid can the government provide the locations that are forecast to be necessary for the contractor to travel to?

Answer: Contractor is responsible for all travel expenses related to contract employees, government is responsible for all travel expenses related to service members.

Previous locations: Atlanta, GA; New Orleans, LA; Pensacola, FL; Jacksonville, FL, National

Capital Region (D.C.).

Expected future locations: Nashville, TN; Various other metropolitan locations.

37. PWS Section 4.2. Backside Support/Logistical Support shows a requirement for five

(5) surveillance team members and one (1) team leader; eight (8) role players; and one (1)

Exercise Controller. PWSSection 4.2.2. also states, “Role players may serve as surveillance team member personnel when not engaged in their roleplaying duties” What is the total required number of personnel to successfully support training operations? Can the Surveillance Team Leader also participate as one of the eight (8) role players?

Answer: Minimum of 10 personnel. Role players may not serve as Surveillance Team

Leader

38. PWS Section 4.2.3. Backside Support/Logistical Support states, “Prefer role players be qualified to participate as a surveillance team member.” Will VALEX role players also performing as surveillance team members reduce the value of surveillance detection training as students will already know the identities of the surveillance team?

Answer: No. HST has utilized this method in past VALEXs, however, it is not preferred.

39. PWS Section 4.2.2. Backside Support/Logistical Support shows the requirement for each member of the surveillance roleplaying team to have counterintelligence (CI) and/or

“OTC, FTC, and MOTC” training. IC standards for surveillance roleplaying supporting

HUMINT training do not include this requirement. Would the client consider a surveillance roleplaying team with SECRET security clearances and more than ten years of support to multiple IC members HUMINT training in place of the CI/OTC training requirement?

Answer: Yes.

40. PWS Section 4.2.3.(b) Backside Support/Logistical Support; Are the courses listed in

DCHE-M 3301.002 Defense Human Intelligence Enterprise Manual, Volume II: Human

Intelligence Collection Operations (U) all considered equivalents to the listed preferred and minimum as per the crosswalk provided in the manual? As per DCHE-M 3301.002 is

Category 1 the most preferred qualification?

Answer. Yes.

41. PWS Section 4.2.3.(c) Backside Support/Logistical Support shows a requirement each student to be “paired with a role player no less than one certification level higher…” Can the contracting office provide an estimate of the number or percentage of students expected for each certification level?

Answer: CAT 1= 5%, CAT 2= 50%, CAT 3=45%

42. Is the requirement for the Exercise Controller listed in PWS Section 4.2.4. Backside

Support/Logistical Support correct "must have supported (3) VALEXs?

Answer: Similar/past performance in similar exercises will be considered, however, previous support to HST VALEXs are preferred.

43. We are interested in bidding on your VALEX, however, we have not supported an HST

VALEX in the past two years. We have recent experience supporting JSOC VALEXs encompassing everything else listed on the PWS and more, but if supporting an HST

VALEX is not waiverable then we cannot put in a bid. Let us know if that requirement can be waived. Thanks for your time.

Answer: Similar/past performance in similar exercises will be considered, however, previous support to HST VALEXs are preferred.

44. Is this a HUBZONE Small Business Set-Aside?

Answer: No this is set-aside for small business

45. Is there a requirement for a DD 254? If so, at what clearance level?

Answer: Yes

In section 1.4 “Scope of Work”, the solicitation states that the “The Contractor must have previously supported at least two (2) HST VALEXs in the preceding 24 months and have at least four (4) years working with JSOC units.”

In section 1.6.8 “Special Qualifications”, the solicitation then states that the “contractor shall have four years prior experience working with Joint Special Operations units.”

Justification for these requirements is provided as, “This is necessary to ensure the contractor is familiar with the event and can provide SME’s for the training.”

This requirement of any industry, “corporation”, having supported two HST VALEXs in the preceding 24 months and have at least four years working with JSOC units unduly and unfairly restrictive and limits competition. We understand the importance of ensuring that the supporting contractor be familiar with the event and provide the appropriate SMEs required, but this requirement of having the “corporation” meet this requirement really has no bearing on successful exercise performance. It is the contract manager/exercise controller and HUMINT

SMEs that will ensure this exercise is successful or not.

46. Will the government consider modification of this requirement to remove the above restriction to the contractor and add it to the key personnel listed in Section 1.6.11, Contract Manager/Exercise Controller - required to have previously supported at least two

(2) HST VALEXs in the preceding 24 months and have at least four (4) years working with JSOC units and that this should be demonstrated in his/her resume.

Answer: Similar/past performance in similar exercises will be considered, however, previous support to HST VALEXs are preferred.

47. Will the government consider an additional requirement that resumes for all five (5)

Surveillance/Counter Surveillance role players and the one (1) “Team Leader” be a requirement to show the depth and breadth of experience and knowledge that any company is providing?

Answer: Resumes can be included but are not a requirement.