W9124R-24-R-0004_QA_For_Industry_RFP_Amendment 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 42 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W9124R-24-R-0004
About this file
This document is the Question and Answer (Q&A) log for Amendment 2 to Request for Proposal (RFP) W9124R-24-R-0004 for Yuma Proving Ground Mission Test Support Services. The RFP is seeking proposals for a wide range of technical, engineering, and support services required to execute the mission of the Yuma Proving Ground. Key details include:
The RFP provides responses to 62 questions from offerors covering topics such as facility clearance requirements, labor categories and qualifications, pricing matrix instructions, organizational chart requirements, CBA provisions, and proposal formatting and submission instructions. The Government provides clarification, revises RFP language, and updates or corrects information in the RFP attachments in response to the questions. The proposal due date has been extended to August 19, 2024. The contract will be a performance-based, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a 2-month transition-in period. The period of performance is 1 April 2025 through 31 March 2032.
View the file
Other files
Show all 41
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Yuma MTSS- W9124R-24-R-0004- Question & Answer Log | ||||||
| KO: Jennifer Hastedt CS: Jessica Ecker Email both at: usarmy.jbsa.acc-micc.mbx.tsc-div1@army.mil | ||||||
| Q # | Subject | Attachment or # RFP Section | Document Paragraph # | Question/Comment | A # | Answer |
| Q.1 | QA_ForIndustry_16JUL24 |
W9124R-24-R-0004_RFP
Section L A.242
L.4.5.9
| Per the answer to Q.242, “Upon further research, the Offeror shall have a Top Secret FCL upon contract award. This answer supersedes the answers to question 90 and 207”, we recommend the government revise Section L.4.5.9 of the RFP to state, “The Offeror must provide a statement regarding the Offeror’s Final Facility Clearance (FCL). At time of contract award, the Contractor must be able to fulfill all contract requirements, including a Top Secret FCL.” | A.1 | Updated L.4.5.9. See revised RFP. |
| Q.2 | QA_ForIndustry_16JUL24 |
W9124R-24-R-0004_RFP
Section M A.242
M.2.1.i.
| Per the answer to Q.242, “Upon further research, the Offeror shall have a Top Secret FCL upon contract award. This answer supersedes the answers to question 90 and 207”, we recommend the government revise Section M.2.1.i. of the RFP to state, “The Offeror does not have a final Top Secret Facility Clearance (FCL).” | A.2 | Updated M.2.1.i. See revised RFP. |
| Q.3 | DD 254 | W9124R-24-R-0004_RFP_Att+0001_PWS_Att+0002_DD254 |
DD Form 254, APR 2018, Instructions 1b, 11a Per the DD Form 254 Instructions: Instruction Item 11a (1) states “If item 11a is checked, then: item 1b should be marked “N/A” or None. NOTE: If no classified work is to be done at the contractor’s facility then they will not be receiving, generating or fabricating anything classified at that location. The contractor will not have access to classified information at its own contractor facility, but will have that “access elsewhere” at another contractor’s facility or at a government activity.”
| Given the DD Form 254 instruction guidance and also given that Section 11 b and 11c are also not checked , will the government please update the marking of Section 1b of the DD254 to be “N/A” or “None” consistent with the marking in Section 11a of the DD254? | A.3 | Updated Section 1b to be "None". See revised DD Form 254. | |||||
| Q.4 | Key Personnel | W9124R-24-R-0004_RFP_Att0001_PWS | 1.4.10 | Will the Government please confirm if Key Personnel are considered Direct or Indirect positions? | A.4 | Key Personnel are considered Indirect positions | |
| Q.5 | Labor Categories | W9124R-24-R-0004_RFP_Att0001_PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories | Will the Government please confirm that Offerors can add Labor Categories and hours to both the TE-5 and the Pricing Matrix? | A.5 | Offerors can add Labor Categories and hours to both TE-5 and the Pricing Matrix. In such cases, the Offeror shall highlight the cells/columns/rows/tabs that have been modified. Per L.4.4.4.2, any changes and the rationale must be explained. | ||
| Q.6 | PPQ | W9124R-24-R-0004_RFP_Att0008_PPQ | Cover Letter | The Cover Letter for the PPQ is dated April 1, 2024 and requests PPQ POCs to return the PPQ by May 1, 2024. Will the Government please update the dates on the cover letter? | A.6 | See revised RFP Attachment 0008 | |
| Q.7 | PRS | W9124R-24-R-0004_RFP_Att+0001_PWS_Att+0001_Performance+Requirements+Summary | Whole document | The PRS attachment is scanned as an image and does not allow copying or exporting from Acrobat as a Word or Excel file. Will the Government please provide the document scanned or converted from a Word or Excel document for ease in copying/editing for efficiency/effectiveness changes. | A.7 | Excel version of PWS Attachment 0001, PRS, is published with RFP Amendment 0001. | |
| Q.8 | OCI Certification | W9124R-24-R-0004_RFP_Att0005_OCI_Certification | Whole document | The OCI Certification form is scanned as an image and does not allow copying or exporting from Acrobat as a Word file. Will the Government please provide the document scanned or converted from a Word or Excel document for ease in copying/editing. | A.8 | A fillable PDF of RFP Attachment 0005, OCI Certification, is published with RFP Amendment 0001. | |
| Q.9 | QA_ForIndustry_16JUL24 |
| W9124R-24-R-0004_RFP_Att0006_CBA+YumaMTSS_2021-2024 | A.249 | A.249 states that the new CBA is included with the RFP; however the CBA attached to the FRFP (W9124R-24-R-0004_RFP_Att0006_CBA+YumaMTSS_2021-2024) is the old CBA dated June 1, 2021 Through May 31, 2024. Will the Government please provide the updated CBA with updated rate and wage determination applicable to this effort? | A.9 | See revised RFP Attachment 0006 | |||
| Q.10 | Subcontracting Plan requirement unclear | Section M | M.4 | A Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement of Section L, however, Section M states that "acceptance of the Offeror’s small business participation proposal does not preclude the requirement required in FAR Part 19.702 for submission and approval of a Subcontracting Plan". Please confirm that a Subcontracting Plan is to be submitted post-award and not with Offeror's proposals. | A.10 | The Subcontracting Plan is to be submitted PRIOR to award. See revised L.4.5.7. | |
| Q.11 | Missing CBA | Attachment 0006 | The Answer to Q.249 states that the new CBA is included with the RFP and the CBA labor rates have been updated in the price workbook, however, the new CBA file appears to have been omitted; the referenced Attachment 0006 is the old CBA. Please provide the new CBA. | A.11 | See answer to Question 9 | ||
| Q.12 | Labor Hours Instructions Conflict | Attachment 0004 - Pricing Workbook | There is a conflict in the stated labor hours. The Instructions tab and the Labor Hours tab of the RFP Attachment 0004 - Pricing Workbook show Productive Labor Hours as 1,820. The embedded MS Word document on the Instructions tab shows 1,880 hours. Please confirm which is correct. | A.12 | Instructions tab is revised to 1,820 hours. | ||
| Q.13 | Proposed Hours Instructions Conflict | Attachment 0004 - Pricing Workbook and Section L | L.4.4.4.2 | There is a conflict between Attachment 0004 and Section L. Note 6 on page 3 of the embedded MS Word document on the Instructions tab of Attachment 0004 - Pricing Workbook states that "offerors shall propose to the number of hours populated in the worksheets". Please revise Section L.4.4.4.2 to reflect the pricing workbook instructions by removing "Offerors who alter the Government-provided skill mix or hours within RFP Attachment 0004 – Pricing Workbook must justify the reasons for adjusting the hours or rates. The explanation for changing hours will be included in Volume I, Management Factor, L.4.1.2.2 response. The explanation for changing the labor rates will be included in this volume." | A.13 | The language says "offerors shall propose to the number of hours" not "offerors shall propose the number of hours." |
See revised language in L.4.4.4.2 resulting from Question 18.
| Q.14 | Organizational Chart instructions | Section L | L.4.1.2.1.c. | There is a conflict between the answer to Q.272 and Section L. Q.272 states that only management positions are required on the organizational chart, however, Section L.4.1.2.1 paragraph c requests an offerors organizational chart "showing all positions". Please update Section L to reflect the guidance provided in Q.272. | A.14 | See revised language in Section L.4.1.2.1 |
| Q.15 | Incorrect SCA Identifier | Attachment 0004 - Pricing Workbook | Labor Hours and Direct Labor Rate Schedule tabs | Both the Labor Hours tab and the Direct Labor Rate Schedule tab of Attachment 0004 - Pricing Workbook show an incorrect number for the SCA Identifier in Column D. Please provide the correct SCA Identifier. | A.15 | See revised Attachment 4 |
| Q.16 | Old/Incorrect PPQ return request date | W9124R-24-R-0004_RFP_Att0008_PPQ.pdf | The Past Performance Questionnaire return request date is May 1, 2024 in the provided letter dated April 1, 2024. Please provide a new letter with an updated return request date. | A.16 | See answer to Question 6. | |
| Q.17 | CBA Job Descriptions Omission | CBA job descriptions were provided in a prior Draft RFP, however, appear to have been omitted in the Final RFP. Please provide job descriptions for all labor categories that are associated with the CBA. | A.17 | The CBA does not include job descriptions. PWS Attachment 8, TE-5, Labor Categories and Job Descriptions, include the Government's minimum qualifications per labor category. | ||
| Q.18 | Alterations to Government provided skill mix and hours | L.4.4.4.2 Cost Volume | 4.4.4.2 | The explanation for changing hours will be included in Volume I, Management Factor, L.4.1.2.2 response. |
The reference to Volume I Factor, L.4.1.2.2 is for Sub-factor 2 - Transition Plan.
| Question: Should the reference be for this discussion of any alterations be L.4.1.2.1 Staffing Plan? | A.18 | Yes. Section L.4.4.4.2 has been updated to reference L.4.1.2.1 | |||||
| Q.19 | Incomplete SF33 | SF33 | Block 9 of the SF33 is blank, please complete the proposal due date and time in Block 9. | A.19 | RFP is updated to include RFP due date and time on the SF33, block 9 to match RFP section L.2.1 | ||
| Q.20 | Unresolved language in the PWS | PWS | 1.1.7 | The end of paragraph 1.1.7 of the PWS states "Waiting on a response from Tim Szymanski." Please confirm if changes are anticipated to PWS 1.1.7. | A.20 | See revised PWS removing the statement. | |
| Q.21 | PPQs | Att0008 | First page | The date on the PPQ form requests a response by May 1, 2024. |
| Would the Government please issue a revised PPQ form with the date of 16 August? | A.21 | See answer to Question 6. | |||
| Q.22 | Q.272 | RFP Section L | L.4.1.2.1.c | The Answer to Q.272 stated that "Only management positions are required on the organizational chart." |
Paragraph c still states that "Its organizational chart showing all positions in the proposed organization to meet the stated mission in the PWS. All lines of authority/communication including those with the Installation, ATEC, and MICC-YPG shall be included in the organizational chart. The Offeror shall provide a staffing matrix that depicts sufficient labor hours by position by year;"
| Would the Government please amend paragraph L.4.1.2.1.c to state that only management positions are required in the organization chart and not all positions? | A.22 | See answer to Question 14. | |||||
| Q.23 | Vol III Page Limit | L.2.5 | Will the Government consider allowing the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which is required per FAR Clause 52.219-9 (Alt II), to be outside the 25 page limitation such that only the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) counts toward the 25-page limit? | A.23 | Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be excluded from the page count. See revised L.2.5 language. | ||
| Q.24 | Proposal Adequacy Checklist | Section L - L.4.5.12 | Clause 252.215-7009 | The Proposal Adequacy Checklist largely pertains to proposals developed in the Table 15-2 format and generally used when certified cost or pricing data is required. |
Is it the government’s intent that bidders submit the Proposal Adequacy Checklist with their initial submission or only if certified cost or pricing data is called for due to lack of competition? A.24 Section L.4.5.12 has been revised. Checklist requirement deleted.
Q.25 Cost Volume Pricing Matrix Instructions Point 6 RFP Section L.4.4.4.4 states areas of the pricing workbook are locked and there may be instances where the pricing workbook is not consistent with offerors accounting system. Consequently, offerors are to submit additional cost data in their own format along with the cost narrative.
However, the instructions included in Att004 Pricing Matrix under point 6, state that offerors are to revise the number of rows, columns, and/or formulas as required to comply with offerors’ accounting and estimating systems.
| Will the government please clarify the conflict between RFP Section L.4.4.4.4 and Att004 Pricing Matrix? | A.25 | Section L.4.4.4.4 has been revised. | |||||
| Q.26 | Cost Volume | Pricing Matrix Instructions | Will the government allow bidders to add tabs for supporting calculations and/or data to the right of the government’s pricing matrix tabs? | A.26 | Section L.4.4.4.4 has been revised. | ||
| Q.27 | Cost Volume | Pricing Matrix Instructions | Will the government allow bidders to add supporting calculations and/or data to the right of the government’s columns in the pricing matrix tabs? | A.27 | Section L.4.4.4.4 has been revised. | ||
| Q.28 | Staffing Matrix | RFP and Att 004 Pricing Matrix | Section L.4.1.2.1.c and Pricing Matrix Tabs - Regular Labor Detail Tab, IT Services 5.7.6 and 5.12 Tab, Fleet Maintenance 5.8.5 Tab and the Exempt labor Tab. | The four tabs in the Pricing Matrix have a total of 345 labor categories excluding overhead, management and PMO personnel that will create a labor staffing matrix with at least 360+ rows and 8 columns to address "labor hours by position by year" of the Section L requirement. Even with the minimum Times New Roman or Arial font size of 10 pt. this still creates an extremely large matrix that spans numerous pages (7 pages). |
| Would the Government please exclude the staffing matrix required by L.4.1.2.1.c from the page count? | A.28 | See answer to Question 14. | |||
| Q.29 | Organizational Chart | RFP | Section L.4.1.2.1.c | Section L.4.1.2.1.c requires "All lines of authority/communication including those with the Installation, ATEC, and MICC-YPG shall be included in the organizational chart." Given the size of the Yuma organization and the plethora of Installation, ATEC, MICC-YPG and other offices that must be coordinated with, this will create an almost unreadable organization chart. |
| Is it acceptable to provide a separate authority/communication matrix that will de-clutter the organization chart? | A.29 | See answer to Question 14. | |||
| Q.30 | CBA Turnaround Time | Att0006 - CBA | Article Eighteen, Page 14 | Reference: Article Eighteen: Turnaround Time. Specifically: In the event the employee is required by his Supervisor or Manager to report to work without a mandatory turnaround time, the employee will be | |
| paid at two (2) times his regular straight time rate until the ten (10) hours have elapsed since the employee quit working his preceding shift and time and one-half (1 ½ ) times his regular straight time rate for all remaining hours up to a maximum total of twelve (12) continuous hours worked on the subsequent shift. This element is not typically addressed in similar CBAs. Can the Government provide a summary of how frequently this occurs, the specific areas of performance and impact on operations? | A.30 | This specific scenario is very infrequent. An example is a mis-fire at the very end of a test. In such cases, the start time of the subsequent shift or test is expediently adjusted to ensure the 10-hour duration is maintained. | |||
| Q.31 | ODCs | Att0004 - Pricing Matrix | |||
| RFP M.1.6.1 Task Orders | Phase In Labor Detail Tab | ||||
| Page 126 | The Phase In tab in the pricing matrix states Phase In is CLIN 0006. However, RFP M.1.6.1. states, "Task order 0001 will be for the Transition-In utilizing the proposed FFP in CLIN 0007." Please clarify if Phase In should be CLIN 0006 or CLIN 0007. | A.31 |
CLIN 0007 is Phase In. See revised Attachment 0004
| Q.32 | ODCs | Att0004 - Pricing Matrix | |
| RFP L.4.4.5.6 Other Direct Costs | Phase In Labor Detail Tab | ||
| Page 119 | The Phase In Labor Detail tab in the pricing matrix allows Offeror to put rate information into the tab to get the phase in period price. However, this tab also states that the Phase In is an ODC (CLIN 0006). RFP L.4.4.5.6 states, "The U.S. Government will provide a dollar amount (plug figure) for the Other Direct Costs (ODCs)." Please clarify if Offerors should separately price the Phase In? Or will the Government provide a ODC plug number for Phase In ODC CLIN 0006? If this is not an ODC, we recommend the Government revise the Phase In tab to remove the ODC verbiage from the Description in Column B46-53. | A.32 | See revised languge in L.4.4.5.6 and L.4.4.5.7 and in the Pricing Matrix Instructions, section 2, bullet 6. |
Offerors may propose ODCs and travel as part of the Phase-in price. The Government is not providing ODC plug numbers for Phase-in.
| Q.33 | Ordering Period | RFP 52.216-18 Ordering | Page 36 | RFP page 36 52-216-18(a) states, “Any supplies and services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of delivery orders or task orders by the individuals or activities designated in the Schedule. Such orders may be issued from 01 April 2025 through 31 March 2032.” Should the ordering period be updated to include the two month transition period? | A.33 | The dates are an accurate reflection of the ordering period expected by the Government. | |
| Q.34 | Pricing Matrix BOE | RFP L.4.4.5.1 Direct Labor | |||||
| Att0004-Pricing Matrix | Page 117 | L.4.4.5.1 (a) requires BOEs to substantiate changes to the Government- provided hours down to the PWS paragraph level of detail. The hours provided in the Pricing Matrix are at the summary level by labor category. Most labor categories span multiple PWS paragraphs. Without additional detail, Offerors will need to make assumptions to allocate the labor category hours to the applicable PWS paragraphs. Will the Government provide the hours by labor category at the PWS paragraph level thereby allowing Offerors to reflect an appropriate starting point for hours by labor category at PWS paragraph level to support BOE development? | A.34 | No. As a performance based contract, the Offeror must detail its approach to meeting the contract and PWS requirements. | |||
| Q.35 | Pricing Matrix LCAT Mapping | Att0004-Pricing Matrix | |||||
| Att0001-PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories | Exempt Labor Detail Tab | Several labor categories contained in the Exempt Labor Detail tab do not have a corresponding Job Description in Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories. Will the Government please provide the mapping of labor categories contained in Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories to the Pricing Matrix Exempt Labor Detail tab? | A.35 | The following Exempt Labor Categories were removed: |
- SME/ Special I, II and III
- IT Professional I, II and III
The following Exempt Labor Categories were added:
- ENGINEER IV
- FIELD INSTRUMENTATION ENG
- IT SUPPORT SPECIALIST
- SOFTWARE ENGINEER II
- PROJECT MANAGEMENT TRAINER
- SYSTEMS ANALYST II
- SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR II
- DATA CENTER/CYBER SPEC II
- SOFTWARE ENGINEERING PROJ MGR
- SOFTWARE ENGINEER III
- ENGINEER CELL NETWORK
- SOFTWARE ENGINEER I
- ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
- SOFTWARE ARCHITECT
- TEST DATA ANALYST II
- TEST DATA ANALYST I
- COMMUNICATIONS FIELD ENGINEER
- DATA CENTER/CYBER SPEC I
- SYSTEM ADMINSTRATOR I
Q.36 Pricing Matrix Direct Labor Rates Att0004-Pricing Matrix Direct Labor Schedule Tab Several labor categories listed on the Direct Labor Rate Schedule tab do not have a pre-populated direct labor rates. Will the Government please provide direct labor rates for all CBA labor categories, to include categories with no hours provided? A.36 The following labor categories were removed from Attachment 0004, Pricing Matrix.
- Carpenter, Maintenance
- Engineering Technician I through VI
- General Maintenance Worker
- Supply Technician
- Unexploded Ordance Tech III
- Welder Combination Maintenance
ARCT Test Coordinator was changed to Test Coordinator/Engineering Tech III
Rates were added for:
-ARTC Test Coordinator -Inst Data Comp Prog I-IV
Also see answer to question 35.
| Q.37 | Pricing Matrix and PWS Job Descriptions | Att0004-Pricing Matrix | |||||
| Att0001-PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories | Direct Labor Schedule Tab and Att0001_PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories | Several labor categories contained in that Pricing Matrix do not have have a corresponding job description in Att0001_PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories. Will the Government please update to ensure all labor categories provided in the pricing matrix have a corresponding job description in Att0001_PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories? | A.37 | See answers to questions 35 and 36. | |||
| Q.38 | Pricing Matrix Labor Field Type | Att0004-Pricing Matrix | Regular Labor Detail | Several labor categories are missing data in the labor type field in column B. Will the Government please provide the missing data for those labor categories? | A.38 | See answers to questions 35 and 36. | |
| Q.39 | Pricing Matrix CRTC or ARTC LCATs | Att0004-Pricing Matrix | |||||
| Att0001-PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories | Regular Labor Detail Tab and Att0001_PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories | Several labor categories in the pricing matrix on the Regular Labor Detail Tab are labeled as "CRTC." Several labor categories in Att0001_PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories are labeled as "ARTC." Should Offerors use Cold Regions Test Center (CRTC) or Artic Regions Test Center (ARTC) for these labor categories? | A.39 |
ARTC (Arctic Regions Test Center) is the approprate acronym. Please use ARTC.
| Q.40 | Pricing Matrix Exempt LCATs | Att0004-Pricing Matrix | Regular Labor Detail | CRTC Elect-Mech Inst. Tech IV and CRTC Test Coordinator do not have a labor type identifed in the labor type column, and a direct labor rate is not provided for these categories. Are Offerors to assume these are exempt labor categories? If so, will the Government update the Pricing Matrix to reflect these positions on the Exempt Labor Detail tab? | A.40 | See answers to questions 35 and 36. | |
| Q.41 | Pricing Matrix Labor Hour Assignments per CLIN | Att0004-Pricing Matrix | |||||
| Att0001-PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories | Regular Labor Detail Tab |
Shift Labor Detail Tab IT Services 5.7.6 and 5.12 Tab There are several instances of improper assignment of labor category hours to CLINs. For example, the Government provides labor hours for the telecommunications technician job family in CLINs 0001 and 0002. The labor category description maps this job family solely to performance of PWS paragraph 5.12. Per the CLIN descriptions, PWS paragraph 5.12 falls under CLIN 0002. Will the Government please provide clarification on hours allocation inconsistencies across CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003? A.41 This question is unclear. Per the verbiage in for CLINS X001 and X002, Labor to support PWS section 5.12 is shown in both CLINS. Several labor categories are required in multiple CLINs; the Government provided its estimate of hours provided to each CLIN.
In your example, telecommunication technicians, the hours are the same in each CLIN. However, Field Technican I and II have different hours in the Regular Labor Detail compared to IT Services (CLIN X002).
| Q.42 | Pricing Matrix CLIN 0005 | RFP Section B & Pricing Matrix Section B Tab | Section B Tab | In RFP Section B field for CLIN 0005, the price is blank; however, in the Section B tab of the pricing matrix CLIN 0005 contains "N/A." Will the Government clarify if offerors should propose a price for CLIN 0005 or if it should be Not Seperately Priced (NSP) based on the "N/A" provided in the pricing matrix? | A.42 | Revised to allow costs for X005 in new tab "Reporting - CLIN X005" | |
| Q.43 | Pricing Matrix | Att0004_Pricing_Matrix Embedded Instructions Document | |||||
| RFP Section L | L.4.4.5.3 Major Subcontracts, Page 118 |
L.4.4.5.4 Direct Material and Non-Major Subcontracts, Page 118 L.4.4.5.5 Inter-Organizational Transfers, Page 119
| Pricing Matrix Embedded Word Document Instructions, Page 1 | RFP sections L.4.4.5.3 - L.4.4.5.5 specify the pricing detail requirements for Major Subcontracts, Non-Major Subcontracts, and Inter-Organizational Transfers. Per Section L, Major Subcontracts and Inter-Organizational Transfers require cost information equivalent to the prime. However, Non-Major subcontracts are required only to "provide a narrative which explains the method used to develop proposed cost." The embedded instructions in the Pricing Matrix state, "The completed workbook 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." Will the Government please revise the embedded instruction language to "shall be submitted for the prime offeror AND for any and all divisions and MAJOR subcontractors proposed..." to align w/ Section L instructions? | A.43 | Added "major subcontractors" to the word document embedded in Att 0004, paragraph 1. | ||||
| Q.44 | CBA Seniority | Att0006 - CBA | 6.00 Seniority List, Page 8 | Will the Government please provide a copy of the seniority list, as referenced within the CBA? | A.44 | The seniority list will not be provided. | |
| Q.45 | BOE | PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories | 5.4.7 Electro-Optical Maintenance, 5.6.5 Radiography , 5.7.2 Computer Software Programming, 5.7.3 Systems Configuration & Maintenance, 5.8.8 Small Arms Maintenance, 5.8.9 Direct Fire Weapons Maintenance, 5.11.2 Range Control, 5.12.3 Telecommunications Planning Support, 5.12.7 Spectrum Management, 5.13.5 Project Management Module (PMM) and ATEC Decision Support System (ADSS) | In PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories, the Government did not provide Labor Categories positions in the identified PWS Elements. Will the Government update PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories to define the Labor Categories associated with the identified PWS Elements? | A.45 | Your question is unclear. Column B contains the PWS paragraph for every labor category. | |
| Q.46 | RFP Due Date Extension | We respectfully request the Government provide an extension to 8/26 to provide Offerors with an appropriate amount of time to incorporate the new information released with Amendment 1? In particular, the updated CBA information has a significant impact on the development of the pricing response. | A.46 | Proposal due date is extended until 12:00 PM CDT on 19 August 2024. | |||
| Q.47 | Workforce Qualifications | PWS & PWS Attachment TE=5 and Attachment 4 to the RFP, Pricing Matrix | PWS Paragraph 1.4.8 and Attach 4 to RFP (Pricing Matrix) | Attachment 4 to the RFP requires offerors to price positions not listed within TE-5. Would the Government please provide position descriptions and qualifications for the following positions so that realistic data can be entered into the pricing matrix? |
IT Professional I IT Professional II
| IT Professional III | A.47 | See answers to questions 35 and 36. | |||||
| Q.48 | Formatting | Section L | L.2.5.f | Would the Government please confirm that reproduced sections of the document (SF33/SF30, DD254, and Sections A through K, etc.) and preexisting documentation (such as DCAA approval letters, CAS Disclosure Statement, signed teaming agreements, etc.) are exempt from the stated font and margin requirement? | A.48 | Reproduced documents are exempt from the font and margin requirements. | |
| Q.49 | Formatting | Section L | L.2.5.f | Would the Government please confirm that document Headers and Footers are excluded from font requirements? | A.49 | Reproduced documents are exempt from the font. Other documents must adhere to the font and margin requirements. | |
| Q.50 | Cost/Price | Section L | L.4.4.4.3 / L.4.4.4.4 | Both L.4.4.4.3 and L.4.4.4.4 request offerors to provide a Roadmap demonstrating how the narrative reconciles with RFP Attachment 0004. Should the Roadmap be provided within the narrative or submitted as a separate file? | A.50 | The Roadmap should be submitted as a separate file. See revised L language. | |
| Q.51 | Staffing Matrix | Section L | L.4.1.2.1 c | Section L.4.1.2.1.c states "The Offeror shall provide a staffing matrix that depicts sufficient labor hours by position by year;" | |||
| Would the Government consider removing this matrix from the allocated page count? | A.51 | The staffing matrix will not be included in the page count. The staffing matrix shall be provided as a separate matrix. |
Section L.4.1.2.1.c has been revised.
| Q.52 | Hyperlinks | Section L | L.2.5.d | |
| L.4.4.2 | Section L2.5 states "The proposal shall not contain citations for, or active links to live Internet sites or pages. All linked information shall be contained within the electronic proposal. Any linked information that is not contained in the proposal will not be reviewed or accepted." |
Section L.4.4.2 states "Provide a Table of Contents showing each file submitted as part of the Cost Volume with a short description of the contents of the file. Hyperlink each of these entries in the Table of Contents to the respective files."
| Since the proposals will be submitted via email, the hyperlinks required in Section L.4.4.2 will not work because there will be no direct path. Would the Government please confirm the hyperlink requirement? | A.52 | Revised L.4.4.2 to make the hyperlink optional. | |||||
| Q.53 | Cost Volume | Attach 0004 Pricing Matrix | Cost Summary Tab | We discovered formula errors in Amendment 0001 Pricing Matrix on the rows for the "Other Direct Costs (ODCs) (Less Burden)" and the "G&A Burden on ODCs" elements of cost. Cells F46 and G46 should be "='ODC Cost Detail'!C9/5". Also, Cells C47:G47 should be "='ODC Cost Detail'!E9/5". | A.53 | Corrected | |
| Q.54 | Omitted WBS | Section L | L.4.4.5.1 | L.4.4.5.1 requires Basis of Estimates (BOEs) for changes to the labor hour estimates provided by the Government that include: |
The PWS paragraph The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
| The PWS was provided as a solicitation attachment, however, a WBS was not provided. Will the Government remove the WBS requirement in the BOEs or provide the WBS as a solicitation attachment? | A.54 | No. As a performance based contract, the Offeror must detail its approach to meeting the contract and PWS requirements. The WBS is specific to each Offeror. | |||||
| Q.55 | Unclear instructions on where to include eSRS forms | Section L, Vol II Past Performance | L.4.2.6 | The reference to SB page counts is confusing in the following Volume II Past Performance Section L requirement "... include SF 294 and SF 295... for the last five years which are excluded from the SB page counts." Please clarify which volume shall include these attachments Volume II Past Performance or Volume III Small Business Participation. | A.55 | The SF 294 and 295 are submitted in Volume II, Past Performance. See revised language removing "SB." | |
| Q.56 | Ambiguity in the evaluation of enhancements considered strengths | Section L | L.4.1.1.1 | Paragraph L.4.1.1.1 for Factor 1 invites bidders to include enhancements with its proposal, and to describe those enhancements, believed to be a strength, in the cost/price volume. Section M evaluation criteria for the cost/price volume (Factor 4) does not score strengths. How does the Government anticipate evaluating the enhancements/strengths proposed as part of the price/cost volume? Recommend the Government allow enhancements as a non-page counted attachment to Factor 1/Volume I so that it is scored according to Section M.5 | A.56 | Volume I, Management Approach allows Offeror's an opportunity to include strengths and enhancements in Offeror's proposal. The narrative in Volume IV, Pricing, is to explain the Offeror's cost impacts comapred to the Government provided labor hour estimates. | |
| Q.57 | Omitted Job Descriptions | "W9124R-24-R-0004_RFP_Att0001_PWS_Att0008-TE-5_Labor_Categories" and "W9124R-24-R-0004_RFP_Att0006_CBA+YumaMTSS_2024_Amendment1" | The Army’s response to Q&A No. 55 regarding the Draft RFP stated that the RFP would provide labor category descriptions; however, when asked for the job descriptions applicable to the CBA, the Army’s response to Q&A No. 17 in Amendment 001 states that the CBA does not include job descriptions. Although job descriptions are not physically attached to the CBA, they are expressly referenced in the CBA in Exhibit A, Section 4.0, and the job descriptions were provided to the Army so that they can be shared with offerors. The job descriptions not only define the types of duties and equipment associated with a labor category, they also explicitly describe how the employer may use and schedule the individuals covered by the CBA. Because the Yuma MTSS contractor cannot change these job descriptions without negotiating the change with the union, the job descriptions should be provided to all offerors so that they understand duties associated with the labor categories they are proposing. The qualifications and experience requirements provided in Attachment 8, TE-5, does not contain the information included in the job descriptions. | A.57 | The Government will provide an answer soon. | ||
| Q.58 | Price shift hours | The Direct Labor Rate Schedule worksheet within the Attachment 0004 Pricing Matrix currently shows a shift labor rate in column I that equals the regular rate + $1.25 per hour. This rate is carried over to column H of the Shift Labor Detail worksheet and applied to the shift hours in column G of the Shift Labor Detail worksheet. However, because the shift hours in the Shift Labor Detail worksheet are not overtime hours, applying the Shift rate from column I of the Direct Labor Detail worksheet overstates the cost of Shift labor. For example, row 10 of the Shift Labor Detail worksheet estimates 215.49 productive shift labor hours for the AC Electrician II labor category. Because the 215.49 hours are not overtime hours, the employees have already been paid for these hours at the Regular rate in column G of the Direct Labor Rate Schedule worksheet. The employees would only be paid an additional $1.25 per hour for out of shift work, not an additional $39.73 per hour. Please revise the Pricing Matrix so that column I in the Direct Labor Rate Schedule only includes the $1.25 shift differential. | A.58 | The hours in the Shift Labor Detail tab are hours in addition to regular hours detailed in the Regular Labor Detail tab. Therefore, applying the the total OT rate would apply. | |||
| Q.59 | Price workbook | Does the total FTE estimate on the Regular Labor Detail worksheet of 835.34 FTEs include the 25.06 FTEs of shift hours listed on the Shift Labor Detail worksheet? The Government's answer to Q.287 stated that the intention was to avoid "double counting" these hours. Please clarify to eliminate any possible duplication of cost for the same direct labor hours per labor category. | A.59 | There are the same labor categories for both Regular Labor Detail and Shift Labor Detail. The productive hours are different between the two different labor categories so there would not be any "double counting" of these hours. | |||
| Q.60 | Ambiguity in certain costs related to the management and administration of the YPG MTSS contract | The Yuma MTSS RFP contains an ambiguity regarding the allocation of certain costs related to the management and administration of the Yuma MTSS contract. This is the same ambiguity that GAO identified in the Aberdeen Test Support Services RFP in TRAX Int’l Corp., B‑420361.7, B‑420361.8, June 28, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 162 at 17-19. Specifically, Section 1.6 of the Yuma MTSS states: “Any anticipated overhead/allowable costs shall be included in the Contractor’s indirect charge rate (contract administration and management, supervision, team leadership, procurement, logistics, human resources, financial management, safety, quality management, Contractor Furnished Equipment (PWS Attachment 3), Cybersecurity administration and Personnel Administration, to include scheduling and resource management).” Section 4.1 also directs offerors to include costs for contractor-furnished items in the “the Contractor’s indirect charge rate.” The Army’s responses to offeror questions similarly direct offerors to include a variety of costs that only benefit the Yuma MTSS contract in the contractor’s “indirect rates” or “overhead rate.” Q&A Nos. 65, 86, 151. We appreciate that, per Section 1.6.2, the Army needs a mechanism to allocate to specific test programs certain costs that benefit multiple test programs. However, as GAO found with respect to the ATSS RFP, the language in the Yuma MTSS RFP suggests that contractors can include these costs in an existing indirect rate that allocates to multiple contracts in addition to Yuma MTSS. Although these costs benefit multiple Yuma MTSS test programs, they are not “indirect costs” under FAR 30.001 and 31.203(b) because they only benefit the Yuma MTSS contract. As a result, these costs cannot be allocated to non-Yuma MTSS contracts unless the contractor has an established accounting practice of allocating similar costs on other contracts across the same allocation base. Please confirm that offerors must employ a FAR- and CAS-compliant approach and that offerors must allocate Yuma MTSS-specific costs across a base that includes only Yuma MTSS costs, unless the contractor’s established accounting practices consistently allocate similar costs under similar circumstances across a broader base. | A.60 | The Government will provide an answer soon. | |||
| Q.61 | PP - Page Count | RFP | L.4.2.4.1(a) | Would the Government please confirm the "legal documentation, including but not limited to corporate papers, establishing the legal nexus between the Offeror and the associated entity" are not included in the Past Performance page count. | A.61 | The legal documentation is not included in the Past Performance volume page count. | |
| Q.62 | PP - Evaluation | RFP | M.6.3.2 | Section M.6.3.2 currently states: "A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) as detailed in L.4.2.4.3 and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated." |
Would the Government please confirm that subcontractor Past Performance is not being assessed and that associated entity/affiliate Past Performance will also be assessed? A.62 The Government will not evaluate past performance for subcontractors. As detailed in L.4.2.4, the Government may consider the past performance of an associated entity, a predecessor company, or joint venture.
&D &T &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .