ATTACHMENT 15 MCTP Industry Questions and Answers 29AUG25.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 39 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W91QF425RA008
About this file
This document is an Attachment containing Questions and Answers (Q&A) for the Mission Command Training Program (MCTP) Request for Proposal (RFP), solicitation number W91QF425RA008. The document includes 96 detailed questions and corresponding government responses covering critical aspects of the procurement, including proposal preparation instructions, past performance requirements, cost estimation guidelines, personnel qualifications, and evaluation criteria. Key details include a proposal submission deadline of 8 September 2025 at 10AM EDT, with past performance questionnaires due by 5 September 2025, and the contract being a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) type services contract awarded to a single offeror by the Department of the Army Materiel Command Mission and Installation Contracting Command.
The Q&A addresses numerous technical and procedural clarifications, such as exercise cost estimations, labor category definitions, key personnel security clearance requirements, subcontractor participation, small business requirements, and page count limitations for proposal volumes. Notable revisions include updates to the Performance Work Statement (PWS), clarifications on evaluation factors, modifications to cost estimate templates, and adjustments to personnel qualification standards. The government provided additional guidance on topics like exercise calendars, shipping and relocation costs, indirect rate calculations, and past performance submission requirements to help potential offerors prepare more precise and compliant proposals.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 54 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
MCTP Training Questions
| MCTP Training | ||||||
| RFP Notice ID: W91QF25RA008 | ||||||
| Question # | Title | Received | Question/Recommendation | Description/Comment | References/RFP location | Answer |
| 1 | Alignment of cost to site locations | 5/2/25 | Can the government provide the exercise calendars for Base year and option years that provide the site locations and number of sites that align to the # of WFX listed as General Exercise Schedule found in the Roll-Up tab of ATTACHMENT 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet that ensures we align the evaluated cost factors? The government states cost must provide Staffing (manning) by labor category and personnel count is required at the exercise level of detail. Only the incumbent has the level of fidelity on the current exercise schedule. We acknowledge the government may not have fidelity on an 8 year calendar, but offerors need a basis by which to plan and price the appropriate LOE. | ATTACHMENT 13 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award states the Government shall evaluate each offer’s Cost Proposal for: Completeness; Balanced Pricing; Price Reasonableness; and |
Cost Realism.
| Attachment 12 Section L.C.II: The government states cost must provide Staffing (manning) by labor category and personnel count is required at the exercise level of detail. | ATTACHMENT 13 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award, Roll-Up tab of ATTACHMENT 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet, Attachment 12 Section L.C.II | The Government cannot provide the exercise schedules because they are classified. Offerors are instructed to use the new Attachment 14 MCTP Sample Exercise Calendar in order to develop the cost proposal. Attachment 14 was designed so that its use would result in a close approximation of the cost of performing the classified exercise schedule. | |||||
| 2 | Sensitive Incumbent Information | 5/2/25 | Did the government intend to disclose the information found in TE 4 and TE 13? It appears to have incumbent specific information and upon opening it we immediately closed and set aside. We are not presently using it in our solution analysis or for any other means until the government confirms they intentionally provided. | TE 4 Contractors Progress Status and Management Report Redacted & TE 13 FLKS OPFOR Simulation Control Plan with Enclosures Redacted but contain detailed information of performance by the incumbent. We have quarantined these documents from our proposal and await government response. | TE 4 Contractors Progress Status and Management Report Redacted & TE 13 FLKS OPFOR Simulation Control Plan with Enclosures Redacted | Yes with regards to TE-4. TE-13 has since been removed. | |
| 3 | Travel and Shipping costs | 5/2/25 | Section L states offerors shall provide details regarding all applicable other direct costs including travel, shipping and relocation along with basis of estimate and supporting documentation. Given the variability in these requirements, and to allow for consistency in evaluation between offerors, will the government provide shipping NTE plugs for Travel and Shipping? If plugs are not provided will the government provide historical record of shipping weights and locations for sites used for exercises aligned to sites used by MCTP as required during the PoP? Without this information, non-incumbent competitors will be at an inherent disadvantage. | Cost sheets and instructions require offers to provide travel, and shipping costs to be included. | Attachment 12 Section L. I.(e)e.; II.(a); Attachment 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate SheetIII.; | See revised Attachment 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet which includes plug numbers. See Section L page 16 revised that the Government has provided numbers for offerors to use for shipping costs, relocations costs, and travel. Offerors shall not provide different numbers where the Government has already provided a number. | |
| 4 | 5/11/25 | Requesting a two-week extension to the due date of this proposal to 13 June 2025, to allow the USG enough time to respond fully and bidders time to adjust to responses. | W91QF425RA008 MCT RFP | Proposal due date extended to 29 August 8 September 2025. | |||
| 5 | 5/11/25 | The format of Attachment 11 lacks a location for both CLIN and SCLS Category Mapping to be provided. Can the format be amended by the bidder to accommodate the inclusion of both? | W91QF425RA008 MCT RFP Attachment 11 Mapping | See Updated Attachment 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet revised to include a Labor Rates tab that will allow an offeror to note a labor category as SCA and provide Service Contract Act support. | |||
| 6 | 5/11/25 | In Attachment 11, what is the intent of cell A6 reflecting ($0.00) for each Contract Year tab? | W91QF425RA008 MCT RFP Attachment 11 Contract Year tabs | See Updated Attachment 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet revised. | |||
| 7 | 5/11/25 | Will Attachment 11 Cost Model file submissions that exceed the 10MB limit, in order to provide all of the required support, be disqualified for file size? | W91QF425RA008 MCT RFP Attachment 11 File Size Limit | The maximum size of any single attachment remains. See Attachment 12 Section L page 5. | |||
| 8 | 5/11/25 | In Volume IV: Staffing and Management Plan, please confirm that the inclusion of the required Key Personnel Letters of Commitment do not count towards the 20-page-count limitation? | Attachment 12 Volume IV pg. 18 C.3.c | The Key Personnel Letters of Commitment do not count toward the 30 page limitation (see Attachment 12 Section L page 9 as revised) | |||
| 9 | 5/11/25 | In Volume VI, please confirm that the inclusion of the Small Business Participation Past Performance Information requested does not count towards the total page count limitation? | Attachment 12 Volume VI pg. 24 C.3.f | The Small Business Participation Past Performance information requested does not count towards the total page count limitation. (see Attachment 12 Section L page 9 as revised) | |||
| 10 | 5/11/25 | Will the Government allow Offerors to use 11” by 17” sized pages for required tables and/or large format information that would more efficiently be portrayed in such format if we count the 11x17 as two pages per the Section L, C.2.f paragraph instructions? | Attachment 12 Section L C.2.f | If offerors use a 11” by 17” sized page that counts as two pages, see Attachment 12 page 10 as revised. | |||
| 11 | 5/11/25 | Please confirm that DFARS 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, 252.227-7015, and 252.227-7017 are the governing data rights clauses for the resultant award. | Attachment 6 Pg 47 1.9.12 | Yes, DFARS 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, 252.227-7015, 252.227-7017 are included as data rights clauses in addition to DFARS 252.227-7020 (see W91QF425FA0008 MCTP) | |||
| 12 | 5/11/25 | Please explain the basis for the Government's assertion of ownership in subject inventions under this resultant contract. | Attachment 6 Pg 47 1.9.12 | See PWS 1.9.12 Data Rights revised. | |||
| 13 | 5/11/25 | To ensure fairness and impartiality in the evaluation process, will the United States Government (1) require members of the USG evaluation panel disclose potential conflicts of interest and (2) ensure that any member who had a prior relationship with an offeror (to include accepting offers of employment or signing letters of commitment) is recused from the evaluation panel? | All members of the Source Selection Team are required to disclose all known actual and apparent conflicts of interest in order to ensure compliance with all applicable conflict of interest and ethics laws and regulations and the Procurement Integrity Act. The identity of members of the Source Selection Team is procurement sensitive information which is protected by the Procurement Integrity Act. If an offeror has a concern about the potential participation of a specific government employee in this procurement, the offeror is encouraged to share any concerns with the Contracting Officer. However, the Contracting Officer may neither confirm nor deny whether a particular individual participated in the procurement, or the level of their participation. | ||||
| 14 | Option To Extend Services | 5/12/25 | Can the government confirm the number of months the contract can be extended? It appears 96 months needs to be extended to support the full PoP Phase In-Base Year 7 and Option to extend services. | W91QF425R0008 MCTP 29 Apr 2025.pdf 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. (Mar 2000) (c) states "The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 96(months) (years)." | W91QF425R0008 MCTP 29 Apr 2025.pdf 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. (Mar 2000) | See FAR 52.217-9 revised to shall not exceed 8 years and 6 months (102 months). | |
| 15 | PoP Alignment | 5/12/25 | Sections B and F of the RFP designate Base Period CLINs 0002-0005 as having a 9-month period of performance (PoP). However, Attachment 11, Roll-Up tab, cell A3, identifies the Base Period as a 12-month period. Can the government confirm that the Base Period is only designated as a 9-month PoP and that this may be updated in Attachment 11, as applicable? | There is a slight misalignment in the designated Base Period PoP between the RFP (9 months) and Attachment 11 (12 months). | Attachment 11, Roll-Up tab, cell A3; RFP Section B (p. 3) and Section F (pp. 18-19) | The contract Period of Performance (POP) is a 12-month base period of performance, which includes a 90-day phase-in followed by nine (9) months of full performance; seven (7) 12-month option periods; and the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services for up to an additional six (6) months. See Attachment 11 Revised. | |
| 16 | Indirect Rate Requirements and Substantiation | 5/12/25 | The Attachment 11 Instructions, as well as Attachment 12, Section L.C.3(b)(I)(c) require offerors who do not hold a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) to provide the breakdown of costs for all fringe and indirect rates, including components and calculations by individual element. Would the government consider allowing CAS compliant offerors who maintain and implement a Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP) under the cognizance of a DCMA/DCAA auditor to instead budget and substantiate fringe and indirect rates through provision of their FPRP? An FPRP represents the most accurate estimation of what an offeror's actual rate performance will be, and is therefore most appropriate for use in proposals. | Offerors who implement using an FPRP are obligated to provide the Government a best estimate of where their costs will land at the end of the fiscal year, thereby providing an accurate estimation of rates. Any DCMA Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) and resulting FPRA may include some rates or factors that are different than an offeror's FPRP, thereby resulting in an inaccurate estimation. An FPRP best represents an offeror's future cost and is a valid estimate of what their actual rate performance will be, and is therefore most appropriate for use in proposals. | Attachment 11, Instructions tab; Attachment 12, L.C.3(b)(I), p. 14 | Offerors may not rely on an existing FPRP to substantiate estimated fringe and indirect rates. See revised Attachment 12 Section L page 14 language and revised Attachment 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet. | |
| 17 | Presentation of ODC-Related Indirect Costs | 5/12/25 | The Roll-Up tab of Attachment 11 includes designated line items for offerors' estimated ODCs to include Travel, Relocation, and Shipping, with no further lines for indirect costs such as G&A or Material Handling associated with these ODCs. Can the government, if not otherwise providing NTE plug figures for these ODCs, clarify where offerors are to include associated indirect costs in the Roll-Up Summary? | If NTE plugs are not provided for Travel and Shipping costs (in response to separate question), offerors need clarity on how associated indirect costs are to be captured in Attachment 11. | Attachment 11, Roll-Up tab | See revised Attachment 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet including guiding language on applying indirect costs. Plug figures are to assume all offeror's indirects are included. See Note 3 on the Instructions tab of the revised Attachment 11. | |
| 18 | Confirmation of Relocation Figures as NTE Plugs | 5/12/25 | Attachment 11 includes figures for Relocation costs by PoP in row 14 of the Roll-Up tab. Can the government confirm that offerors should use these figures as not-to-exceed plug figures, inclusive of associated indirect costs? | If NTE plugs are not provided for Travel and Shipping costs (in response to separate question), offerors need clarity on how associated indirect costs are to be captured in Attachment 11. | Attachment 11, Roll-Up tab | See revised Attachment 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet which guides offerors to propose relocation. See Section L page 16 revised that the Government has provided numbers for offerors to use for shipping costs, relocations costs, and travel. Offerors shall not provide different numbers where the Government has already provided a number. Plug figures are to assume all offeror's indirects are included. Please see Note 3 on the Instructions tab of the revised Attachment 11. | |
| 19 | Confirmation of Relocation Figures as NTE Plugs | 5/12/25 | Attachment 11 includes figures for Relocation costs by PoP in row 14 of the Roll-Up tab. Can the government confirm that offerors should use these figures as not-to-exceed plug figures, inclusive of associated indirect costs? | The provided Relocation costs are not otherwise specified as plug figures elsewhere in the RFP or Attachments. | Attachment 11, Roll-Up tab, row 14 | See revised Attachment 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet which guides offerors to propose relocation. See Section L page 16 revised that the Government has provided numbers for offerors to use for shipping costs, relocations costs, and travel. Offerors shall not provide different numbers where the Government has already provided a number. Plug figures are to assume all offeror's indirects are included. Please see Note 3 on the Instructions tab of the revised Attachment 11. | |
| 20 | Program Support costs | 5/12/25 | Attachment 11, Roll-Up tab, cells D4 through U4, include a designated line for Program Support labor in each PoP. Can the government clarify what is to be included under this labor segment and how it is distinguished from Program Management & Sustainment? If Program Support is a distinct segment from Program Management & Sustainment, should this segment also be summarized by Cost Element in the Cost Proposal Section (L.C.3(b)(II))? | Seeking clarification on inclusion of Program Support costs in Attachment 11 (if intentional), as further instructions regarding this segment are not otherwise noted in the RFP. | Attachment 11, Roll-Up tab, cells D4-U4; Attachment 12, L.C.3(b)(II), p. 15 | See revised Attachment 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet removing "Program support". | |
| 21 | Key personnel resume vs page count | 5/12/25 | Given the number of personnel required and page count required to provide the letters, can the Government please exempt letters of commitment from the page count limit to be provided in the appendix? | Section L requires the the letters of commitment for key personnel of key personnel to be included in the proposal. Do the key personnel resumes count against the proposal page count? | ATTACHMENT 12 Section L Factor 2 Staffing and Management | The Key Personnel Letters of Commitment do not count toward the page limitation (see Attachment 12 Section L page 9 as revised) | |
| 22 | Key personnel qualifications | 5/12/25 | Could you please clarify how the Government will evaluate Key Personnel (KP) qualifications if resumes are not submitted? | ||||
| Additionally, if resumes are required, please confirm they will be excluded from the page count limit?" | Section L requires the the letters of commitment for key personnel of key personnel to be included in the proposal. Do the key personnel resumes count against the proposal page count? | ATTACHMENT 12 Section L Factor 2 Staffing and Management | Attachment 12 – Section L has been revised to instruct Offerors to provide resumes for proposed Key Personnel. Key Personnel Resumes will be excluded from the page count. See Attachment 12 Section L page 9 as revised. | ||||
| 23 | 52.217-3 Evaluation Exclusive of Options. | 5/12/25 | Can the Government confirm that FAR Clause 52.217-3 Evaluation Exclusive of Options, which states Options will not be evaluated as part of the award, was included in the solicitation unintentionally and is not applicable? Rationale: the Government has requested priced Option Years from vendors and has also included FAR Clause 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options in the solicitation which states that Option Years will be evaluated to determine overall price. | W91QF425RA008+MCTP+29APR25 | FAR Clause 52.217-3 Evaluation Exclusive of Options was included in the solicitation unintentionally and is not applicable (see revised W91QF425FA0008 MCTP). | ||
| 24 | Past Performance-SubK Agreements | 5/12/25 | Section L, Page 23, "Consent Letters" states "Offerors are required to submit signed subcontracting agreements where subcontractors are proposed to perfrom less than 50% of the work". Since subcontractor agreements are not signed until after award, do the consent letters satisfy the governments requirement under this paragraph? | "Offerors are required to submit signed subcontracting agreements where subcontractors are proposed to perform less than 50% of the work." | Section L, page 23, Consent Letters | If the subcontractor agreements are not signed until after award, signed enforcable teaming agreements satisfy. See Attachment 12 Section L page 24 as revised and Attachment 13 Section M page 8 as revised. | |
| 25 | Past Performance - Sub contractor evaluations | 5/12/25 | Does the government intend to evaluate performance of subcontractors performing less than 50% of the work as part of the offeror's past performance volume or through government inquiry via other sources? | Section M: "The Government will also evaluate proposed subcontractor past performance where subcontractors are proposed to perform less than 50% of the work and have provided signed subcontracting agreements." 15-page count limits the offeror's ability to include additional subcontractor performance content. | Section M, Page 8, Factor 4 | The Government intends to evaluate performance of subcontractors as part of the offeror's past performance volume. See Attachment 13 Section M page 8 Factor 4 revised for additional information. | |
| 26 | Past Performance - L & M percentage difference | 5/12/25 | Please clarify the requirement for past performance between Section L & M where L states 25-50% and M states less than 50%? | Section L: "Past Performance information described herein is required for the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform from 25% to at least 50% of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price." Section M: "The Government will also evaluate proposed subcontractor past performance where subcontractors are proposed to perform less than 50% of the work and have provided signed subcontracting agreements. " | Section L, Page 22, (f) & Section M, Page 8, Factor 4 | The Government will also evaluate proposed subcontractor past performance where subcontractors are proposed to perform at least 25% of the work, or major or critical aspects of the requirement, and have provided signed subcontracting agreements or signed teaming agreeements and consent letters. Note that the Government will only consider past performance that is relevant to the work the subcontractor or teaming partner is proposed to perform as identified by the Offeror as part of its proposal See Attachment 12 Section L page 23 revised and Attachment 13 Section M page 8 Factor 4 revised. | |
| 27 | Past Performance Volume-Page Count | 5/12/25 | In addition to what the Government excluded for page count in Section L, Page 9(d/e), request exclusion of subcontractor/teaming partner consent letters, subcontracting agreements, and Individual Subcontractor Reports, from the page count of Volume VI, Past Performance? | Request for page count exclusion. | RFP Attachment 12, Section L, Page 9, (d),€ | See Attachment 12 Section L page 9 revised for additional exclusions. | |
| 28 | Sample Warfighter Exercise | 5/12/25 | Attachment 4A or Attachment 4B both show different exercise timelines. What exercise timeline does the government want offerers to use for sample WFX? | Attachments 4A and 4B, assume that the Sample WFX is 28-3. 4A provides a "Piano Chart" timeline that shows a CPX. 4B provides a different "Piano Chart" timeline that does not have a CPX and different execution dates. | Attachment 4A, Page 10 and Attachment 4B. Page 3 | See revised Attachment 4A, 4B, and 4C ( Sample Exercise WFX 28-3 Brief V7- Shipping Problem Update, Sample Exercise WFX 28-3 Troop List V7, and Sample MCTP Exercise Solution WFX Exercise Facilities [SCP+Build] v4). Version 7 corrects the ""Piano Charts"" to include CPX 3 and corrects execution dates. The change also presents notional units. For evaluation of the Sample Exercise under Factor 1 offerors will develop and submit: 1. A BLUEFOR Simulation Control Plan for all locations (CDRL-10 for format); and 2. An Exercise Strength Manning and Equipping Document (TE-16 for format). See Attachment 12 Section L page 18 revised. | |
| 29 | Sample WFX, CPX | 5/12/25 | If the Attachment 4A Timeline, which includes a Command Post Exercise (CPX), is the preferred timeline for the sample Warfighter Exercise (WFX), what specific requirements does the government mandate from contracted support for the CPX? | Attachment 4A provides some planning details for CPX support but does not clearly define contracted support requirements. | Attachment 4A, Page 10 and Attachment 4B. Page 3 | Offerors should conduct mission analysis IAW with the planning timeline and the PWS. For example Page 2 of Attachment 4A describes equipment arrival and setup starting on 12 JAN 28. Page 4 describes the conduct of CPX III in terms of MCTP support. See Attachment 12 Section L page 18 revised. | |
| 30 | Sample WFX, RRE | 5/12/25 | Both attachments 4A and 4B identify 12th Mech Polish Division participating as a training audience. Does MCTP require an RRE to be integrated into the exercise timeline? | Attachments 4A and 4B both identify the involvement of the 12th Mech Polish Division participating as a training audience. | Attachment 4B, Page 12 and Attachment 4B, Page 1 | Yes, MCTP does require a CPX III (RRE) to be integrated into the exercise timeline (slide 10 of attachment 4A) associated with PWS 1.4.5, Contingency Operations. Attachments 4A (slides 3, 4, 5, 6) and TE-9 (Capability Comparison slides) provides the baseline data Offerors should use for the CPX III proposal build. Offerors should conduct mission analysis IAW with the planning timeline , PWS, and provided attachments. For example, page 2 of Attachment 4A describes equipment arrival and setup starting on 12 JAN 28 and page 4 describes the conduct of CPX III in terms of MCTP support. See Attachment 12 Section L page 18 revised. | |
| 31 | Past Performance-ISRs | 5/12/25 | Please clarify if the government's intent is for large businesses ("For other than small business") that performed as subcontractors to provide Individual Subcontractor Reports as mentioned in Section L, Page 24 under the Small Business Participation Past Performance paragraph? | Within the paragraph titled Small Business Participation Past Performance it states "For Other than small business, 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." | Section L, page 24, Small Business Participation Past Performance | Yes. | |
| 32 | Part-time Work Station Controller | 5/12/25 | Do the PWS qualifications of the full time workstation controllers also apply to the part time workstation controllers or is it acceptable to have part time workstation controllers with company grade officer or NCO experience who work under the oversight of our qualified full-time workstation controllers as defined in PWS? | Current qualifications for Workstation controllers limits the available part time work force trained and experienced in WARSIM. | Attachment 6 PWS | See PWS paragraph 5.1.2.1.7 revised which specifies the required background and experience for Work Station Controllers regardless of whether they are full time or part time employees. PWS paragraph 5.1.2.1. (Key Personnel and Special Qualifications) discusses how substitutes without these qualification may be requested and approved. | |
| 33 | Request for 11x17 for tables and graphics | 5/12/25 | Attachment 13. Section L. Has instructed offeror's to provide charts and graphics that cover a vast amount of data that include list of labor categories displaying experience, education, qualifications/expertise, third work breakdown structure, and sample WFX staffing. Can offerors utilize 11x17 pages, counted as a single page against volume page counts, for graphics, tables, and figures? | Requirements in Section L require vast amounts of data to demonstrate our understanding and requirements that include LCATs, third work breakdown structure, and staffing for a sample WFX. This data creates difficulty for keeping proposals inside the required page count | W91QF423RMCTP Draft page 64 of 83 | If offerors use a 11” by 17” sized page that counts as two pages, see Attachment 12 page 10 as revised. | |
| 34 | PM Requirement Combat Brigade Commander | 5/12/25 | Does the "combat" refer to combat arms experience for the Program Manager listed in PWS section 5.1.2.1.1? | Attachment 6 Performance Work Statement lists 5.1.2.1.1 Program Manager as a former "combat" brigade commander. | Attachment 6 Performance Work Statement, PG 60, 5.1.2.1.1 Program Manager | See PWS paragraph 5.1.2.1.1, paragraph (c) as revised. The word "arms" was inadvertently omitted. | |
| 35 | Operations Group J Team Chief | 5/12/25 | Section 5.1.2.1.2 states "the Contractor shall provide Team Chiefs to direct their Contractor workforce for each of the three operations groups and the headquarters." Assume the government means Ops Group A, B, and C. Does Operations Group J require a Team Chief? If so, can the Government please revise the PWS to state that requirement. | 1.5.3 Lists Operation Groups list A, B and C |
1.5.4 Lists Operations Group J
| 5.1.2.1.2 Team Chiefs. Section lists a requirement for a minimum of three operations groups team chiefs and a headquarters team chief. | Attachment 6 Performance Work Statement (PWS) | See PWS Paragraph 5.1.2.1.2 as revised. OPSGRP J should have a Team Chief. | |||||
| 36 | Service Contract Labor Standards statute | 5/12/25 | Will the government consider providing a list of LCATs that are to be used in the solution? OR Will the government clearly align the LCATs listed in section I to those listed in Attachment 11? **This needs work shopping and more discussion** | In Section I, the RFP lists 'Employee Classes' with corresponding annual salaries and fringe benefit %ages based on the GS scale. Per Section L, the Offeror will identify 'exempt' and 'non-exempt' individuals, exempt referring to those not listed in Section I. The LCATs listed in Attch 11 match some of those listed in Section I, however nowhere is it explicitly stated that those LCATs are required. | The offeror shall use only labor categories (LCATS) listed in Attachment 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet unless this inhibits innovation. If the offeror proposes any other LCATS, an explanation is required to clearly show why the identified LCATs are insufficient See Attachment 12 Section L page 20 revised. | ||
| 37 | SBPP Page Count | 5/12/25 | Can you confirm the SF294/295s and Teaming Agreements do not count towards the page limit in Small Business Participation Plan? | SBPP requires a number of documents (SF294/295 & Teaming Agreements with subcontractors). If these count towards page limit, there will be constraints on additional documentation | The SF294/295s and Teaming Agreements do not count towards the page limit in Small Business Participation Plan (see Attachment 12 Section L page 9 revised). | ||
| 38 | Work Area Alpha/Bravo/Charlie/Delta | 5/12/25 | In section 5.3.4 of the PWS, the government requires the contractor to staff WCOPFOR Work Areas Alpha/Bravo/Charlie/Delta. TE 13, OPFOR Space Simulation Control Plan with Enclosures (Redacted), requires the contractor to staff WCOPFOR Work Areas Alpha/Bravo/Charlie. Can the government clarify if the contractor must staff WCOPFOR Work Areas in accordance with the PWS or in accordance with the TE 13 TE 13, OPFOR Space Simulation Control Plan with Enclosures (Redacted)? | The Contactor shall man work area Alpha/Bravo/Charlie/Delta at Ft. Leavenworth, KS. | Draft PWS (24) PG 99, 5.3.4. Work Areas Alpha/Bravo/Charlie/Delta | The contractor must staff WCOPFOR Work Areas in accordance with the PWS. See Attachment 12 Section L page 18 as revised. TE 13 has been removed. | |
| 39 | Past Performance | 5/12/25 | Can the government confirm that the 15 page limit only applies to data within the Specific Relevant Contracts Format and all other information requested has no page limit? Can the government increase the page count for the Specific Relevant Contracts Format to 20 pages? | The government asks for Table of Contents, Summary Page, Consent Letters, Client Authorization Letters, Org Change History, and Specific Relevent Contracts Format. This is a substantial amount of information for only 15 pages. | C. Proposal Preparation Instructions (f) Volume VI – Past Performance | See Attachment 12 Section L page 9 revised for additional exclusions. | |
| 40 | SBPP Page Count | 5/12/25 | Total page limit for Volume V Small Business Participation is 25 pages. Any substantive offerors Master Subcontracting Plan nearly exceeds the alotted page count alone. Could the Master Subcontracting Plan be excluded from page count to enable the ability to provide all essential information? | Total page count for Volume V Small Business Participation is 25 pages. Master subcontracting plan contains 21 pages of content, restricting ability to provide additional information (pricing information for all option years, services to be provided by small business subs etc.) | Attachment 12 Section L, Page 9, Paragraph C.2.(c) | Attachment 12 Section L does not require a ‘Master Subcontracting Plan’ for Volume V. The Subcontracting Plan required for Volume 1 Tab F has no page count limitations. | |
| 41 | Past Performance-Page Count | 5/12/25 | If the government does not exclude all sections except Specific Relevant Contracts format. Request a page count increase from 15 to 30 for Volume VI, Past Performance? | Page Count increase for PPV due to the extensive documents currently required in the volume. | Section L, page 23 | See Attachment 12 Section L page 9 revised for additional exclusions. | |
| 42 | Task 5.4 Scope Confirmation | 5/12/25 | Can the Government confirm the scope of Task 5.4 and its associated subtasks still valid given the focus on Divsions and Corps? | Yes. The scope of PWS paragraph 5.4 (Role Player Support and Replication of Unified Action Partners) and its associated subtasks are still valid given the current MTP focus on Division and Corps size headquarters. See PWS revised. | |||
| 43 | 5/12/25 | Due to the significant issues with the RFP and the magnitude of the clarifications required for offerors to submit a proposal we request the government issue and immediate extension, so offerors don’t commit unnecessary resources. Will the Government provide a new submission date that is at least 30-days from when answers to questions are received? | It has been since November of 2022, since the last industry day and the last interaction with the government. The first DRFP was issued in February of 2023, and the last DRFP in January of 2024. Since then, there have been no answers to questions provided and now the government provides a 35-day time period for proposal preparation. In reviewing the RFP there are significant changes and many of the same issues with the DRFP remain. It is currently impossible to write a compliant proposal and to provide a price. | RFP page 1 | RFP updated due date is now 29 August 8 September 2025 (see SAM RFP posting). | ||
| 44 | 5/12/25 | Will the Government allow for the use of 11x17 foldouts for tables and graphics only, counting them as one page? | Prescribed page size is 8.5x11. Some proposal compliance items such as work breakdown structures and complex organization charts are best presented in an 11x17 foldout for ease of evaluation. | Attachment 12, Section L paragraph C.2.(f), page 9 | If offerors use a 11” by 17” sized page that counts as two pages, see Attachment 12 page 10 as revised. | ||
| 45 | 5/12/25 | Will the Government exclude the signed LOCs from the page limit for Volume IV - Staffing and Management Plan? | Signed Letters of Commitment (LOCs) are required for key personnel and the RFP does not exclude them from the 20-page limit in the Staffing and Management Volume. | Attachment 12, Section L paragraph C.2.(e), page 9; Attachment 12, Sec L paragraph 3.(d)., page 18 | The Key Personnel Letters of Commitment do not count toward the page limitation (see Attachment 12 Section L page 9 as revised) | ||
| 46 | 5/12/25 | Will the government provide PWS cross referencing to Section L/M to ensure all offerors accurately respond to the government’s intent if the government is only targeting a subset for evaluation? Recommend the Government provide clarity by requiring offerors to describe how they will accomplish PWS Tasks 5.1 through 5.8. This will require an additional page count. Recommend increasing the technical volume page limit to 60 pages. | Lack of clarity between Section L/M and what PWS areas the government would like addressed in the limited number of pages provided for a response. | Attachment 12, Section L paragraph 3.(c)., page 17; Attachment 13, Section M paragraph D., page 4 | The page limit for Technical (Factor 1) is now 50 pages, see Attachment 12 Section L page 9 as revised. The Offeror shall provide a detailed technical approach that demonstrates understanding of the Specific Tasks of the PWS Part 5. See Attachment 12 Section L Factor 1 page 18. | ||
| 47 | 5/12/25 | The PWS does not provide a technical exhibit or attachment that provides the fiscal year schedule to enable offerors to provide a fiscal year plan. As currently written only the incumbent contractor can provide this information. Recommend the Government remove this requirement. | Section L requires offerors to provide a fiscal year plan that thoroughly, completely, and synopsizes milestones, conferences, meetings, and deliverables in a manner likely to result in successful performance of the requirement. | Attachment 12, Section L paragraph 3.(c)., page 17 | See Attachment 14 MCTP Sample Exercise Calendar that provides necessary information for cost estimations. | ||
| 48 | 5/12/25 | Will the government provide the Technical labor category descriptions in PWS 5.5 that includes required qualifications and certifications for Technical Support? | This section provides labor category descriptions with the duties, experience, qualifications, and certifications required for key personnel and non-key personnel such as Military Analysts and Audio-Visual Analysts. This is helpful. What is absent is any similar information related to the most complex piece of this contract- Technical Support which requires very important experience and certifications. | PWS 5.1.2 Personnel; 5.5 Technical/Simulation Support | See PWS 5.5.5 (f) and 5.5.7.3 revised in addition to TE-15 revised for current technical support specialist requirements. | ||
| 49 | 5/12/25 | Will the government rectify this discrepancy so offerors can provide the correct required cost estimate? | Row 3, column A requires offerors to provide a 12-month base year. The RFP states the that base year is 16 November 2025 to 14 August 2026 (9 months) | Attachment 11 Total Cost Contract Cost Estimate | The contract Period of Performance (POP) is a 12-month base period of performance, which includes a 90-day phase-in followed by nine (9) months of full performance; seven (7) 12-month option periods; and the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services for up to an additional six (6) months. See Attachment 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet revised. | ||
| 50 | 5/12/25 | Given the magnitude of information required to provide exercises costs for the entire period of performance, and to level the playing field, will the Government provide a plug cost estimate for exercise costs? | Row 6 requires offers to provide exercise costs for the base year and all option years. While row 26 provides only the number of WFX exercises per year. That alone doesn’t provide enough information to provide costs for a yearly exercise schedule. As an example, each WFX is unique in the number and echelon of training audiences as well as the number of locations. The RFP simply doesn’t provide enough information to price these exercises. provide a yearly exercise cost with each exercise being unique. Only the incumbent has the information required to provide a rough order of magnitude estimate. | Attachment 11 Total Cost Contract Cost Estimate | The Government will not provide a plug number for exercise costs because the cost of performing support for an exercise will depend on each offeror’s unique technical approach, staffing solution, employee compensation, and indirect costs. See Attachment 14 MCTP Sample Exercise Calendar. | ||
| 51 | 5/12/25 | For the total contract cost estimate, will the Government provide a plug cost estimate for shipping costs? | Row 18 requires offerors to Shipping costs for the base year and all option years. Given the lack of information provided even for the base year it is impossible for an offeror other than the incumbent to provide a rough order of magnitude estimate. | Attachment 11 Total Cost Contract Cost Estimate | See revised Attachment 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet which includes plug numbers. See Section L page 16 revised that the Government has provided numbers for offerors to use for shipping costs, relocations costs, and travel. Offerors shall not provide different numbers where the Government has already provided a number. See Attachment 4A Slide 18 revised for additional shipping scenario information. | ||
| 52 | 5/12/25 | Will the government clarify this discrepancy and provide a definition of Program Support so that offers can provide the desired cost estimate? | Section L provides a description of three Segments of cost: Program Management and Sustainment, Training, and Exercise costs. The Total Cost Estimate Sheet provides an additional segment in row 4- Program Support. | Attachment 12, Section L, paragraph II Cost Proposal Section, page 15: Attachment 11 Total Cost Contract Cost Estimate | See revised Attachment 11 Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet removing "Program support". | ||
| 53 | 5/12/25 | This guidance is not clear about providing the cost for the sample exercise. Please confirm that you require us to price based on a basis of estimate for PTOC labor, and PTOC/FTE travel, and housing for the execution of the WFX 28-3. Because the sample exercise solution cost estimate sheet is a reference only, can we provide our own format as back up? Is the sample exercise cost part of the TEP? How will it be evaluated? | Offerors shall complete the Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet and submit the completed spreadsheet as part of its Volume II submission. Note that cost estimates should align with the narrative provided under technical factors. Offeror shall provide details regarding all applicable other direct costs including travel, shipping, and relocation along with basis of estimate and supporting documentation. The Sample MCTP Exercise Solution Cost Estimate Sheet is provided for reference only. | Attachment 12, Section L, paragraph III Total Contract Cost Estimate Sheet and Sample MCTP Exercise Solution Cost Estimate Sheet Section, page 15: Attachment 11 Total Cost Contract Cost Estimate | See Attachment 12 Section L page 17 as revised removing Attachment 5 Sample MCTP Exercise Solution Cost Estimate Sheet as it was provided for reference only and has since been removed. | ||
| 54 | 5/12/25 | Will the government update the RFP to provide the correct question due date? | The last sentence states, “All questions regarding the Solicitation shall be submitted via email not later than (NLT) 10:00 AM EST on 3 Jun 2025.” We believe this should be 11 AM EDT on 12 May 2025, based on the SAM.gov posting. | Attachment 12, Section L, paragraph A.2, page 6 | Questions due date is 12 May 2025 see Attachment 12 Section L page 6 revised. | ||
| 55 | 5/12/25 | Are Consent Letters only required for subcontractors who submit past performance information, or for all teammates and subcontractors? | The first paragraph requires Consent Letters for each subcontractor, teaming partner, or joint venture partner to authorize the release of adverse past performance information. | Attachment 12, Section L, paragraph C.3.(f), page 22 | Consent letters are required for each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner that submits past performance information. See Attachment 12 Section L page 24 revised. | ||
| 56 | 5/12/25 | Our interpretation of this requirement is that DOD customers are not commercial customers and therefore a Client Authorization Letter is not required. Will the government confirm our interpretation is correct? | The first paragraph requires a Client Authorization Letter for commercial customers. | Attachment 12, Section L, paragraph C.3.(f), page 23 | The requirement for client authorization letters for commercial customers is accurate. Client Authorization Letters are not required for DoD customers. | ||
| 57 | 5/12/25 | Will the Government change the requirement to require the submission of Teaming Agreements vice subcontracting agreements? | Under the guidance for Consent Letters, the Government requires offerors to submit signed subcontracts where subcontractors are proposed to perform less than 50% of the work. Subcontracts cannot be issued until a contract is awarded. The appropriate document used to establish subcontract agreements during the proposal and evaluation process is a Teaming Agreement. | Attachment 12, Section L, paragraph C.3.(f)(3), page 23 | If a subcontracting agreement isn’t signed until after the award, a signed enforcable teaming agreement will satisfy the requirement. See Attachment 12 Section L pages 24-25 as revised and Attachment 13 Section M page 8 as revised. | ||
| 58 | 5/12/25 | Recommend that the Government consider deleting the requirement for Offerors to submit CPARs with the Past Performance Volume and consider pulling the CPARS from the Government’s database. Our rationale for this recommendation is that this requirement will add multiple attachments to the Volume and require the transmission of multiple emails to send all of the Past Performance Volume. If the Government will still require the submission of CPARS, recommend that only the most recent CPARS be submitted to reduce the number of attachments. | Under the guidance for CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires, CPARS are required for each Specific Relevant Contracts Reference. | Attachment 12, Section L, paragraph C.3.(f)(3), page 24 | The requirement is for Offerors to submit CPARs with the Past Performance Volume see Section L page 24. | ||
| 59 | 5/12/25 | Will the Government change the guidance to only require the submission of a Past Performance Questionnaire if a CPARS has not been completed (relevant to using a contract 6 months or older and a CPARS has not yet been completed)? | Under the guidance for CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires, The Government requires the submission of both CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires. This appears to be a duplication of input from the same customer. | Attachment 12, Section L, paragraph C.3.(f)(1), page 24 | Provide relevant CPARS reports for each referenced effort, if available; and a PPQ for each referenced effort for which a CPARS report does not exist. See Attachment 12 Section L page 25 revised. | ||
| 60 | 5/12/25 | Will the Government also exclude the following items from the 15 page count limitation for the Past Performance Volume? | |||||
| - | Summary Page | ||||||
| - | Consent Letters | ||||||
| - | Client Authorization Letters | ||||||
| - | Organizational Structure Change History | ||||||
| - | Small Business Participation Past Performance including SF 294, SF 295 and reports submitted in eSRS | ||||||
| - | Information Sheet on long-term relationships with small business relationships such as Mentor-Protégé. These documents are significant and will easily exceed the page count allotted without using page count for the Specific Relevant Contract Forms. | In the table that provides the page limits for each Volume, it states that CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires are not included in the page count (15 pages). There are several other required documents that require this exemption due to the size of the documents and the impact their inclusion would have on completing Volume VI. | Attachment 12, Section L, paragraphC.2.(b), | ||||
| page 9 | See page limits as stated in Attachment 12 Section L page 9 revised with some additional exclusions. | ||||||
| 61 | 5/12/25 | In lieu of providing a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement or the extensive material requested in paragraph (c) of this section, can offerors submit their 2025 Provisional rate submission and DCAA acceptance as an alternative? | In the Cost Narrative Section, guidance is provided for developing each cost element. | Attachment 12, Section L, paragraph C.3.(b) I (b), page 13 | No. See revised Attachment 12 Section L page 14 language that the details of each individual cost pool and base shall be provided along with historical cost pool and base for two prior years plus budgetary for all proposed years. | ||
| 62 | 5/12/25 | Will the Government delete the following statement, “All offerors shall provide descriptive information for all small business categories.” This is duplicative, as the SF 294s, SF 295s and eSRS provide information on the utilization of the various small business categories. | The requirements for submission requirements for the Small Business Participation Past Performance are not clear. | Attachment 12, Section L, paragraph C.3.(f)(1), page 24 | The requirement stands. See Section L page 26. | ||
| 63 | 5/12/25 | We recommend the Government only require the reports related to the Specific Relevant Contracting Sheets submitted with the Past Performance volume to keep the number of reports at a reasonable level. We also recommend that the Government only require the most recent form, as these documents roll up the data for each reporting year. | The Small Business Participation Past Performance requirement states, “For Other Than small business , include SF 294 and SF 295 (or Individual Subcontracting and Summary Subcontracting Reports in eSRS) information for Government contracts with those reporting requirements for the last three years.” For large companies, this could be hundreds of reports and be overwhelming for both offerors to prepare and the Government to review. It could potentially result in the submission of a significant number of emails to submit Volume VI | Attachment 12, Section L, paragraph C.3.(f)(1), page 24 | See Attachment 12 Section L page 9 revised for page count exclusions. | ||
| 64 | 5/12/25 | Will the Government change the position requirements to state the candidate “Must be eligible for TS/SCI security clearance” ? | The required experience and background states, “Possess a TS/SCI security clearance.” This may provide the incumbent with an unfair advantage as a candidate must be in a position with a TS/SCI billet to possess a TS/SCI clearance. | Attachment 6, PWS paragraphs 5.1.2.1.1 – 5.1.2.1.5, pages 60-62 | See Attachment 6 PWS paragraphs 5.1.2.1.1 – 5.1.2.1.5 in addition to 5.1.2.1.10, 5.1.2.1.14, 5.2.2.2, and 5.2.2.5 revised to reflect "must be eligible for a TS/SCI clearance." | ||
| 65 | 5/12/25 | In the case of a past performance reference with six months to one year of performance, will the government relax the requirement to provide CPARs? | CPARs cannot be produced for most past performance references under one year in duration as they will not be finalized and available until after the base year period of performance has completed. | Section L (f) Factor 4: Volume VI-Past Performance | For the contracts identified on each Specific Relevant Contracts Reference, provide relevant CPARS reports for each referenced effort, if available; and a PPQ for each referenced effort for which a CPARS report does not exist. See Attachment 12 Section L page 25 revised. | ||
| 66 | 5/12/25 | Will the government clarify why a subk performing more than 50% of the work is not required to submit a subk agreement? Recommend the government update the requirement to require Teaming Agreements for all proposed subcontractors performing more than 25% of the work. | Section L requires Offerors to submit signed subcontracting agreements where subcontractors are proposed to perform less than 50% of the work. Subcontracting agreements are not executed until post-award. | Section L (f) Factor 4: Volume VI-Past Performance | The Government will also evaluate the past performance of proposed subcontractors and teaming partners who will perform at least 25% of the work, or major or critical aspects of the requirement, and have provided signed subcontracting agreements or signed enforceable teaming agreements, and consent letters. See Attachment 12 Section L page 24 revised and Attachment 13 Section M page 8 revised. | ||
| 67 | 5/12/25 | Will the government relax the requirement of at least three past performance references must be from the prime contractor to at least one of the three required past performance references must be from the prime? | Significant deviation from the DRFP that only advantages offerors of scale not offerors with record of impeccable quality thus diluting/eliminating the confidence assessment. | Section L (f) Factor 4: Volume VI-Past Performance | No, the requirement stands. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .