Questions regarding Solicitation W15P7T-11-R-C001 submitted to the Government

Response to Un-answered Industry Question Q88 for 06 July 2011 Draft Section L&M SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001 Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services

The following is a question and response not previously answered to Draft Section L & M questions from industry received as of 13 July 2011, 4:30pm Eastern Standard Time.

Q88. Reference: Section M, C.1.a Understanding of the problem, Page 14 "The Sample Tasks will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it presents a clear understanding of all techniques involved in solving the problems and meeting the requirements; and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed." As written, the Government will be evaluating the Offeror's understanding of the techniques involved in solving the problems rather than evaluating the Offeror's understanding of the problems.
Question: Can the Government please clarify if they are evaluating the Offeror's understanding of the techniques or the Offeror's understanding of the problem?
R88. The Government will be evaluating the offerors understanding of the problems as well as the offerors understanding of the techniques involved in solving the problems and meeting the requirements.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1.civ@mail.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.w.jenniss.civ@mail.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.a.hansen28.civ@mail.mil

Response to Un-answered Industry Questions for 06 July 2011 Draft Section L&M SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001 Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services

The following are questions and responses not previously answered to Draft Section L & M questions from industry received as of 13 July 2011, 4:30pm Eastern Standard Time.

Q1. There are contracts in which a company is performing as a subcontractor to another company on a similar and relevant program as defined by the GTACS Draft PWS, and these two companies are also known direct competitors for the GTACS opportunity. This is a possible Organizational Conflict of Interest (FAR part 9.5) to directly solicit a Past Performance Survey from these companies, as these GTACS competitors may have "impaired objectivity" in their responses. Therefore, please confirm that a Past Performance Survey is not required for a company which is a subcontractor to a known and direct GTACS competitor, due to an OCI concern. If these subject Past Performance Surveys are required in this situation, please advise if these requests can be submitted directly to the government customer (not competitor), due to the aforementioned rationale.
R1. The Offerors Past Performance Factor Proposal shall be submitted in accordance with Section L Volume II - Past Performance (Factor). Any negative feedback will be carefully scrutinized and in accordance with FAR 15.306 the Offeror will be given the opportunity through clarifications and or discussions (if held) to clarify adverse past performance information.

Q4. Reference: Page 3 - L2(c) "Each file of the proposal shall consist of Table of Contents, Executive Summary Section and the Narrative discussion."
Question: Is there a page limit for the required Executive Summary per volume? If so please advise page limit of executive summary per volume.
R4. Section L1 will be updated to read: The Offerors proposal shall consist of five volumes and a single Executive Summary (2 pages only). Section L 2 (c) will be updated to read: Each Offerors proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Executive Summary Section, and each of the above volumes contained therein shall provide a Narrative discussion where appropriate

Q15. Reference: Page 15 - (c) - "Adequacy of Approach: The Sample Task will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror's methods and approach demonstrate adequate and complete consideration of and satisfaction of the requirements specified in the solicitation. The Sample Tasks will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation." Question: When referring to "in the solicitation" is the Government referring to requirements in sample task, section L and PWS?
R15. The Government is referring to Section L and related solicitation documents which include the Sample Tasks.

Q19. Reference: L.2.c(ii) - Volume II - Past Performance (FACTOR), page 4. "Aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming for those development, production and sustainment sample tasks attached to the RFP.
Question: The referenced phrase has been modified from the previous draft to require relevancy against the sample tasks in lieu of the overall contract PWS. Would the government prefer to see references for work that are specifically relevant to the sample tasks (however focused they may be) as well as references that show relevance against the contract-level PWS? Additionally, should relevant work cited be limited to the specific system types discussed in the sample tasks, or would the Government prefer to see a range of relevant system types covered across the referenced work? Please give additional guidance in this area; it is currently unclear whether offerors should focus only on the sample tasks to show relevancy or whether we should focus on both the sample tasks and the contract-level PWS.
R19. The Sample Tasks only, as instructed in Section L.

Q23. Reference: M.A, Basis for Award, page 13. "Offerors remaining within the competitive range..."
Question: If a bidder is in the competitive range, how will the Government assess best value to make/not make an award?
R23. The determination will be made on the basis of Best Value Tradeoff in accordance with Section M - Evaluation Factors, A - Basis for Award.

Q27. Reference: PWS Section 1.0 - Scope. The PWS specifically states "The GTACS program and contract will provide the flexibility and responsiveness needed to support the mission of PEO C3T, its PMs, PdMs and PDs."
Question: Throughout the PWS all work and Task Areas 1, 2, and 3 focus on providing services and solutions for tactical C3 systems. The PEO C3T systems provide the tactical communications infrastructure which enable voice, data and video communications on the battlefield not only for Army communications elements but for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Systems as well.
Interoperability requirements need to be understood by the potential bidders to propose services and solutions that are seamlessly integrated into the overall tactical battlefield. Will the PWS and Task Areas 1, 2 and 3 specifically define the C3 systems interoperability requirements for all external hardware, software and communications systems that PEO C3T is required to interface within CONUS and OCONUS locations? Will the respective Interface Control Documents and Systems Architecture Information Exchange Requirements be provided for Task Areas 1 through 3 (and the respective Sample Tasks if applicable) that require solutions to be integrated into the overall PEO C3T System of Systems Enterprise?
R27. No, the interoperability and interface control document requirements will not be specifically defined in the sample tasks. However, there will be certain mission requirements where the Offeror is expected to understand the necessary interfaces and present a solution that meets the mission. The Sample Tasks are intended to provide the bidders a consistent equitable opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities to satisfy the contract requirements. Specific DO/TO projects' RTEPs may require interoperability and as such will provide the information necessary for their award and execution.

Q31. Reference: section L, 2, c, pg 3
Question: Request that the Government consider not requiring an Executive Summary for each of the five (5) files listed in Table 2. Recommend that the Executive Summary be included only with the first file (Volume 1, Technical).
R31. See Question/Response #4 above.

Q32. Reference: section L, iii, Volume II, pg 4
Question: In accordance with Section L and M, past performance reporting is required for subcontractors who will be providing hardware, software or services whose subcontract is for more than 20% of any sample task. Please advise how many days will industry have to provide past performance to the Government for these 20% subcontracts. If industry is allowed the full 30 day proposal response periods to submit past performance assessment questionnaires by their past performance program customers, it will allow industry an opportunity to internally compete the requirements, thus providing the best partnering solution with regard to technical, price, and small business considerations.
R32. The RFP will require all questionnaires to be sent directly to the government and are no longer the Offeror's responsibility

Q35. Reference: section L, iii, Volume III, e, pg 7
Question: Regarding the section starting, "(e) List principal supplies/services to be subcontracted to. Be specific as possible (i.e. references to statement of work, etc) that will demonstrate a variety and complexity of work: Please define "principal" in this context, since there may be very differing perceptions of this.
R35. "Principal": Is defined as the most significant supplies or services the Offeror plans to subcontract out.

Q36. Reference: section L, iii, Volume III, e, pg 7
Question: The HBCU/MI category appears in the underlined structure on the bottom of page 7, but does not appear in the structure on the top of page 7. Please advise if bidders will be required to meet any specific Government defined HBCU/MI goals. It had been understood that the HBCU reference had been removed in a previous question response.
R36. There are currently no goals associated with HBCU/MI for the Small Business Participation Plan however Section L, requires the bidders to provide/list proposed goals for all small business sub-categories deemed applicable by the offeror.

Q41. Reference: section L., iv, Volume IV, pg's 10 & 12
Question: The previous Responses to Draft Sections L&M Questions from Industry, dated June 15, 2011 state (R40, R43, R75 and R76) that certified cost or pricing data will not be required, but that other than cost or pricing data may be requested for the evaluation of sample tasks. In revised Draft Section L& M section (iv. Subcontracts/Interdivisional Efforts), it states that the prime contractor must provide the cost/price analysis for all S/IE costs over $700K. However, the later section (d, Cost/Price Proposal Supporting documents), states that the prime contractor must have available the cost/price analysis and source selection data for all S/IE costs over $700K. Please advise which of these conflicting sections should be followed.
R41. The Government will revise the reference under Section L, Volume IV Price Cost (Factor), subparagraph (d) Cost/Price Proposal (Supporting Documents) to be consistent with the language referenced under Subcontracts/Interdivisional efforts.

Q43. Reference: section M, 4, pg 18
Question: It is stated in the section that CLINs (0001-0002) will become part of the contract. Please define these CLINS. Please advise if these CLINS will be contractually incorporated at the IDIQ vehicle award or at future task order awards.
R43. The Fixed price (0001) and cost re-imbursement (0002) CLINs will become part of the contract for post-award efforts that are ultimately defined at the DO/TO level..

Q55. Reference: Page 17 and 18, 24 June 2011Draft Section L&M Section M Para 4 b; On page 17,the last paragraph before Table 1 CLIN List states "CLINs (0001-0002) will become part of the contract ... " On page 18, Table 1 CLIN List, lines 3 and 4 state "CLIN 0001 (Fixed Price CLIN ) and "0002 (Cost Reimbursement CLIN)" are "For use on future Delivery/Task Orders."
Question: Would the Government state which of two references to CLINs 0001 and 0002 the Offeror should use? Currently, definitions contradict each other.
R55. See Question/Response #43 above.

Q59. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c, Page 3 AND Section L, Section 2.c.(i) "Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Executive Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Executive Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file." AND "The Offeror shall provide its Technical Proposal (Volume I) in a separate file as specified in Table 1 above an executive summary as well as addressing the information below separately for each Sample Task 1, 2, & 3. " Sample Task 1 allows an additional 5 pages in the response and typically an Executive Summary provides an overview of the Offeror's complete submission. Question: Does the Government desire an Executive Summary (overview of the entire submission) in Volume 1 and an abstract (overview of the solution presented in the volume) in each Volume?"
R59. See Question/Response #31 above.

Q61. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c, Page 3 "Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Executive Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Executive Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file." Typically an Executive Summary provides a high level overview of the Offeror's complete solution.
Question: Can the Government please clarify the submission files that shall include an Executive Summary?
R61. See Question/Response #31 above..

Q64. Reference: Section L, Section 2.(c).(iv).(ii) Direct Material, Page 10 "The BOE worksheets shall reference all materials listed in the Materials summary worksheet applicable to the lowest WBS level"
Question: Does the government require that the total estimated material be listed in detail in the Basis of Estimate (BOE), and the WBS Worksheets? Would the government consider having the material detail located in one place in the workbooks being provided and have the other required schedules tie out to it by summary in other required worksheets?
R64. The Government will provide a sample BOE template, but Offerors are permitted to utilize their own format as long as all of the required information is provided. For evaluation purposes, the Government will require material proposed at the lowest level of WBS to facilitate Government evaluation.

Q65. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(ii), Page 4 "Aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming for those development, production and sustainment sample tasks attached to the RFP."
Question: Is it the Government's intention to limit past performance submissions by requiring relevancy to the Sample Tasks instead of relevancy to the broad PWS requirements?
R65. It is not the Governments intention to limit past performance submissions; relevant past performance shall be based on the sample tasks only.

Q67. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(ii), Page 4 "The Offeror shall include the same contract information for each major subcontractor proposed (a major subcontractor is a subcontractor who will be providing hardware, software or services whose subcontract is for more than 20% of any sample task or 20% of the sum of the all three sample tasks proposed prices.)" The Government is requiring prime bidders to submit past performance information for major subcontractors and has included major equipment suppliers in this category if the supplier's contribution is 20% of the total price of either a Sample Task Price or the Total Proposed Price. Vendors of hardware and software are not typically under a teaming agreement because these manufacturers want as many prime bidders using their solutions as possible. Several of the C4 industry major equipment manufacturers (vendors) are also bidding prime. Since these vendors will also be competing for a prime position on GTACS, they will have a conflict of interest in sharing past performance and pricing information with other primes with whom they are competing. Question: How will the Government handle this potential conflict of interest for prime bidders who are also potential major equipment suppliers (vendors) under the Government's definition of 'major subcontractor'? Recommendation: Remove 'vendor (both hardware & software)' from the Government's definition of 'major subcontractor.'
R67 See Question/Response # 1 above.

Q68. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(ii), Page 4 "The Offeror shall include the same contract information for each major subcontractor proposed (a major subcontractor is a subcontractor who will be providing hardware, software or services whose subcontract is for more than 20% of any sample task or 20% of the sum of the all three sample tasks proposed prices.)" The Government is requiring prime bidders to submit past performance information for major subcontractors and has included vendor relationships in this category if the vendor's contribution is 20% of the total price of either a Sample Task or the Total Proposed Price.
Question: If a vendor is unwilling to provide past performance information due to a potential conflict of interest, what is the consequence to the prime bidder?
R68. Offerors will not be penalized for lack of past performance they will instead be rated a neutral. In addition all past performance questionnaires will be sent directly to the Government and are no longer the responsibility of the Offeror. See Question/Response # 1 above.

Q72. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(iii) 1.d, Page 7 "Additionally an Offeror who qualifies as a small business should include its prime contractor dollars in calculating its proposed percentage goals in all of the small business categories that it qualifies for example, an Offeror contractor who is a small woman owned business gets credit in the prime category, the small category, and the women owned small business category. "
Question: Can the Government clarify the meaning of this paragraph with regard to the statement 'prime category?'
R72. This reference to 'Prime Category' references the 'Total Small' category on page 7 of the draft RFP posted (vol. III SB Participation Plan). When Calculating Small Business Participation percentages, if the prime company is a small business, it can include the percentage of work that it will perform in house; as a part of total small business category and any socio-economic category that is applicable as well as any work that is subcontracted to another small business..

Q73. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(iv), Page 9 "For each Sample Task, a Cost Detail workbook that contains price summaries by lowest proposed Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) level detailing the Cost Elements by Contractor Fiscal Year (ST1_Cost Detail.xls, ST2-Cost Detail.xls, and ST3_Cost Detail.xls) shall be proposed."
Question: Does the Government intend to include a WBS in the pricing spreadsheets with the final RFP release that contains the WBS level of detail at which the Cost Plus Fixed Fee sample task pricing will be evaluated?
R73. A high level WBS will be provided to the Offeror. The Offeror should complete the lower levels of the WBS based on their specific business practices.

Q74. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(iv).i & ii, Page 10/11 "-for S/IE efforts greater than $700k the subcontractor shall provide support in the same level of detail as the prime for each sample task. -each S/IE cost by contractor shall be detailed sufficiently to distinguish effort applicable by WBS and CLIN. The BOE worksheets shall detail the S/IE agencies proposed at the lowest WBS level. Detail S/IE hours applicable to Government provided labor categories as applicable." This section seems to indicate the Government is requiring 'major subcontractors', that are not 'interdivisional' to the prime, disclose the same level of pricing detail as the prime through references to Sections (iv) i and ii (direct labor and material) at the lowest WBS level. Since these subcontractors may also be competing for a prime position on GTACS, they will have a conflict of interest in sharing past performance and pricing information with other primes with whom they are competing.
Question: What is the consequence to the prime if the major subcontractor (vendor) refuses to provide its proprietary information to the prime for inclusion in the WBS pricing buildup worksheet?
R74. Section L will be revised to provide instructions for subcontractors and interdivisional efforts to submit proprietary information directly to the Government. .

Q77. Reference: Section M, Section 4.a, Page 17 "As a result of the Cost Realism analysis, the proposed cost for the Cost Reimbursement Sample Task may be adjusted only for purposes of determining the probable cost. " In the prior version of the Draft RFP, Section M regarding the Price/Cost evaluation approach, the approach stated that it would only adjust proposed CLIN prices upward for the purposes of evaluation. The current Draft RFP Section M, Price/Cost Evaluation Approach noted above omits this statement and states it will adjust for purposes of Probable cost.
Question: Is the Government planning to adjust the proposals both up and down?
R77. Cost Realism analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 (d) will be used to derive the probable cost for each sample task.

Q79. Reference: Section M, Section 4.a, Page 17 "CLINs (0001-0002) will become part of the contract whereas CLINs (ST0001- ST0003) are notional only and will be used for source selection evaluation purposes only and will not become part of the contract"
Question: What is the basis of award and what is to be awarded under CLIN's 0001-0002?
R79. Awards will be made in accordance with Section M - Evaluation Factors, A - Basis for Award. Also see Question/Response # 43 and 55 above.

Q85. Reference: Section M, Section C.3.g, Page 16 (last paragraph) "Offerors may receive additional credit for more aggressive Small Business requirements."
Question: Given that the Small Business Past Performance is either acceptable or unacceptable in the evaluation criteria, can the Government clarify how 'additional credit' is computed (given) and incorporated into the evaluation process for the Small Business Past Performance?
R85. This reference has been removed Additional response: In accordance with Section M 3 (b) "enforceable commitments will be weighed more heavily than non-enforceable ones"

Q92. Reference: In Section L, 2 c on page 3, it states that "Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Executive Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion." It continues to describe on the next page the "Narrative discussion" as consisting of the information for each separate task which we know from Table 2 on page 3 to be limited to 80 pages.
Question: It is then assumed that the Table of Contents and Executive Summary Section do not count in this page limit. Is our understanding correct?
R92. Correct, the executive Summary and Table of Contents do not count as part of the overall page count. Also see Question/Response #4 above.

Q95. Reference: Price evaluation: Part 2.c.(iv) page 9 explicitly states that "Offerors prices proposed for the Sample Tasks will only be used for evaluation purposes." Some offerors will interpret this to mean that proposed sample Task Order pricing is not binding, and will propose unrealistically low STO pricing in order to be more favorably evaluated. While these unrealistic prices may result in a more favorable evaluation, this offeror could not possibly use this pricing to successfully perform the STO. The draft section L&M pricing (part 4.(b) page 17) evaluation scheme outlined to determine Cost Realism will serve to mitigate this to some degree.
Comment: It is recommend that STO pricing be binding in order to ensure that the government receives reasonable and realistic pricing to evaluate.
R95. The pricing will not be binding .

Q98. Reference: Page 17, Section M.C.4.b Price/Cost Evaluation Approach Section, Page 19, Section M.C.4.b Price/Cost Evaluation Approach Section, last table
Question: The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) formula does not seem to be the same as the last table on page 19. The description of the TEP on page 17 states that the proposed price of each Sample task will be multiplied by the anticipated # of Dos/TOs and summed to equal the Total Evaluated Price. The final table on page 19 indicates that the sum of the three Sample Tasks will be the Total Evaluated Price. Will the government please clarify which is correct?
R98. The table at the end of section M has been removed.


Q105. Reference: Pages 6 and 7, para 2c(iii).
Question: In subparagraph e, do we list the data for all of our teammates, or only those utilized in the three sample tasks?
R105. The Government expects teammates listed as part of the proposal submission to include all possible teammates. As such the Government expects the same teammates will be utilized to bid on future DO/TOs under this contract vehicle.

Q111. Reference: Page10, para 2c(iv)iv, Subcontracts/Interdivisional Effort.
Question: Will the Government reconsider the requirement to perform CAPA on Interdivisional pricing data? Regulatory requirements are not currently present in the FAR to conduct CAPA on Interdivisional efforts nor are Interdivisional efforts characterized as subcontracts in the FAR. The FAR requires prime contractors to perform cost or price analyses on subcontracts but doesn't extend these regulatory requirements to interdivisional efforts.
R111. We are treating interdivisional efforts as subcontracts for evaluation purposes only.


Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1.civ@mail.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.w.jenniss.civ@mail.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.a.hansen28.civ@mail.mil

Response to Industry Questions for 06 July 2011 Draft Section L&M SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001 Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services

The following are questions and responses 51 through 103 to Draft Section L & M questions from industry received as of 13 July 2011, 4:30pm Eastern Standard Time.

Q51. Reference: Page 8, 24 June 2011Draft Section L&M Section L Para iii 1 (e) List principal supplies/services to be subcontracted to. (e) Prior Performance Information:
Question: "(e)" appears twice. The first instance of (e) asks for a list of principal supplies/services. The second instance asks for "Prior Performance Information. Would the Government clarify whether both (e) paragraphs should be included?
R51. This has been corrected

Q52. Reference: Page 10, 24 June 2011Draft Section L&M Section L (iv) VOLUME IV - COST-PRICE (FACTOR), iii. ODCs/Travel; -a priced summary of ODCs/Travel that includes a level of detail necessary for the Government to evaluate its components.
Question: Is the price summary the bidder submits related to ODCs/Travel to be based on the Sample Task Orders or will the Government provide an estimated value for ODCs and travel?
R52. The price summary is based on the sample tasks.

Q53. Reference: Page 10 & 12, 24 June 2011Draft Section L&M Section L (iv) Volume IV-Cost-Price (Factors) Subsection iv. Subcontracts/Interdivisional Effort; Page 10 states "The prime contractor must provide the cost/price analysis for all costs over the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) threshold, currently all S/IE costs $700K and over. However, subsection vii. Fee/Profit (d) (page 12) states that "The prime contractor must have available the cost/price analysis for all costs over the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) threshold, currently all sub/interdivisional costs $700K and over to include the selection and activities of your subcontractor(s)."
Question: Would the government clarify if the Prime contractor must provide or must have available the cost/price analysis for all costs over the FAR threshold of $700K?
R53. The prime contractor must provide the cost/price analysis for all costs over the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) threshold, currently all S/IE costs $700K and over.

Q54. Reference: Page 11, 24 June 2011Draft Section L&M Section L (iv) VOLUME IV - COST-PRICE (FACTOR); vii. Fee/Profit Provide the mathematical calculation of the proposed fixed fee/profit. (b) Cost/Price Proposal (PRICING METHODOLOGY) (c) Cost/Price Proposal (Sanitized Cost/Price Submission). The Offeror shall submit a sanitized version of the excel files detailed in paragraphs a, and b and C.
Question: Section vii. Fee/Profit does not have a paragraph "(a)" although it appears paragraph "(c)" references it. Is "(a)" missing from the Draft L&M?
R54. This correction has been made.

Q55. Reference: Page 17 and 18, 24 June 2011Draft Section L&M Section M Para 4 b; On page 17,the last paragraph before Table 1 CLIN List states "CLINs (0001-0002) will become part of the contract ... " On page 18, Table 1 CLIN List, lines 3 and 4 state "CLIN 0001 (Fixed Price CLIN ) and "0002 (Cost Reimbursement CLIN)" are "For use on future Delivery/Task Orders."
Question: Would the Government state which of two references to CLINs 0001 and 0002 the Offeror should use? Currently, definitions contradict each other.
R55. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q56. Reference: Page16, 24 June 2011Draft Section L&M Section M Section 3 para. G; Note: Offerors may receive additional credit for more aggressive Small Business requirements.
Question: What is the definition of the term "aggressive?" How will the term be measured? What is the weight given to "additional credit?"
R56. This reference has been removed.

Q57. Reference: Section L Page 10 references Enclosure 05.
Question: When will the government be providing the referenced enclosure?
R57. All solicitation attachments will be released when the RFP is posted

Q58. Does the government anticipate requiring offers to submit labor rates for all labor categories at the IDIQ level?
R58. It is not necessary to submit labor rated for all labor categories. However all Offeror labor categories must be mapped into the provided Government labor categories in accordance with Section L, Volume IV - Cost-Price factor.

Q59. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c, Page 3 AND Section L, Section 2.c.(i) "Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Executive Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Executive Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file." AND "The Offeror shall provide its Technical Proposal (Volume I) in a separate file as specified in Table 1 above an executive summary as well as addressing the information below separately for each Sample Task 1, 2, & 3. " Sample Task 1 allows an additional 5 pages in the response and typically an Executive Summary provides an overview of the Offeror's complete submission. Question: Does the Government desire an Executive Summary (overview of the entire submission) in Volume 1 and an abstract (overview of the solution presented in the volume) in each Volume?"
R59. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q60. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(i), Page 4 "The Offeror shall provide its Technical Proposal (Volume I) in a separate file as specified in Table 1 above an executive summary as well as addressing the information below separately for each Sample Task 1, 2, & 3. "
Question: Can the Government clarify what is meant by "above an executive summary?"
R60. A comma has been added between the word "above" and "an".

Q61. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c, Page 3 "Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Executive Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Executive Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file." Typically an Executive Summary provides a high level overview of the Offeror's complete solution.
Question: Can the Government please clarify the submission files that shall include an Executive Summary?
R61. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q62. Reference: Section L, Section 2.(c).(iv), Page 9 The government makes reference to various workbooks and worksheets in Excel format within the section, linking and/or tying to other worksheets and workbooks.
Question: Is the government providing these workbooks and worksheets fully formatted for the information that is being requested? Will the bidder be required to develop and create Excel files that meet all the requirements that the government has stated? Recommendation: A government provided base spreadsheet will provide a uniform format to simplify evaluation and provide a consistent basis of evaluation across Offeror submissions.
R62. The Government will provide the worksheet with the final RFP

Q63. Reference: Section L, Section 2.(c).(iv).(i) Direct Labor, Page 10 "The Labor rates shall be included on the "Rate" worksheet, the labor hours proposed per Government provided labor category shall correspond to the labor hours as detailed on the BOE worksheets"
Question: Is the Government requiring the Basis of Estimates to be developed using the Governments' Labor Categories. Will the BOE format be provided by the government, or will each Offeror be allowed to submit their own format?
R63. The Government will provide a sample BOE template, but Offerors are permitted to utilize their own format as long as all of the required information is provided. Offerors will be required to map their labor category descriptions to the Government labor category description.

Q64. Reference: Section L, Section 2.(c).(iv).(ii) Direct Material, Page 10 "The BOE worksheets shall reference all materials listed in the Materials summary worksheet applicable to the lowest WBS level"
Question: Does the government require that the total estimated material be listed in detail in the Basis of Estimate (BOE), and the WBS Worksheets? Would the government consider having the material detail located in one place in the workbooks being provided and have the other required schedules tie out to it by summary in other required worksheets?
R64. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q65. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(ii), Page 4 "Aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming for those development, production and sustainment sample tasks attached to the RFP."
Question: Is it the Government's intention to limit past performance submissions by requiring relevancy to the Sample Tasks instead of relevancy to the broad PWS requirements?
R65. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q66. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(ii), Page 4 "Sections 1 & 2 of this file shall contain the Offeror's description of all Government and commercial contracts (prime contracts and subcontracts awarded or ongoing within three years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation) that are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation." Many IDIQ contracts allow up to five (5) years for relevant past performance contracts.
Question: Would the Government consider extending the 'three (3) years' to 'five (5) years' for relevant past performance under this solicitation?
R66. No

Q67. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(ii), Page 4 "The Offeror shall include the same contract information for each major subcontractor proposed (a major subcontractor is a subcontractor who will be providing hardware, software or services whose subcontract is for more than 20% of any sample task or 20% of the sum of the all three sample tasks proposed prices.)" The Government is requiring prime bidders to submit past performance information for major subcontractors and has included major equipment suppliers in this category if the supplier's contribution is 20% of the total price of either a Sample Task Price or the Total Proposed Price. Vendors of hardware and software are not typically under a teaming agreement because these manufacturers want as many prime bidders using their solutions as possible. Several of the C4 industry major equipment manufacturers (vendors) are also bidding prime. Since these vendors will also be competing for a prime position on GTACS, they will have a conflict of interest in sharing past performance and pricing information with other primes with whom they are competing. Question: How will the Government handle this potential conflict of interest for prime bidders who are also potential major equipment suppliers (vendors) under the Government's definition of 'major subcontractor'? Recommendation: Remove 'vendor (both hardware & software)' from the Government's definition of 'major subcontractor.'
R67. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q68. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(ii), Page 4 "The Offeror shall include the same contract information for each major subcontractor proposed (a major subcontractor is a subcontractor who will be providing hardware, software or services whose subcontract is for more than 20% of any sample task or 20% of the sum of the all three sample tasks proposed prices.)" The Government is requiring prime bidders to submit past performance information for major subcontractors and has included vendor relationships in this category if the vendor's contribution is 20% of the total price of either a Sample Task or the Total Proposed Price.
Question: If a vendor is unwilling to provide past performance information due to a potential conflict of interest, what is the consequence to the prime bidder?
R68. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q69. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(iii) 1.e and 1.f, Page 8
Comment: Under this section reference, (e) and (f) are repeated.
R69. Corrected

Q70. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(iii) 1.f (second (f) at the bottom of Page 8) "(f) Extent of Commitment: Provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments to utilize any Small Business category, as defined by FAR 19, as subcontractors. Enforceable commitments for this effort including teaming agreements. Copies of such agreements should be provided as part of your small business participation plan."
Question: Can the Government clarify the sentence fragment "Enforceable commitments for this effort including teaming agreements."
R70. This sentence has been deleted.

Q71. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(iv), Page 9 "For each Sample Task, a Cost Detail workbook that contains price summaries by lowest proposed Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) level detailing the Cost Elements by Contractor Fiscal Year (ST1_Cost Detail.xls, ST2-Cost Detail.xls, and ST3_Cost Detail.xls) shall be proposed." The Government describes multiple tiers of spreadsheets rolling up into other spreadsheets and it is very difficult to evaluate the need for questions without looking at what is being described.
Question: Does the Government intend to release the following documents prior to final RFP release? ST1_Cost Detail.xls, ST2_Cost Detail.xls, ST3_Cost Detail.xls, ST_Cost Detail.xls
R71. All solicitation attachments will be released when the RFP is posted

Q72. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(iii) 1.d, Page 7 "Additionally an Offeror who qualifies as a small business should include its prime contractor dollars in calculating its proposed percentage goals in all of the small business categories that it qualifies for example, an Offeror contractor who is a small woman owned business gets credit in the prime category, the small category, and the women owned small business category. "
Question: Can the Government clarify the meaning of this paragraph with regard to the statement 'prime category?'
R72. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q73. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(iv), Page 9 "For each Sample Task, a Cost Detail workbook that contains price summaries by lowest proposed Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) level detailing the Cost Elements by Contractor Fiscal Year (ST1_Cost Detail.xls, ST2-Cost Detail.xls, and ST3_Cost Detail.xls) shall be proposed."
Question: Does the Government intend to include a WBS in the pricing spreadsheets with the final RFP release that contains the WBS level of detail at which the Cost Plus Fixed Fee sample task pricing will be evaluated?
R73. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q74. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(iv).i & ii, Page 10/11 "-for S/IE efforts greater than $700k the subcontractor shall provide support in the same level of detail as the prime for each sample task. -each S/IE cost by contractor shall be detailed sufficiently to distinguish effort applicable by WBS and CLIN. The BOE worksheets shall detail the S/IE agencies proposed at the lowest WBS level. Detail S/IE hours applicable to Government provided labor categories as applicable." This section seems to indicate the Government is requiring 'major subcontractors', that are not 'interdivisional' to the prime, disclose the same level of pricing detail as the prime through references to Sections (iv) i and ii (direct labor and material) at the lowest WBS level. Since these subcontractors may also be competing for a prime position on GTACS, they will have a conflict of interest in sharing past performance and pricing information with other primes with whom they are competing.
Question: What is the consequence to the prime if the major subcontractor (vendor) refuses to provide its proprietary information to the prime for inclusion in the WBS pricing buildup worksheet?
R74. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q75. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(iv), Pages 9 and 11 There is no section 'a' on Page 9 but there is a section 'b' on Page 11.
Question: Is this a typographical error?
R75. Yes - Corrected.

Q76. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(iv).(c), Page 11/12 "The Offeror shall submit a sanitized version of the excel files detailed in paragraphs a, and b and C. NO PRICE DATA (RATES/SUMMARY DOLLARS) shall be included in the SANITIZED Files."
Question: What is the Government's instruction for the naming of the sanitized version of the file?
R76. SANITIZED_COST

Q77. Reference: Section M, Section 4.a, Page 17 "As a result of the Cost Realism analysis, the proposed cost for the Cost Reimbursement Sample Task may be adjusted only for purposes of determining the probable cost. " In the prior version of the Draft RFP, Section M regarding the Price/Cost evaluation approach, the approach stated that it would only adjust proposed CLIN prices upward for the purposes of evaluation. The current Draft RFP Section M, Price/Cost Evaluation Approach noted above omits this statement and states it will adjust for purposes of Probable cost.
Question: Is the Government planning to adjust the proposals both up and down?
R77. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q78. Reference: Section M, Section A, Page 12 "To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the Technical Factor and all Technical Subfactor Sample Tasks, and the SBPP factor."
Question: Given the small business past performance must achieve an 'acceptable' rating to be eligible for award, can the Government clarify what is required to achieve an 'acceptable' rating?
R78. The Government will be utilizing the DOD guidelines (4 March 2011) for source selection as a guide for all ratings and evaluation factors will be specified in Section M of the RFP.

Q79. Reference: Section M, Section 4.a, Page 17 "CLINs (0001-0002) will become part of the contract whereas CLINs (ST0001- ST0003) are notional only and will be used for source selection evaluation purposes only and will not become part of the contract"
Question: What is the basis of award and what is to be awarded under CLIN's 0001-0002?
R79. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q80. Reference: Section L, Section 2.c.(i), page 4 AND Section M, Section C.1.b, page 14 "...Prices shall not appear in Volume I. Prices for the Sample Task TEPs shall only be provided in response to the Price/Cost Proposal submission requirements." AND "The Sample Tasks will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and to which the proposed end results are achievable. The Sample Tasks will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror's methods and approach in meeting the requirements provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful performance and completion. The evaluation shall consider realism of the proposed hours, material and labor mix. The evaluation will also assess the performance risk associated with the difference between the proposed price and the probable price developed as a result of the Cost Realism analysis of the Fixed Price Sample Tasks." These statements seem to conflict. Instructions are clear that 'prices shall not appear in Volume I,' yet the Technical Evaluation Criteria includes a reference to pricing. Question: Will the Government please clarify the seemingly contradictory statements referenced above?
R80. The statements above are not contradictory. Offerors are to provide a Cost Proposal IAW Section L (iv) VOLUME IV - PRICE-COST (FACTOR). This cost proposal will contain prices. In addition, in order to determine realism, Offerors are to provide a sanitized version (a copy of the cost proposal with the dollar amounts removed) of any materials requested in the technical volume so that realism of approach can be determined.

Q81. Reference: Section M, Section A, Page 12/13 In the draft Section L&M dated June 24, the government removed the following statement that was included in the draft dated March 24: "With regards to Past Performance a risk rating of: Low Risk, Moderate Risk or Unknown Risk can be considered "Acceptable" while a rating of "High Risk" is considered "Unacceptable" and not eligible for award."
Question: Was this section explaining the past performance evaluation rationale intentionally removed in the June 24 draft?
R81. This was removed intentionally. The Government will be utilizing the DOD guidelines for source selection as a guide for all ratings.

Q82. Reference: Section M, Section A, Page 12/13 In the draft Section L&M dated June 24, the government removed the following statement that was included in the draft dated March 24: "With regards to Past Performance a risk rating of: Low Risk, Moderate Risk or Unknown Risk can be considered "Acceptable" while a rating of "High Risk" is considered "Unacceptable" and not eligible for award."
Question: Will an unacceptable risk rating for Past Performance make the bidder ineligible for an award?
R82.Yes

Q83. Reference: Section M, Section A, Page 12/13 In the draft Section L&M dated June 24, the government removed the following statement that was included in the draft dated March 24: "With regards to Past Performance a risk rating of: Low Risk, Moderate Risk or Unknown Risk can be considered "Acceptable" while a rating of "High Risk" is considered "Unacceptable" and not eligible for award."
Question: What are the evaluation criteria relative to Past Performance?
R83. The Government will be utilizing the DOD guidelines (4 March 2011) for source selection as a guide for all ratings.

Q84. Reference: Section M, Section C.3.g, Page 16 (last paragraph) "Offerors may receive additional credit for more aggressive Small Business requirements."
Question: Can the Government clarify the threshold above which 'additional credit' will be given?
R84. This reference has been removed

Q85. Reference: Section M, Section C.3.g, Page 16 (last paragraph) "Offerors may receive additional credit for more aggressive Small Business requirements."
Question: Given that the Small Business Past Performance is either acceptable or unacceptable in the evaluation criteria, can the Government clarify how 'additional credit' is computed (given) and incorporated into the evaluation process for the Small Business Past Performance?
R85. This reference has been removed

Q86. Reference: Section M, Section C.3.g, Page 16 (last paragraph) "Offerors may receive additional credit for more aggressive Small Business requirements."
Question: Can the Government clarify the tiers and structure of the 'additional credit' above the threshold?
R86. The above reference has been removed.

Q87. Reference: March 24, 2011 Section M, Section C.1.a Adequacy of Response, Page 17 "The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror's methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the sample task. The proposals will be evaluated to determine the Offerors understanding of applicable government processes and compliance requirements necessary to achieve success. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement of the sample tasks have been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the following criteria: (1) proposal submission instruction section of the solicitation, (2) Adequacy of the Offeror and its subcontractor's with regard to facilities, equipment, processes and personnel to perform the sample tasks will be assessed, (3) The Offeror's capability to design, develop, produce, deploy, sustain and manage complex C3T programs, as set forth in the Sample Tasks which are part of this Section L requirement. (4) The Offeror's production capability, facilities, processes and equipment necessary to manufacture quality C3T systems and equipment."
Question: The wording above was removed from the most recent draft of Section L&M. This section contained clearly defined criteria (specifically items 2, 3, and 4) for evaluating sample task responses. What was the rational for removing these criteria?
R87. The Government will be utilizing the DOD guidelines (4 March 2011) for this source selection.

Q88. Reference: Section M, C.1.a Understanding of the problem, Page 14 "The Sample Tasks will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it presents a clear understanding of all techniques involved in solving the problems and meeting the requirements; and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed." As written, the Government will be evaluating the Offeror's understanding of the techniques involved in solving the problems rather than evaluating the Offeror's understanding of the problems.
Question: Can the Government please clarify if they are evaluating the Offeror's understanding of the techniques or the Offeror's understanding of the problem?
R88. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q89. As part of the prime's proposal, will the prime be required to submit rate schedules for itself and separate rate schedules for its subcontractors?
R89. Ref to R28

Q90. Are the Table of Contents and Executive Summary included in the page counts of Volumes I and II as defined in Table 2 of the Draft Section L & M?
R90. No

Q91. Reference: Per page 4, 1st paragraph, the current Draft Section L and M says the following: The TEP shall address the information indicated in parenthesis and italics in the applicable Sample Task.
Question: Would you please clarify what is meant by information indicated in parenthesis and italics?
R91. This has been removed.

Q92. Reference: In Section L, 2 c on page 3, it states that "Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Executive Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion." It continues to describe on the next page the "Narrative discussion" as consisting of the information for each separate task which we know from Table 2 on page 3 to be limited to 80 pages.
Question: It is then assumed that the Table of Contents and Executive Summary Section do not count in this page limit. Is our understanding correct?
R92. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q93. Reference: In Section L, 2 c on page 3, it clearly states that "All price data shall only be contained in the PRICE-COST.xls file." Yet in the response to the Small Business Participation Plan (particularly on pages 6 to 8), it requires us to enter dollar amounts for the total bid and small business participation.
Question: May we omit the dollar value in each of these entries and provide the percentage of total contract value?
R93. No

Q94. Reference: Concerning Sample Task Orders (STO): Small businesses could struggle to respond to STOs that are scoped identical to the Large Business STOs. This is also true of STOs that are written and scoped as large business STOs and then reduced in quantity in a manner that still requires a disproportionate response that covers all the same work activities.
Comment: It is recommended that specific, tailored SB STOs be used that are representative of the scope of contemplated SB Task Orders under the awarded IDIQ.
R94. Sample Task Orders have been written with the intent to request that Offerors propose a feasible approach to fulfilling a realistic requirement suitable for either small or large business offerors.

Q95. Reference: Price evaluation: Part 2.c.(iv) page 9 explicitly states that "Offerors prices proposed for the Sample Tasks will only be used for evaluation purposes." Some offerors will interpret this to mean that proposed sample Task Order pricing is not binding, and will propose unrealistically low STO pricing in order to be more favorably evaluated. While these unrealistic prices may result in a more favorable evaluation, this offeror could not possibly use this pricing to successfully perform the STO. The draft section L&M pricing (part 4.(b) page 17) evaluation scheme outlined to determine Cost Realism will serve to mitigate this to some degree.
Comment: It is recommend that STO pricing be binding in order to ensure that the government receives reasonable and realistic pricing to evaluate.
R95. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q96. Reference: Page 17, Section M.C.4.b Price/Cost Evaluation Approach Section
Question: Please explain the purpose of the following calculations in evaluating the offeror's proposal. Are the numbers supposed to add up to the contract value of $10.2 B? The Government will calculate the 'Projected Number of DOs/TOs' for each of the three Sample Tasks as follows: ($1.5 Billion)/(Sample Task #1 average) = anticipated # of DOs/TOs under Sample Task #1 ($6.5 Billion)/(Sample Task #2 average) = anticipated # of DOs/TOs under Sample Task #2 ($1,984,902,500)/(Sample Task #3 average) = anticipated # of DOs/TOs under Sample Task #3
R96. The purpose of this calculation is to evaluate the cost of an Offeror's solutions to the sample tasks over the entire lifecycle of the contract.

Q97. Reference: Page 3, Section L.2.C, Content Requirements.
Question: Does the Executive Summary have a page count?
R97. The Executive Summary does not count as part of the overall page count however this is a summary section and should only include information presented in the overall proposal.

Q98. Reference: Page 17, Section M.C.4.b Price/Cost Evaluation Approach Section, Page 19, Section M.C.4.b Price/Cost Evaluation Approach Section, last table
Question: The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) formula does not seem to be the same as the last table on page 19. The description of the TEP on page 17 states that the proposed price of each Sample task will be multiplied by the anticipated # of Dos/TOs and summed to equal the Total Evaluated Price. The final table on page 19 indicates that the sum of the three Sample Tasks will be the Total Evaluated Price. Will the government please clarify which is correct?
R98. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q99. Reference: L.2.c.ii states "Aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming for those development, production and sustainment sample tasks attached to the RFP."
Question: Please clarify if a greater degree of subcontract/teaming would be evaluated more favorably than a lesser degree of subcontract/teaming. In other words, would the government prefer past performance references with larger teams or smaller teams?
R99. The government has no preference.

Q100. Reference: L.2.c.ii states "(a major subcontractor is a subcontractor who will be providing hardware, software or services whose subcontract is for more than 20% of any sample task or 20% of the sum of the all three sample tasks proposed prices.)"
Question: Please clarify if, based on the definition above, a hardware or software supplier accounting for 20% or more of a sample task would be considered either a vendor or a major subcontractor? Please note that the industry standard is to consider such hardware/software suppliers as vendors only, whereas only companies who are integral to the delivery and performance of the task would be considered a subcontractor or a major subcontractor.
R100. The definition in L.2.c.ii is the definition that will be used for this contract and the offeror's response must comply with the RFP. Additionally any vendor/subcontractor providing 20% or more of a sample task would be considered a major subcontractor.

Q101. Reference: Page 3, para 2c and Page 4, para 2c(i).
Question: Are the Executive summaries for Volumes I and II included within the volume's page limit?
R101. The Executive Summary does not count as part of the overall page count however this is a summary section and should only include information presented in the overall proposal.

Q102. Reference: Page 3, para 2c and Page 4, para 2c(i).
Question: Will be there a page limit for each Executive Summary?
R102. The Executive Summary does not count as part of the overall page count however this is a summary section and should only include information presented in the overall proposal.

Q103. Reference: Page 3, para 2c and Page 4, para 2c(i).
Question: Will the Government provide further guidance as to their expectation of the content of each Executive Summary, e.g., an outline?
R103. The Executive Summary does not count as part of the overall page count. However this is a summary section and should only include information presented in the overall proposal.

Q104. Reference: Pages 6 and 7, para 2c(iii).
Question: In subparagraphs b, c, d and f, are the values to be provided attributed to the total value of the three sample task orders?
R104. Total Contract Value" (TCV)

For the purposes of the Small Business PARTICIPATION plan - the TCV will be $10B. References to the Small Business SUBCONTRACTING Plan normally request either the dollars or percentages intended to be subcontracted. Each offeror will only be held to the percentages proposed, not the dollars, as an offeror may not reach the ceiling.

For how to determine Total Evaluated Price, see Section M: 'Price/Cost Evaluation Approach'.

Q105. Reference: Pages 6 and 7, para 2c(iii).
Question: In subparagraph e, do we list the data for all of our teammates, or only those utilized in the three sample tasks?
R105. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q106. Reference: Page 9, para 2c(iv).
Question: A summary worksheet for the proposed Sample Task is provided on Attachment 04 ST Cost Detail. Is the Attachment 04 available? If not, will the attachment be available prior to RFP release?
R106. All solicitation attachments will be released when the RFP is posted

Q107. Reference: Page 9, para 2c(iv) (first and second paras regarding instructions for WBS).
Question: Will WBS be Government furnished? If yes when will it be available?
R107. Yes once the RFP is released.

Q108. Reference: Page 10, para 2c(iv)i, Direct Labor.
Question: When will the Government provide the labor categories and the Rate worksheet?
R108. A labor category spreadsheet will be provided when the RFP is released.

Q109. Reference: Page10, para 2c(iv)ii, Direct Material.
Question: Will the Government furnish a BOM template with the required data fields? When will it be available?
R109. This information will be provided when the final RFP is posted.

Q110. Reference: Page10, para 2c(iv)iii, ODC / Travel.
Question: Will the Government furnish the ODC Travel template with the required data fields? When will it be available?
R110. This information will be provided when the final RFP is posted.

Q111. Reference: Page10, para 2c(iv)iv, Subcontracts/Interdivisional Effort.
Question: Will the Government reconsider the requirement to perform CAPA on Interdivisional pricing data? Regulatory requirements are not currently present in the FAR to conduct CAPA on Interdivisional efforts nor are Interdivisional efforts characterized as subcontracts in the FAR. The FAR requires prime contractors to perform cost or price analyses on subcontracts but doesn't extend these regulatory requirements to interdivisional efforts.
R111. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q112. Reference: Page11, para 2c(iv)v, Indirect Costs.
Question: When will the Government furnish the Rate sheet template?
R112. This information will be provided when the final RFP is posted.

Q113. Reference: Page16, para 3b, 3c, 3f, and 3g.
Question: Do these paragraphs refer to the total value of the three sample task orders or for all teammates?
R113. "Total Contract Value" (TCV) Ref to R 20

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1.civ@mail.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.w.jenniss.civ@mail.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.a.hansen28.civ@mail.mil

Response to Industry Questions for 06 July 2011 Draft Section L&M SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001 Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services

The following are questions and responses 1 through 50 to Draft Section L & M questions from industry received as of 13 July 2011, 4:30pm Eastern Standard Time.

Q1. There are contracts in which a company is performing as a subcontractor to another company on a similar and relevant program as defined by the GTACS Draft PWS, and these two companies are also known direct competitors for the GTACS opportunity. This is a possible Organizational Conflict of Interest (FAR part 9.5) to directly solicit a Past Performance Survey from these companies, as these GTACS competitors may have "impaired objectivity" in their responses. Therefore, please confirm that a Past Performance Survey is not required for a company which is a subcontractor to a known and direct GTACS competitor, due to an OCI concern. If these subject Past Performance Surveys are required in this situation, please advise if these requests can be submitted directly to the government customer (not competitor), due to the aforementioned rationale.
R1. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q2. As it appears that 60% or more of the contract value will be met through the purchase of material goods (hardware), will the RFP allow for fee to be applied on all material purchases?
R2. Fixed price contracts are described in FAR 16.201 and there is no separation of cost elements in such contracts. FAR Part 16.3 describes in detail the various types of Cost Reimbursement contracts and how fee is approached in such contracts.

Q3. Reference: Page 3 - The table has been renamed to Table 2
Question: Is there a Table 1 or is this an error?
R3. This should be Table 1

Q4. Reference: Page 3 - L2(c) "Each file of the proposal shall consist of Table of Contents, Executive Summary Section and the Narrative discussion."
Question: Is there a page limit for the required Executive Summary per volume? If so please advise page limit of executive summary per volume.
R4. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q5. Reference: Page 3 - Regarding the Executive Summary for Technical Volume.
Question: Since the technical volume will likely be evaluated by three separate teams for each sample task, will the government distribute the Executive Summary for this volume to each of the same task evaluation teams?
R5. Yes

Q6. Reference: Page 4 - L 2 (i) - first sentence refers to Table 1
Question: Should this be Table 2 on page 3?
R6. Yes, Section L&M have been revised for the final RFP

Q7. Reference: Page 6 - Section 3 Subcontracts
Question: Should this section be "Subcontractors"?
R7. Subcontracts

Q8. Reference: Page 6 - Section 3
Question: Does the Government want the information of all proposed subcontractors or only the major subcontractors?
R8. Major subcontractors only

Q9. Reference: Page 9
Question: Will Instructions for WBS Cost Elements worksheets be released prior to the final RFP?
R9. No

Q10. Reference: Page 9 - "Instructions for Cost Elements are identified in following subparagraphs of this section and an example of the submission workbook is provided at Attachment04, ST Cost Detail.xls."
Question: Will Attachment 4 be released prior to the final RFP?
R10. Attachment 4 will not be released prior to RFP.

Q11. Reference: Page 10 - (i)
Question: Will Enclosure 5 be released prior to the final RFP?
R11. All enclosures will not be released prior to the RFP

Q12. Reference: Page 12 - section (e)
Question: Should this be section (g)?
R12. The above reference cannot be found

Q13. Reference: Page 12 - Section (f)
Question: Should this be section (h)?
R13. The above reference cannot be found

Q14. Does the government intend to provide additional information regarding the weighting of evaluation criteria within each volume?
R14. The weighting is defined section M

Q15. Reference: Page 15 - (c) - "Adequacy of Approach: The Sample Task will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror's methods and approach demonstrate adequate and complete consideration of and satisfaction of the requirements specified in the solicitation. The Sample Tasks will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation." Question: When referring to "in the solicitation" is the Government referring to requirements in sample task, section L and PWS?
R15. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q16. Reference: On page 4, section (ii) opening paragraph, the government removed relevancy of PWS for Past Performance but left Sample Tasks in the new draft, but on page 6 of the same section, (ii)(c), "citing the applicable Government PWS paragraph number" is still requested. Question: Could the government provide more insight into what references to the PWS are required and if a new PWS will be issued prior to the final RFP?
R16. The Offeror shall utilize the solicitation PWS as a reference when providing examples of relevant work their Major Subcontractors have completed.

Q17. Reference: General
Question: To avoid repetition in the 3 Sample Tasks (ST), and to maximize technical content in the ST page counts, will the Government please consider a concise 10 page Management and Risk Control Plan which describes the overall team construct, management controls and tools, and unique facilities that would be applicable to all 3 ST responses?
R17. The Contracting Officer has taken this under consideration and has decided that the current methodology is sufficient enough in detail to ascertain an Offeror's ability to manage the Risk associated with this effort.

Q18. Reference: L.2.c - Content Requirements, Page 3. "Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Executive Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion."
Question: Please provide a summary of what is desired in the Narrative Discussion for Volume V, Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations; and if Narrative Discussions for Volume V will be evaluated.
R18. Section L 'Instructions to Offerors' of Volume V - Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations as listed in the draft L&M which was posted provides the answer to this question. Additional clarification can be found in FAR Part 15 and clause FAR clause 52.212-2.

Q19. Reference: L.2.c(ii) - Volume II - Past Performance (FACTOR), page 4. "Aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming for those development, production and sustainment sample tasks attached to the RFP.
Question: The referenced phrase has been modified from the previous draft to require relevancy against the sample tasks in lieu of the overall contract PWS. Would the government prefer to see references for work that are specifically relevant to the sample tasks (however focused they may be) as well as references that show relevance against the contract-level PWS? Additionally, should relevant work cited be limited to the specific system types discussed in the sample tasks, or would the Government prefer to see a range of relevant system types covered across the referenced work? Please give additional guidance in this area; it is currently unclear whether offerors should focus only on the sample tasks to show relevancy or whether we should focus on both the sample tasks and the contract-level PWS.
R19. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q20. Reference: L.2.c(iii)(b) Volume III, SBPP, page 6, para iii (b). "Total Contract Value (including options)": L.2.c(iii)(d), page 7, under NOTE - "All percentages should use TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE as a baseline." : SB Subcontracting Plan, para 3(a), page 9 - "base your percentages on TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE".
Question: How is "Total Contract Value" calculated? Is the Total Contract Value simply the sum of the offeror's proposed prices for the three sample tasks? Does Total Contract Value = Total Evaluated Price? Please clarify.
R20. "Total Contract Value" (TCV)

For the purposes of the Small Business PARTICIPATION plan - the TCV will be $10B.
Offerors are required to propose a percentage of the total acquisition value dollars to be awarded to small business subcontractors or teaming partners. The dollars proposed must correlate to the dollars and percentages identified in the SB subcontracting plan.
For how to determine Total Evaluated Price, see Section M: 'Price/Cost Evaluation Approach'.


Q21. Reference: L.2.c(iii)(f)(2), Page 9
Question: In accordance with the Draft Section L, Volume III, # (2) on Page 9; Each large Business Offeror shall provide a small business Subcontracting Plan that contains all the elements required by FAR 52.219-9. In accordance with this clause, goals are to be stated as a percentage of subcontracting dollars. What are the specific goals to be achieved by Large Businesses on the Subcontracting Plan?
R21. Refer to Draft Section L & M page 16; 3, g.

Q22. Reference: M.A, Basis for Award, page 13. "Offerors remaining within the competitive range..."
Question: What specific criteria will be used to establish a competitive range?
R22. The Contracting Officer will establish the competitive range once all proposals have been received and evaluated in accordance with Section M.

Q23. Reference: M.A, Basis for Award, page 13. "Offerors remaining within the competitive range..."
Question: If a bidder is in the competitive range, how will the Government assess best value to make/not make an award?
R23. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q24. Reference: M.B.1, Factor 1 - Technical, page 13. "Each subfactor will be evaluated and adjectivally rated individually."
Question: What adjectival ratings will be used to distinguish proposal section evaluation from another? The RFP mentions an "acceptable" rating, but no scale or range of ratings is provided. Recommend that section M include this rating scale, along with the specific criteria that would be evaluated to determine a given rating. Also recommend that a similar rating scale and criteria be provided for the past performance and small business participation plan evaluations.
R24. The source selection process will be following DOD source selection guidelines (4 March 2011) of which the adjectival ratings are described. The Government will not be releasing them separately.

Q25. Reference: M.C - Evaluation Approach, Page 14. "Any Offeror that is already affiliated with or is contemplating any contractual relationship with any of the above companies shall notify the Contracting Officer as soon as possible, but no later than ten (10) days after issuance of the solicitation."
Question: Is the contractual relationship intended to be related specifically to this effort; or does it pertain to any other relationship the parties may have beyond this solicitation?
R25. This reference pertains to any and all relationships to the parties mentioned both with this solicitation and beyond it.

Q26. Reference: M.C.1 - Past Performance Evaluation Approach. Page 15
Question: Please confirm that the Past Performance Evaluation Approach should be re-numbered with a "2."
R26. Correct

Q27. Reference: PWS Section 1.0 - Scope. The PWS specifically states "The GTACS program and contract will provide the flexibility and responsiveness needed to support the mission of PEO C3T, its PMs, PdMs and PDs."
Question: Throughout the PWS all work and Task Areas 1, 2, and 3 focus on providing services and solutions for tactical C3 systems. The PEO C3T systems provide the tactical communications infrastructure which enable voice, data and video communications on the battlefield not only for Army communications elements but for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Systems as well.
Interoperability requirements need to be understood by the potential bidders to propose services and solutions that are seamlessly integrated into the overall tactical battlefield. Will the PWS and Task Areas 1, 2 and 3 specifically define the C3 systems interoperability requirements for all external hardware, software and communications systems that PEO C3T is required to interface within CONUS and OCONUS locations? Will the respective Interface Control Documents and Systems Architecture Information Exchange Requirements be provided for Task Areas 1 through 3 (and the respective Sample Tasks if applicable) that require solutions to be integrated into the overall PEO C3T System of Systems Enterprise?
R27. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q28. As part of the prime's proposal, will the prime be required to submit rate schedules for itself and separate rate schedules for its subcontractors?
R28. Prime offerors will be required to submit an excel file that contains the Prime's direct and indirect rates applicable to performance of the three sample tasks. Additionally, the prime contractors will be required to provide Cost and Price Analysis (CAPA) documentation for all subcontractor and interorganizational transfers' costs proposed in the three sample tasks that exceed $700K. This CAPA documentation shall address the following (which will be included in the cost and pricing spread sheet to be released with the final RFP):

1. Was adequate price competition obtained or its absence properly justified?
2. Did the Prime contractor adequately assess and dispose of subcontractors' alternate proposals, if offered?
3. Does the Prime contractor have a sound basis for selecting and determining the responsibility of the particular subcontractor?
4. Has the Prime contractor performed adequate cost or price analysis or price comparisons and obtained certified cost or pricing data and data other than certified cost or pricing data if no exception applies?
5. Does the Prime offeror have a DCAA approved purchasing system?


Q29. Are the Table of Contents and Executive Summary included in the page counts of Volumes I and II as defined in Table 2 of the Draft Section L & M?
R29. No

Q30. Reference: Per page 4, 1st paragraph, the current Draft Section L and M says the following: The TEP shall address the information indicated in parenthesis and italics in the applicable Sample Task.
Question: Would you please clarify what is meant by information indicated in parenthesis and italics?
R30. Reference will be removed.

Q31. Reference: section L, 2, c, pg 3
Question: Request that the Government consider not requiring an Executive Summary for each of the five (5) files listed in Table 2. Recommend that the Executive Summary be included only with the first file (Volume 1, Technical).
R31. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q32. Reference: section L, iii, Volume II, pg 4
Question: In accordance with Section L and M, past performance reporting is required for subcontractors who will be providing hardware, software or services whose subcontract is for more than 20% of any sample task. Please advise how many days will industry have to provide past performance to the Government for these 20% subcontracts. If industry is allowed the full 30 day proposal response periods to submit past performance assessment questionnaires by their past performance program customers, it will allow industry an opportunity to internally compete the requirements, thus providing the best partnering solution with regard to technical, price, and small business considerations.
R32. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q33. Reference: section L, iii, Volume III, b, pg 6
Question: "Total Contract Value" is no longer equal to "Total Evaluated Price" as was originally stated in a previous Q&A. It appears that the current definition of "Total Contract Value" is the sum of bidder's prices for ST1 + ST2 + ST3 including options. Please confirm this assumption.
R33. "Total Contract Value" (TCV)

For the purposes of the Small Business PARTICIPATION plan - the TCV will be $10B. References to the Small Business SUBCONTRACTING Plan normally request either the dollars or percentages intended to be subcontracted. Each offeror will only be held to the percentages proposed not the dollars as an offeror may not reach the ceiling."

For how to determine Total Evaluated Price, see Section M: 'Price/Cost Evaluation Approach'.


Q34. Reference: section L, iii, Volume III, pg 7
Question: Draft Section L and M state that Offerors are to provide a list of small business's within Volume III, and that small and large subcontractors performing on any one of the three sample tasks are to be referenced in the Technical Proposal. Because GTACS is a broad Contract to support all of PEO C3T Program Management Offices and Programs, it is highly possible that not all team members products and services will be utilized in the 3 evaluated sample tasks, but may be utilized on future GTACS efforts. The inclusion and discussion of all team members and subcontractors at contract award is recommended to avoid time consuming requests and modifications in future Task Order awards, and will ensure PEO C3T has broad technology-based teams to perform all work necessary as defined by the PWS. Therefore, it is suggested that the Government add a teammate matrix that is matched to the PWS, as part of the RFP and provide ample space for a complete team identification and role/capability-based response.
R34. The government has taken this under consideration and will not be requiring a team mate matrix. The team should be discussed within the proposal in accordance with section L.

Q35. Reference: section L, iii, Volume III, e, pg 7
Question: Regarding the section starting, "(e) List principal supplies/services to be subcontracted to. Be specific as possible (i.e. references to statement of work, etc) that will demonstrate a variety and complexity of work: Please define "principal" in this context, since there may be very differing perceptions of this.
R35. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q36. Reference: section L, iii, Volume III, e, pg 7
Question: The HBCU/MI category appears in the underlined structure on the bottom of page 7, but does not appear in the structure on the top of page 7. Please advise if bidders will be required to meet any specific Government defined HBCU/MI goals. It had been understood that the HBCU reference had been removed in a previous question response.
R36. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q37. Reference: section L, iv, Volume IV, p 9
Question: Request the Government provide an example of the draft attachment 04, ST_Cost Detail.xls and the instructions for WBS cost element and cost elements worksheets, as soon as possible. The Pre-solicitation Draft Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire for SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-RC001 GTACS and previous responses R1, R31, R32 and R52 all indicated the Government would provide the workbook. Please advise when this important document can be provided. Early release of this document will be beneficial in reduction of industry questions and possible resulting delays.
R37. All solicitation attachments will be released when the RFP is posted unless otherwise notified.

Q38. Reference: section L, iv, Volume IV, p 9
Question: Suggest that the Government consider providing the WBS and cost worksheets formats. Also, we suggest the cost worksheet format utilize the Government fiscal year versus the contractor fiscal year, for clarity and consistency across all proposal responses.
R38. The Government has taken this under consideration and is remaining with contractor fiscal year.

Q39. Reference: section L, iv, Volume IV, p 9
Question: Section L under Volume IV - Cost Price states, "Each WBS Cost Summary Worksheet will have for each Cost Element, a reference to a worksheet (single tab within workbook) containing the supporting calculations, formulas, and line item details necessary for the Government to evaluate the individual components of the Cost Element by WBS by Contractor Fiscal Year." It was mentioned in the previous industry responses (R1, R2, R3, R31, R32, R52) that this workbook will be government defined and provided. Please confirm that it is still the plan for this workbook to be Government defined and provided.
R39. Correct

Q40. Reference: section L, iv, Volume IV, I, pg 10
Question: Regarding the section starting "..each Offeror proposed labor category shall also map to a government provided labor category (see Enclosure 05)". Please advise when the Government will provide Enclosure 05 and how many labor categories are included. Early release of this document would be beneficial in reduction of industry questions and possible resulting delays.
R40. All solicitation attachments will be released when the RFP is posted

Q41. Reference: section L., iv, Volume IV, pg's 10 & 12
Question: The previous Responses to Draft Sections L&M Questions from Industry, dated June 15, 2011 state (R40, R43, R75 and R76) that certified cost or pricing data will not be required, but that other than cost or pricing data may be requested for the evaluation of sample tasks. In revised Draft Section L& M section (iv. Subcontracts/Interdivisional Efforts), it states that the prime contractor must provide the cost/price analysis for all S/IE costs over $700K. However, the later section (d, Cost/Price Proposal Supporting documents), states that the prime contractor must have available the cost/price analysis and source selection data for all S/IE costs over $700K. Please advise which of these conflicting sections should be followed.
R41. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q42. Reference: section L., iv, Volume IV, pg 11
Question: Section IV - Cost-Price (Factor), vii. Fee/Profit states that FPRA or FPRA can be used in lieu of indirect cost pool components. However, Section IV - Cost-Price (Factor), v. Indirect Costs requests a detailed breakdown of Indirect Costs. Please advise if the FPRA or FPRA data can also be used in lieu of the Indirect Costs detail.
R42. If an offeror provides a valid FPRA for a specific cost element (direct or indirect), a breakdown for that specific direct or indirect cost will not be required.

Q43. Reference: section M, 4, pg 18
Question: It is stated in the section that CLINs (0001-0002) will become part of the contract. Please define these CLINS. Please advise if these CLINS will be contractually incorporated at the IDIQ vehicle award or at future task order awards.
R43. The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q44. Reference: General
Question: Please advise estimated schedule for Draft RFP and RFP. An estimated schedule would be of great benefit to Industry for planning and resource allocation purposes.
R44. Estimate fourth quarter FY11

Q45. Reference: General
Question: This Draft release appears to rescind or ignore some of the previously released answers to Industry questions as posted. Please advise if the current Draft Section L&M dated 6/24/2011supersedes previous answers which would now appear in conflict.
R45. The draft Section L&M supersedes previous versions, and is consistent with previous Government responses.

Q46. Reference: Jun 15, 2011 Government Answers to Questions and Comments. Q57: Please confirm that a winning prime will not be allowed to bring on additional sub-contractors following an award. R57: The winning Prime will be allowed to bring additional Subcontractors on following the award. "The request for the replacement of a sub-contractor after contract award shall be formally made to the contracting officer in writing - along with accompanying rationale for replacement. R56: The Government does not intend to eliminate the term "enforceable commitment, Enforceable commitment serves as a mean to ensure Small Business participation and as a deterrent from switching Small Business team members without the approval of the Contracting Officer and the Chief Associate Director of CECOM Small Business.
Comment: The Government's 15 June, 2011 response addressed the addition of a subcontractor. However, the response relates it to the "replacement" of a subcontractor. The addition of a subcontractor is not the same as the replacement of a subcontractor. The term "replacement" alludes to dropping a subcontractor and substituting with another subcontractor. The term "addition" refers to bringing on a new subcontractor but not switching the new subcontractor for another from the Prime's list of subcontractors.
Question: Can the Government confirm that a winning prime will be allowed to bring on additional subcontractors following an award without having to remove an existing subcontractor from the Prime's team?
R46. The winning prime can bring on additional subcontractors on a case by case basis with the approval of the Contracting Officer.

Q47. Reference: The previous question
Question: Will the addition of a subcontractor require the approval of the Contracting Officer and the Chief Associate Director of CECOM Small Business?
R47. Approval of the Contracting Officer only.

Q48. Reference: Page 3 and 9, 24 June 2011 Draft Section L&M Section L, Page 3: COST.zip Page 3: All price data shall only be contained in the PRICE-COST.xls file. Page 9: Instructions for Cost Elements are identified in following subparagraphs of this section and an example of the submission workbook is provided at Attachment 04, ST_Cost Detail.xls.
Question: Will the Government release drafts of the spreadsheets to be used for the Price Volume?
R48. All solicitation attachments will be released when the RFP is posted

Q49. Reference: Page 6 - 9, 24 June 2011Draft Section L&M Section L (iii) VOLUME III - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN; Section M, 3. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN EVALUATION APPROACH
(b) Total Contract Value: (Include options, etc) $___________
(d) Dollar Value and Percentage of Total Contract Value of Subcontracts Planned All percentages should use TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE as a baseline.
(f) SDB and HBCU/MI target participation must be expressed as dollars and percentages of TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE...Last column of table "% OF TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE"
(3) In order to comply with the requirements for the Small Business Participation Plan, please be sure you have:
(a) Based your percentages on TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE
g. ... The Small business requirements for this procurement are as follows: Small Business: 23% of the total contract value. Small Disadvantaged Business: 5% of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business: 5% of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: 3% of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business: 3% of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business: 3% of the total contract value.
Question: What is the definition of the "Total Contract Value?" Is it one of the potential definitions below? If so, which one? If not, what is the Government's definition?
(a) Total Evaluated Price (TEP) after the multipliers for each sample task is applied to the price for each Sample Task. (b) Total Price Proposed by Offeror for the sum of all the Sample Tasks before the sample task multipliers are applied? (c) Government's estimated ceiling of $10B?
R49. "Total Contract Value" (TCV) See Question/Response #20 above.

Q50. Reference: Page 7-8, 24 June 2011Draft Section L&M Section L (iii) VOLUME III - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN (FACTOR). (e) List principal supplies/services to be subcontracted to. (f) SDB and HBCU/MI target participation must be expressed as dollars and percentages... (e) Prior Performance Information: (f) Extent of Commitment:
Question: Would the government consider renumbering the sections of the Small Business volume (or portions of it) to clarify the order for consistency? For example, on pages 7 and 8, (e) and (f) are immediately followed by another (e) and (f).
R50. The numbering and lettering has been corrected

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1.civ@mail.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.w.jenniss.civ@mail.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.a.hansen28.civ@mail.mil

SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001 Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services

Points of Contact e-mail address update NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1.civ@mail.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.w.jenniss.civ@mail.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.a.hansen28@mail.mil

SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001 Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

The following are responses to Draft Section L & M questions from industry received as of May 13, 2011, 1500 Eastern Standard Time.

Q1: Draft Section L (2)(c)(iii)(a) - " The Offeror shall submit a Microsoft 2007 Excel file (workbook) that calculates and includes the formulas necessary to develop a summary worksheet (single tab within workbook) which provides the 'Summary of Total Price by Cost Element by CLIN by WBS'."

Does the Government intend to provide an Excel 2007 workbook with the final RFP that is formatted in the manner that the Government wishes to receive the Cost/Pricing data as described in this section?

R1: YES

Q2: Draft Section L (2)(c)(iii)(a) - "..This 'Summary of Total Price by Cost Element by CLIN by WBS' worksheet will have for each Cost Element a reference to a worksheet (single tab within workbook) containing the supporting calculations, formulas, and line item details necessary for the government to evaluate the individual components of the Cost Element by CLIN by Fiscal Year and by WBS. (See Attachment 4 - workbook)

Will the Government provide the referenced workbook in Attachment 4 with the Final RFP?

R2: YES

Q3: If so, does this workbook include detail worksheet and structure for each Cost Element as requested in the referenced paragraph?

R3: YES

Q4: Draft Section L (2)(c)(iii)(a) ii. Direct Material (2nd paragraph) - "Each priced summary will include the part number once with the total proposed number of units for the WBS".

Will the Government please explain the requirement to "...include the part number once"? Is the Government expecting a single part number for each level of the WBS, of which the required part will be defined in the Final RFP? Or does the Government want a collapsed Bill of Materials by Part Number with quantities of each for each level of the WBS?

R4: The Government requires a collapsed Bill of Materials by Part Number with quantities of each for each level of the WBS.

Q5: Draft Section L (2)(c)(iii)(a) v. Indirect Costs - "...For each Indirect Cost (example Fringe, Overhead, Material/Subcontract Handling, General and Administrative, Facilities Capital Cost of Money, etc.,) identify the indirect rates from your Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) or forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP) applied to each respective Cost Element that were used to calculate the Indirect Costs."

Will the Government accept a Forward Pricing Rate Proposal that defines Activity Rates (not separated into overhead, fringe, etc.) as an adequate submission for this requirement?

R5: No, the Government requires the offeror to propose indirect rates on an individual basis.

Q6: Draft Section L (2)(c)(iii)(d) - " The offeror shall submit a sanitized version of the Excel files detailed in paragraphs A, B, and C. NO PRICE DATA (RATES/SUMMARY DOLLARS) shall be included in the SANITIZED Files."

Will the Government please provide more detail on the data that will need to be excluded in the "sanitized" version?

R6: All monetary values must be excluded.

Q7: Will the Government please provide detail of what data should be included in the sanitized files?

R7: Everything excluding all monetary values.

Q8: Reference page 3, Table 1. We assume there will be one (1) file for the Technical Volume that will contain:

Table of Contents for all information in the Technical Volume including Sample Task 1, 2, and 3 and not a separate Table of Contents for each. Is this correct?

R8: YES

Q9: Will attachments such as Block Diagrams, Equipment Specification Sheets, be counted in the page count?

R9: Any information the Offeror feels necessary to accurately describe its response to the final RFP should be included and all information will be considered as part of the page count.

Q10: Reference page 3, Paragraph 2, Page Count. How will the number of lines per page be determined? Word will indicate line numbers: however, spaces are counted as well. Draft Section L, 2 Proposal Files, b, page 3

R10: The Government will use Word format to count the number of lines. Draft section L 2. Proposal files, paragraph 2 defines the amount of spacing to be provided and only TEXT will be removed.

Q11: Will the table of contents be included as part of the page count for the Technical and Past Performance Volumes? Will a cover page and other informational list (list of figures, list of tables, list of acronyms, etc.) count in the total number of allowed pages?

R11: The table of contents does not count as part of the page count
Lists of figure, tables and acronyms do not count as part of the page count.

Q12: Draft Section L, (ii) Volume II - Past Performance, (e), page 6
The Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaires are to be included in the proposal Past Performance file. Will these pages count in the total number of allowed pages?

R12: Per Draft Section L (ii) Volume II - Past Performance, (e), page 6, the completed questionnaires will not be counted as part of the total page count. In addition the Questionnaires will no longer be the Offerors responsibility.

Q13: Regarding OCI, can a prime bidder exclude itself from individual RTEPs/Task Orders if it feels there would be a conflict of interest on that particular Task Order?

R13: Yes

Q14: Small Business Participation Plan. Is a Small Business Participation Plan to be submitted only for each of the Sample Tasks or is a Small Business Participation Plan also required for the overall IDIQ total effort? If also required for the total IDIQ effort what values should be used for plan figures. The same questions also arise for large businesses required to also submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

R14: The SB plan is for the overall effort - not for each individual Sample Task.

Q15: Pricing. Your instruction is for offerors to submit "Cost, Cost Plus, and Firm-Fixed Prices for its proposed notional systems/equipment in response to the three Sample Tasks provided with the RFP". Is this to be understood as requiring three proposals for each of the Sample Tasks or will each task have a specified contract type associated with it?

R15: No, only one proposal is to be submitted. There will be only one type of contract for each sample task which will be provided in the final RFP.

Q16: Pricing. Is it acceptable to submit a Word document Price Volume along with the Excel spreadsheet which contains the requested supporting information? Can the Word document submission include printouts of the pricing file worksheets to accompany explanations of the basis used to develop the pricing? Is a sanitized version of the Word document Volume desired along with the sanitized Excel spreadsheet?

R16: No- see pricing proposal instructions provided in the draft L&M , in addition a sanitized version of all submittals must be provided.

Q17: Pricing. The instructions refer to preparing pricing for each Cost Element by Fiscal Year. Is the fiscal year being referred here the Government fiscal year or the offeror's fiscal year?

R17: For each Sample Task, a Cost Detail workbook that contains price summaries by lowest proposed Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) level detailing the Cost Elements by Contractor Fiscal Year (ST1_Cost Detail.xls, ST2-Cost Detail.xls, and ST3_Cost Detail.xls) shall be proposed.

Q18: Reference: draft M.C.3.b explains how the total evaluated price shall be calculated by multiplying the evaluated proposed price for each Sample Task by a weighted multiplier. It also states "Based on historical data and future projections for task orders over the life of the base contract, each multiplier represents the relative contribution of the work in each Sample Task to the overall effort."

The multiplier for STO3 is .20, which indicates that historical data and future projections for Sustainment are set at 20% of the total effort. However, in the Q&A released on 16 February 2011, the Government stated:

Q/C52. What is the expected mix of Material Purchase vs. Services provided? During Industry day in July 2010, the KO had announced a 60% Material and a 40% Services mix. Will this stay the same of some other anticipated mix?

R18: The mix and percentages will be clarified as part of the final RFP.

Q19: Recommend that the government adjust the STO 3 multiplier to .30 and reduce the multipliers for STO 1 and/or STO 2 to more accurately reflect the anticipated 70%-30% mix of Material and Service.

R19: The contracting officer will take this under consideration.

Q20: Volume I Technical
1.) Reference: Draft PWS (released 14 January 2011) Section 3.14.3 states "Unless otherwise specified by the Government, the TEP size shall not exceed twenty (20) total text pages." However, the table in Draft L Section 2.b shows a 30 page limit for STO 1, 25 pages per STO 2, and 25 pages for STO 3.
Question: Please confirm that the government is requesting a 20 page TEP for each STO. And if so, what information should be included in the 10 additional pages for STO 1 and 5 additional pages for STO 2 and STO 3?

R20: Refer to Draft Section L proposal submission instructions table 2

Q21: Reference: Draft L.2.c Part (i) VOLUME I - TECHNICAL states "The Offeror shall provide its Technical Proposal (Volume I) in a separate file as specified in Table 1 above an executive summary as well as addressing the information below separately for each Sample Task 1, 2, & 3." Question: Please clarify if a separate Executive Summary is required for each Sample Task response.

R21: A single Executive Summary shall be provided addressing brief overview of the entire proposal to include the Sample Tasks. Executive Summary section is included as part of the overall page count.

Q22: Volume II Past Performance
1.) Reference: Draft L.2.c part (ii) VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE states "For all contracts identified in Section 1, Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaires must be completed and submitted with the Offeror's proposal submission."
Question: Please confirm that the Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaires do not count toward the total page limitation as specified for Volume II (Past Performance) per section L?

R22: Per draft section L (ii) Volume II - Past Performance, (e), page 6, the completed questionnaires will not be counted as part of the total page count. In addition the Questionnaires will no longer be the Offerors responsibility.

Q23: Reference: Draft L.2.c part (ii) VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE states "Sections 1 & 2 of this file shall contain the Offeror's description of all Government and commercial contracts (prime contracts and subcontracts awarded or ongoing within three years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation) that are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation."
Question: Will the government consider a page limit applied per reference (Section 1 & 2) to help ensure a more consistent evaluation of references between all offerors? (Note that, by itself, the 50 page limit for Volume II may result in reference descriptions of different lengths, depending on how many references an offeror submits.)

R23: The Government Contracting Officer will take this recommendation under consideration.

Q24: Reference: Draft L.2.c part (ii) VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE states "Relevancy is defined as those development, production and sustainment tasks defined in the PWS and sample tasks attached to the RFP include efforts similar in complexity and technology to the GTACS Contract."
Question: This definition of relevancy is not clear. We suggest the government rephrase to "Relevancy is defined as similar in scope to the tasks defined in the PWS and sample tasks attached to the RFP, and similar in complexity and technology to the GTACS Contract."

R24: The definition of Relevancy will be revised in the final RFP to make it clearer.

Q25: Volume III Small Business Participation Plan
1.) Reference: In accordance with DFARS 215.304, both large and small businesses are required to submit a Small Business Participation Plan. As such, draft section L requires Offerors to include "Business Development (BD) Program" companies in their SBPP.
Question: Please confirm that the "Business Development (BD) Program" referenced in Draft Section L is the same as the 8(a) program referenced in Draft Section M.

R25: Section L&M have been revised for the final RFP.

Q26: Reference: Draft L.2.c part (iv) - VOLUME III - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN includes a matrix to propose Small Business Participation Goals.
Question: What is the government's definition of "Total Contract Value" as it relates to completing this matrix?

R26: Section L&M have been revised for the final RFP.

Q27: Reference: Draft L.2.c part (iv) - VOLUME III - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN includes a separate matrix to demonstrate HBCU/MI target participation.
Question: Please confirm the Government's intent to require the utilization of HBCU/MI organizations as part of the offeror's Small Business Participation Plan per draft section L. And if so, how will they be evaluated since they are not currently mentioned in Draft Section M?

R27: Section L&M have been revised for the final RFP.

Q28: Reference: Draft Section L.2.c(ii) VOLUME II-PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR)

Question: Please clarify the requirement for the "Sections 1 & 2 of this file shall contain the Offeror's description of all Government and commercial contracts (prime contracts and subcontracts awarded or ongoing within three years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation) that are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.

Does the Government intend for offeror's to submit all their contracts, which will be hundreds, or does the Government intend to request three - five of the most relevant?

R28: There are no limits to the number of contracts that can be submitted; However the Offeror should use their best judgment with regards to recent and relevant data.

Q29: Will teaming partners/subcontractors be required to submit all their contracts within three years?

R29: Refer to submission instruction in draft Section L

Q30: Will past performance questionnaires be required for all submitted past performance references?

R30: The collection of Past performance questionnaires will now be the responsibility of the Government in the final RFP.

Q31: The government has requested that the Cost/Proposal in "Volume IV - Cost-Price (Factor)" be provided in the form of a Microsoft 2007 Excel file which shall include the detail data and calculations building to the submitted pricing. In lieu of a Microsoft 2007 Excel file, will the government consider submission of the Cost Element supporting data and calculations in the form of reporting from an industry standard government costing and pricing software tool such as ProPricer which utilizes source data (including indirect rates) that tie to an Offeror's FPRP (and which such reporting has historically been used and relied upon by DCAA), rather than requiring the development and use of a manual Excel model that would be both less efficient and allow for more potential for human error?

R31: The Offer shall utilize the spread sheets provided by the government.

Q32: Will the workbook referred to as "Attachment 4-workbook" be required to be used for the Offeror's submission to the government, and if so, will it be provided to potential Offerors prior to the release of the RFP in order for the prospective Offerors to prepare to best administer their proposal efforts towards completion of the workbook in the format of such workbook?

R32: The workbook will be released with the final RFP.

Q33: Request clarification on the organization of the Past Performance volume. Does each contract submitted for past performance contain a Section 1 & 2 (meaning Section 1 & 2 repeat for each past performance contract), or is there only one Section 1 and one Section 2 that respectively contain Contract Description and Performance information for all relevant contracts?

R33: Each contract shall have its own section 1&2

Q34: Ref Section Draft L.2.c(ii)(c) - A "major subcontractor" is one that performs "more than 20% of the total proposed price". Please confirm the "total proposed price" is the summation of the proposed prices for each Sample Task, not the total evaluated price or contract value.

R34: Total proposed price will be utilized.

Q35: Ref Section Draft L.2.c(ii)(c) - Is the outline of work assignments (provided in Section 3) limited to subcontractors that perform more than 20% of the total proposed price, or does it include all proposed subcontractors? Are the work assignments limited to the Sample Tasks or do they cover the entire contract PWS scope?

R35: The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q36: Please confirm that all proposed subcontractors performing less than 20% of the total proposed price are not required to submit past performance, or questionnaires.

R36: That is correct

Q37: Draft Section L.2.c(ii)(e) states that Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaires are to be completed (Parts I and II) and returned to the Offeror for inclusion in their proposal. However, Part III in the Questionnaire requires the completed document be returned to the Contracting Officer in the cover letter. Please clarify how completed questionnaires will be submitted to the GTACS source selection team. Typically, completed questionnaires are not returned to the Offeror.

R37: The questionnaires will be returned to the Contracting Officer or specialist as will be stated in the final RFP.

Q38: Please clarify the correct title of Volume II - is it Past Performance Risk, Past Performance (Factor) or Past Performance?

R38: Past Performance

Q39: In reference to Draft Section L & M, Page 4 - (ii) Volume II - Past Performance (Factor), we view a discrepancy between the definition of "relevancy" and the page limit of 50 pages. Will the Government please clarify that the Offeror will be allowed to determine which of its contracts and which of its Major Subcontractor's contracts are relevant to this effort in light of a limited page count?

R39: Please refer to R28.

Q40: In reference to Draft Section L & M, Page 13 - Cost Price (Factor) iv. Subcontracts/Interdivisional Effort - A listing of individual Subcontract/ Interdivisional Efforts (S/IE) identifying the company and its specific division or segment with its corresponding cost by Contractor Fiscal Year. Note: The prime contractor must have available the cost/price analysis for all costs over the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) threshold, currently all sub/interdivisional costs $700K and over. In addition, current FAR guidance requires all sub/interdivisional work $700K and over to be certified cost or pricing data, will the Government please clarify which FAR Clause(s) are applicable here? Will the Government please clarify if this reference includes commercial suppliers?

We view a discrepancy between the nature of the GTACS competition and FAR 15.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing, which describes an exemption for providing cost and pricing data for COTS suppliers in occasions of adequate price competition. Will the Government please clarify its intent?
FAR 15.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing requires that the Prime Contractor provide Certified Pricing in order to flow that requirement down to Subcontractors. Section L and M do not require the Prime to submit certified pricing. Will the Government please clarify this request?

R40: For purposes of the evaluation of the source selection, no certified cost or pricing data will be required as part of an offeror's submission, however, the Government reserves the right to request 'other than cost and pricing data' if required at either the evaluation of sample tasks or during evaluation of future DO/TOs.

Q41: In Draft Section L & M, Page 19 - c. Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Performance Risk - Will the Government please provide referenced Section IV?

R41: This reference has been deleted from the final RFP.

Q42: In Draft Section L & M, Page 17 - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION APPROACH
"A major subcontractor is defined as one who will be providing hardware, software or services those subcontract is for more than 20% of the total proposed price." If the Sample Task Order requires more that 20% of a vendor's COTS hardware, will that vendor then qualify as a "major subcontractor" and will the Government require Past Performance from that vendor in the Past Performance volume? Or will the Offeror be able to treat said vendor as a commercial component supplier?

R42: The vendor is considered a major subcontractor and will be required to provide Past Performance data.

Q43: Will the Government require certified pricing from that vendor if the total dollar amount is over $700K?

R43: Please refer to R40.

Q44: Draft L.2b, "File Packaging"; p3
Question/Comment:
There appears to be a disconnect between the Sample Task response format preparation instruction in Draft Section L and the Task Execution Plan (TEP) contents defined in the Draft PWS in paragraph 3.14.3 (and its two sub-paragraphs 3.14.3.1, 3.14.3.2, and 3.14.3). Please clarify.

R44: For the RFP follow the instructions in Sections L&M. For future DOs/TOs follow the instructions as outlined in the PWS.

Q45: Draft L.2c (iv), VOLUME III - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN (FACTOR); p7
Question/Comment:
Will the Government recognize and give credit to a Prime's subcontracting to its SDB Partners who are not 8(a) Business Development Program participants as expressed in its Small Business Subcontracting Participation Plan?
Rationale: Restricting small business participation credit to 8a Business Development Program small businesses ignores the larger community of Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB). The current wording implies the SDB category at the top level are not counted.

R45: Yes, the Government will recognize and gave credit to a Prime's subcontracting to its SDB partners who are not 8(a) Business Development Program participants.

Q46: Draft L.2c, "Content Requirements"; p3
Question/Comment:
Please state if the "Summary Section" of the proposal files is the same as the summaries defined under 3.14.3 in the draft PWS released in January, 2011.
Rationale: This will help us understand more fully what information is requested by the Government by this part of Section L.

R46: Please refer to R21.

Q47: Draft L.2c(ii)(c), "Section 3 - Subcontracts"; page 6
Question/Comment:
Within the Section L Past Performance volume and the Section M Past Performance Evaluation, we recommend that the government clarify the definition of Major Subcontractor (>20%) to be based upon the price of each Sample Task taken alone, as opposed to the sum of the three (3) Sample Tasks price taken together. We want to avoid a situation that is too restrictive. For example, a subcontractor performing >20% of effort on Sample Task #1 may not be >20% of the total price for three Sample Tasks combined.
Rationale:
With three disparate sample tasks, it is possible that individual Major Subcontractors would not have a high level of proficiency for all three task areas. If bound to (>20%) for a given Major Subcontractor as a sum of the three Sample Tasks, the Prime Contractor would be limited on the number of Major Subcontractors included in the Sample Task responses, which would limit who the prime contractor can use for Past Performance citations. If prime contractors have to weigh the value of a subcontractor's past performance against the best technical solution for each sample task, the unintended consequence to the Government could result in responses that do not deliver the Best Value solution that is desired.

R47: The Government Contracting Officer will take this recommendation under consideration.

Q48: Draft L.2c (iv)(b), "Table entry row F"; p9
Question/Comment:
The emphasis on HBCU/MI subcontracting in Section L seems disconnected from the intent of the small business goals under the GTACS PWS/RFP.
Rationale:
College/University participation typically involves basic science research and technology development. The GTACS three task areas of system Development, Production & Deployment and Sustainment typically do not require College/University participation.

R48: The Contracting Officer will take this under consideration.

Q49: Question/Comment:
The ability of an Offeror's team (total composition) to adequately cover the breadth of tasking in the PWS does not appear to be a consideration. Section M as currently written only evaluates the team composition on the Sample Tasks. While the final team composition may have no direct bearing on the sample tasks, an Offeror needs to be responsive to the PWS elements. It is suggested that a team assessment matrix similar to that below be considered as part of the offering.
Rationale:
The GTACS PWS paragraph 1.0 "Scope" emphasizes the requirement for the Prime and his Team to address all Hardware, Systems and Services aspects defined in PWS paragraphs 4.1 through 4.5.

Table x. PWS Capability Matrix
PWS Category - GTACS Prime - GTACS Partners

R49: The Contracting Officer will take this under consideration.

Q50: Draft L.2c (iv)(b), "Small Business Participation Goals"; p7-9
Question/Comment:
On page 7 in 3rd paragraph under (b), the letter designations used in the narrative do not match the letter designations in the table.
Rationale:
Questions in the final RFP will be reduced if this minor clerical error is rectified.

R50: In the final RFP, the matrix will be deleted, and will be replaced with clear instructions on the Small Business Participation Plan.

Q51: Draft L.2c(iv)(d), "HBCU/MI Target Participation"; p11
Question/Comment:
NAICS Codes are only requested for HBCU/MI subcontractors and not the rest of the small business sub-categories. NAICS Codes for all Team Partners should be of interest to the Government so that the proposal evaluators know that a Prime Offeror is working with small businesses with GTACS relevant NAICS Codes to perform work under this contract.

R51: In the final RFP, participation breakout by NAICS will be required for all Small Business Sub-Categories.

Q52: Draft L.2c(iii), VOLUME IV - COST-PRICE (FACTOR); p3, 12 & 14
Question/Comment:
Similar RFPs in the past have included a template for a cost file that had a defined template. Will the government define a template for bidders to complete for the cost volume?
Should there also be a filename entitled "Cost.xlsx" or even a series of filenames ending in .xlsx for the three separate cost spreadsheets referenced as (a), (b), and (c) above?
Rationale:
In iii VOLUME IV - COST-PRICE (FACTOR) in subparagraphs (a), (b), and (d), it is required to be submitted in Microsoft 2007 Excel files in the proposal. However, in Proposal Files in Table 1 for the Volume IV Price, it states the file name is to be Cost.doc.

R52: A template will be provided.

Q53: Question/Comment:
A review of the suggested proposal volumes does not appear to adequately consider or evaluate an Offeror's ability to manage a diverse team and effectively deliver solutions on the Task Orders. A "Management" volume or section would allow discussion of Program Management activities, contract management, execution management and overall subcontract management and provide the Government with additional insight and will reduce contract risk by eliminating "surprises"- i.e., execution impacts in cost and schedule that are otherwise unforeseen or unreported until they become issues.
Rationale:
Management of the contract and individual task orders including schedule and cost status are important aspects to consider when choosing a contractor.

R53: The contracting officer will take this under consideration.

Q54: Draft L.2c(i)," Content Requirements, Tech Volume"; p3,4
Question/Comment:
Draft Sections L&M do not appear to give relevance to, or generally track with, the Draft PWS. In one example, the TEP Summaries under 3.14.3 of the Draft PWS suggest that bidders include price but the Draft L&M state that Vol I shall not include any price data. Please clarify.

R54: The exclusion of price/cost information from other parts of the Offeror's proposal is to maintain the integrity of the technical evaluation. Subsequent to the initial contract award, the TEPs will follow the general preparation instructions set forth in the PWS with detailed information contained in each RTEP. Please refer to R44.

Q55: Draft L.2c(iv), "VOLUME III - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN (FACTOR)"; p7
Question/Comment:
The current descriptions and evaluation criteria only appear to give consideration to the Small Business partners identified and incorporated into the Sample Task responses (non-awarded). It is suggested that insight into an Offer's team composition would benefit the Government by demonstrating the Offer's commitment to small businesses on their GTACS Team who are not participating in any of the three (3) Sample Tasks.
Rationale:
Full team composition for executing an IDIQ contract can be an important factor in determining who can offer the best solutions.

R55: Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) will be evaluated separately from sample tasks. SBPP must address team composition and the team make up to ensure full understanding of the total scope of the effort, to including enforceable commitment.

Q56: Draft L. (iv) VOLUME III - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN (FACTOR); p11 and SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS; C. EVALUATION APPROACH; 4. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN EVALUATION APPROACH. P19
Question/Comment:
We request the government eliminate the term "enforceable commitment" and eliminate the additional weighting given to "enforceable commitment".
Rationale:
As previously stated by the Government, each delivery order will be unique in nature. As such, there is no way to know what requirements will be on future GTACS Task or Delivery Orders. Therefore, it is not possible to "commit" specific work share or scope to any sub-contractor. If this was done, the prime contractor would be forced to propose Task or Delivery Order responses that might not provide the government with the best technical solution or the best value solution. This also restricts fair competition within the prime contractor team. The decision of which combination of small businesses will provide the best value solution to the government should be made based on the unique requirements of each Task or Delivery Order.

R56: The Government does not intend to eliminate the term "enforceable commitment, Enforceable commitment serves as a mean to ensure Small Business participation and as a deterrent from switching Small Business team members without the approval of the Contracting Officer and the Chief Associate Director of CECOM Small Business.

Q57: Please confirm that a winning prime will not be allowed to bring on additional sub-contractors following an award.

R57: The winning Prime will be allowed to bring additional Subcontractors on following the award. "The request for the replacement of a sub-contractor after contract award shall be formally made to the contracting officer in writing - along with accompanying rationale for replacement.

Q58: Will the Government accept MS Word 2007 (.docx) files?

R58: Yes

Q59: Please confirm that the pages required for the table of contents and summary section are excluded from the page limits provided for Volumes I and II.

R59: Table of contents is excluded however the Executive Summary section is included as part of the overall page count.

Q60: Does the forty-five lines per page limitation apply to tables, for which the Government allows a reduced font size?

R60: Yes

Q61: Please confirm, for sections that are under the page limit but contain pages over 45 lines, that the sum of any additional lines will be moved to the back of the document and only removed if the document is then over the page limit.

R61: The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q62: Page 6 Draft Sec L. (ii) VOLUME II (c) Section 3 - Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the solicitation will be assigned for performance within the Offeror's corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime Offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS paragraph number. This includes all subcontractors who will be providing hardware or services whose subcontract is for more than 20% of the total proposed price.
Comment: This requirement is written in the future tense.
Please confirm this requirement belongs in the past performance section.

R62: Confirmed

Q63: If this requirement does belong in the past performance section, can the Government confirm they will correct the tense so it properly addresses work already completed or ongoing?

R63: Yes

Q64: Please define the term "enforceable commitment."

R64: The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q65: Can the Government confirm that it expects a lack of competition on subsequent DO/TOs that will require certified cost or pricing data?

R65: The Government expects continued competition throughout the ordering period of this contract.

Q66: Will the system(s)/equipment within each of the three sample task areas will be the same or uniquely different?

R66: The Government does not intend to release details of the Sample Tasks prior to the final RFP.


Q67: This GTACS posting dated today, 5 April 2011, lists a response date of 5 May 2011. Is this a valid response date for comments/ responses to the draft L&M or simply a "place holder" date?

R67: The date for responses closed 13 May 2011

Q68: Is GTACS scope limited to preclude work related to COTM/ BLOS Communications capabilities?

R68: No GTACS is designed to encompass all C3T communications requirements

Q69: Does the GTACS PMO not anticipate any future requirements for COTM/BLOS technology that is not already defined under an existing program?

R69: No, Sample task one in specific, is related to research and development of new communications systems.

Q70: Does the GTACS PMO not anticipate requirements for Airborne BLOS Communications under GTACS, where the technology is not currently scoped in whole or in part under another Army program? I.e. COTM for Rotary wing aircraft?

R70: GTACS is broad enough in scope to encompass all C3T communications to include COTM and Rotary wing aircraft.

Q71: If an Army unit were to require new COTM/BLOS COMMS work performed under GTACS, would this be possible?

R71: Yes

Q72: Has a time-frame for the Draft RFP release been determined yet?

R72: The date has not been established and a determination to release a draft RFP has not been made at this time.

Q73: Reference Draft Section L, (ii) Volume II, (e) Past Performance: Please confirm that the Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaires do not count toward the volume's page limit

R73: Refer to R22.

Q74: The government had earlier announced its intention to release a full Draft RFP (minus Sample Tasks) with the date as TBD. Is it still the government's intention to release a full DRFP?

R74: Please refer to R72.

Q75: Ref: iv. Subcontracts/Interdivisional Effort -a listing of individual Subcontract/ Interdivisional Efforts (S/IE) identifying the company and its specific division or segment with its corresponding cost by Contractor Fiscal Year. Note: The prime contractor must have available the cost/price analysis for all costs over the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) threshold, currently all sub/interdivisional costs $700K and over. In addition, current FAR guidance requires all sub/interdivisional work $700K and over to be certified cost or pricing data.

Question : Current Draft Sections L and M do not appear to require the proposed prime to certify to cost or pricing data as this is a competitive procurement and 15.403-1(b)(4) would apply. However, the language above appears to require subcontractors above $700,000 to provide certified cost or pricing data. This appears to be an inconsistency. Please clarify the Government's intent.

R75: Please refer to R40. The following sentence will not be included in the final RFP, "In addition, current FAR guidance requires all sub/interdivisional work $700K and over to be certified cost or pricing data."

Q76: If the Subcontracts/Interdivisional Effort above should stand, please also consider the following: The time required to obtain certified cost and pricing data will probably exceed the 30 day response time frame. Pursuits that require the Offeror to obtain certified cost and pricing data often make that data due to the Government after proposal submission but before contract award to allow sufficient time for the effort involved. Will the Government please consider revising the scope of this requirement or providing additional time for submission of this data?

R76: Please refer to R40. This information will be reflected in the final RFP.

Q77: Draft PWS Draft PWS Reference: N/A

Question: Will the government provide a Draft RFP prior to the release of the final RFP?

R77: See response to Q72

Q78: Draft PWS Draft PWS Reference: N/A

Question: According to Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) the GTACS RFP is anticipated to be released 2QCY11. Since we are half-way through the second quarter of this calendar year, does the Government anticipate the RFP release to be pushed into the third quarter of 2011? If not will the RFP be issued in June?

R78: See response to Q72

Q79: The Draft Section L and M for the Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services Solicitation has been reviewed and we would like to request clarification on the following: Since the contracting officer will take under consideration "...broaden the contract to allow TS-SCI efforts to be competed under the contract." (Q30 on 5/12/2011), will the Gov also consider receiving a classified submission as it relates to TS-SCI past Performance?

R79: The contracting office will take this under consideration

Q80: The Gov response to Q/C's received as of 16 February 2011 responded to Q/C Q34, with A34 "Construction will not be part of this contract and all references will be removed from the PWS." Recent response to industry for Q/C received as of 06 May 2011, Q27 Will IDIQ contract holders have the opportunity to make site visits prior to RTEP release, especially for efforts requiring construction? The Gov response was A27. "Depending on the requirements for individual DO/TOs issued under the GTACS contract, the Offeror will have the ability to make site visits". Does this mean construction will be part of the contract; therefore all references will not be removed from the PWS, as previously stated?

R80: Each delivery order will specify the requirements at the time of award. There will be no Military construction under this contract however there may be a requirement to provide temporary facilities to support specific requirements.

Q81: Comment: The Small Business Participation Plan requirement does not appear to be related to a multiple award contract with DO\TOs to follow but more akin to single award contracts and DO\TOs.
Recommendation: Consider reviewing as an example Sections L (Small Business Utilization) and M (Small Business Utilization Factor Evaluation Approach) related to of the DRFP for the Communications and Transmission Systems (CTS) solicitation. Solicitation number W52P1J-11-R-0018. DRFP Can be found at http://www.afsc.army.mil/ac/aaisdus/Sow.aspx.
Section L&M for CTS is a good example for a Small Business Participation Plan for a multiple award contract.

R81: The Contracting Officer will take this under consideration.

Q82: There is no Management Volume. Management risk is critical on this type of program. Suggest Government give offerors a 20 page volume to address organization structure, cost control, subcontractor management, hardware/software vendor management, EVM, reporting, Program Manager and key leads, production/manufacturing management processes, facilities, and ISO/CMMI status.

R82: The Management information is contained in the Technical Volume.

Q83: REF Page 3, Draft L.2.b May offerors provide a list of acronym definitions for each volume that is excluded from the page count limitations?

R83: Yes

Q84: REF Page 3, Draft L.2.c Is there a page limit and any instructions for the "Summary Section" requested in each file per L.2.c?

R84: Yes, Please refer to R21.

Q85: REF Page 4, Draft L.2.c (i) What is the page limit for the Technical Volume I Executive Summary? Adequate space is required to provide an overview of the offeror's team structure, unique facilities, tools, and innovation that cannot be conveyed in 3 separate Sample Task responses.

R85: Please refer to R21.

Q86: Page 6, Draft L.2.c (ii)(c) Is the information in Paragraph (c) Section 3 - Subcontracts limited only to the prime contractor and major subcontractors whose subcontract is 20% more than the total proposed price?

R86: Total proposed price will be utilized

Q87: REF Page 6, Draft L.2.c(ii)(c) Page 6, Para (c) - Subcontracts -This section states "This includes all subcontractors who will be providing hardware or services whose subcontract is for more than 20% of the total proposed price." Does this mean the total proposed price for the 3 Sample Tasks, OR for subcontractors that the prime envisions to have a minimum 20% participation across the life of the GTACS contract 5 year life? The latter is recommended since key past performance should be tied to subcontractors' roles for total support; the Sample Tasks are not necessarily indicative of the prime contractor's overall team structure and subcontracting plan.

R87: Please refer to R47.

Q88: REF Page 6, Draft L.2.c(ii)(e) Paragraph (e) requests that offerors fill out part I of the PRAG questionnaire, give it to their reference points of contact, and have the points of contact return surveys back to the offeror for submission with the proposal. The PRAG form contradicts this instruction and requests that points of contact e-mail the survey directly to the GTACS contracting officer. Please clarify. Note - we recommend that points of contact e-mail surveys directly to the GTACS contracting officer.

R88: Please refer to R37

Q89: REF Page 6, Draft L.2.c(ii)(e) PRAG Questionnaire If, as requested in paragraph (e), offerors will indeed be required to submit completed PRAG surveys with their proposals, we request that they be excluded from the page count. The PRAG form is 3 pages in length, and the Government has requested that the Contracting Activity and the Technical Representative for each referenced effort fill out a questionnaire. This will take up other valuable pages that will be important for the Government's evaluation. Please remove the questionnaires from page count considerations (if they are to be submitted with proposals).

R89: Please refer to R22

Q90: REF Page 6, Draft L.2.c (iv) Is VOLUME III - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN, to be listed as (iii)?

R90: Yes

Q91: REF Page 7, Draft L.2.c(iv)(b) Subcontracting Goals (Para b, page 7) - is this profile based on the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE? If so, the Government needs to provide an estimated value for the total contract value. If the total value is based on the 3 Sample Tasks, the total program subcontracting goals will be impossible to realistically calculate and portray (also reference Draft Section M, page 19, Para 4(f).

R91: The answer to this question will be posted at a later date.

Q92: REF Page 11, L.2.c(iv)(3)(a) Paragraph (3)(a) requires the Small Business Participation Plan to have "Base your percentages on TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE." Are we to use the grand total of the 3 Sample Tasks as TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE; or use the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) after the multipliers are applied as indicated on page 18 - Draft Section M.C.3.b.

R92: Total evaluated price

Q93: REF Page 11, Draft L.2.c(iii) Page 11 states "The Offeror shall provide Cost, Cost Plus, and Firm-Fixed Prices for its proposed notional systems/equipment in response to the three Sample Tasks provided with the RFP". Please advise if it is correct to assume only one of the procurement types indicated will be required for each task; and if the Government will specify the type of pricing desired for each separate task order?

R93: Only one contract type will be utilized per sample task.

Q94: REF Page 13, Draft L.2.c (iii)(a)iv VOLUME IV - COST PRICE - Section (iii)(a)iv: Subcontracts/Interdivisional Effort: Are we to include the interdivisional efforts as subcontracted dollars?]

R94: Yes, however, each prime shall propose IAW the Prime's disclosed practices.

Q95: REF Page 16, Draft M.A Paragraph M.A - Basis for Award, states, "Each RTEP will be competed amongst all Prime Contractors to the maximum extent practicable, and in accordance with the agreed upon Small Business Partial set-aside value of $3 Million threshold See section 4 below for additional detail." Section 4 provides no additional details of the $3 Million threshold. Please provide additional details.

R95: Section 4 reference will not be included in the final RFP.

Q96: Para 3.14.12 - Small business - "All delivery/task orders below the $1 Million threshold that do not require development/ production/maintenance by an original equipment manufacturer or are otherwise restricted by proprietary requirements will be initially set-aside for small business awardees. If after a three (3) day period two or more Small Business awardees indicate that they will not or cannot fulfill the requirement, it will then be solicited to all contract awardees regardless of size."

Please clarify the Government's intent. Are set-aside task orders only for efforts less than or equal to $1M, regardless of scope, i.e. the scope could address any aspect of the GTACS PWS? Are all task orders valued over $1M, regardless of previous OEM involvement, to be solicited among all contract awardees?

R96: The partial set aside is $3M and could address any aspect of the GTACS PWS. Anything above that will be competed on a full and open competition.

Q97: Does the Government intend to release a draft version of the full RFP, particularly Section L, Instructions and Section M, Evaluation Criteria?

R97: See response to Q72

Q98: In accordance with the statement included in the posting of April 21, 2011 please clarify if the Government is requesting and accepting early submission of proposals and information at this time; and in advance of the issuance of the final solicitation and task orders.

The statement included in this posting "This synopsis is provided for informational purposes and is not to be considered a request for proposal. However, all responsible sources may submit a proposal, which shall be considered by the agency when the final RFP is posted." implies the opportunity is available for the industry to submit proposals, capability statements, and information under this requirement which may be included and evaluated at the time of the final solicitation.

Please advise if additional information is desired and requested at this time.

R98: No additional information is required

Q99: In cases where a subcontractor on a GTACS Team is based out of Canada and has a subsidiary created for the purposes of conducting business with the U.S. Government, where the subcontractor's rates and cost build-up formulas are typically audited by the Canadian Commercial Corp. (CCC) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), will the requirement for submission of that subcontractor's proprietary cost information "sealed data" through an Army web site be waived, and normal CCC submission of the proprietary data be acceptable.

R99: No, the requirements for submission, under DOD policy and United States Law, by a foreign subsidiary will not be waived.

Q100: If a GTACS task order requires a contractor to perform design trade-offs, develop and test a prototype system solution (e.g. an Engineering Development Model, or EDM), will the Government provide that contractor a fair opportunity to bid the low rate/full rate production work should a requirement exist for that production work? It is recommended that the development of final drawings, specifications, and models that would form the basis of another GTACS task order which is production and sustainment of the approved final configuration/design be performed by PEO C3T's SETA contractor, which would avoid an OCI for the original EDM developer, which is in the best interest of the Army, since GTACS teams are being formulated to address the total set of PWS requirements, and that production of that EDM / prototype would be a natural continuation of life cycle support for the procurement of those system (s). Does the Government envision that this process could be streamlined by including all facets of the life cycle support in a single task order, particularly for ACAT programs?

R100: Yes

Q101: Please advise if the Government is planning to provide responses to all the questions submitted to date under this effort.

R101: Yes


All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

Answers to Question from Industry, SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001 Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services

The following answers are in response to questions from industry received as of 06 May 2011.

Q1. If a GTACS task order requires a contractor to perform design trade-offs, develop and test a prototype system solution (e.g. an Engineering Development Model, or EDM), will the Government provide that contractor a fair opportunity to bid the low rate/full rate production work should a requirement exist for that production work?

A1. How the Government will solicit the Delivery Orders will be forthcoming in the RFP and will be in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

Q2. Does the Government envision that this process could be streamlined by including all facets of the life cycle support in a single task order, particularly for ACAT programs?

A2. The Government does not anticipate a single task order covering all aspects of the life cycle support of a system. However, there may be extraordinary circumstances where a single task order covering all aspects of the life cycle support of a system is released. Such a requirement will require the contracting officer approval and at this point the Government cannot predict the circumstances of such a release.

Q3. If a GTACS task order requires a contractor to perform design trade-offs, develop and test a prototype system solution (e.g. . an Engineering Development Model, or EDM), can that contractor bid follow-on work that is a formal ACAT program (a new separate RFP, not GTACS related) where the performance requirements of the system to be designed and produced were proven to be feasible in the prototype system developed under GTACS?

A3. The Government cannot answer this question as it relates to future contract opportunities not related to this solicitation.

Q4. In this case the GTACS prime should be able to avoid work that creates elements of the new ACAT program RFP - SOW, CLIN structure, test strategy, etc. Again, will the Government use a set of SETA contractors to develop any / all procurement data packages for these scenarios?

A4. Please Clarify

Q5. I am looking for the whole draft solicitation for GTACS W15P7T11RC001; I only get sections L and M.

A5. Please refer to Answer 1 posted to FedBizOpps on 28 March 2011.

Q6. Can the Government provide guidance on how many Offeror past performances (e.g., minimum and maximum number) will be required?

A6. Please refer to the DRAFT Sections L and M, Pg 4, first paragraph, (ii) Volume II-Past Performance (factor) posted to Army Single Face to Industry (ASFI) and FedBizOpps on 25 March 2011. Updates to DRAFT Sections Land M will be posted to ASFI and FedBizOpps as they become available.

Q7. If an Offeror proposes with major subcontractors, can the Government provide guidance on how many major subcontractor past performances (e.g., minimum and maximum number) will be required?

A7. Please refer to the DRAFT Sections L and M, Pg 6, [2], (c), posted to Army Single Face to Industry (ASFI) and FedBizOpps on 25 March 2011. Updates to DRAFT Sections Land M will be posted to ASFI and FedBizOpps as they become available.

Q8. Draft Sec. L.2.c.ii.e Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire indicates that the Questionnaire is to be returned to the Offeror for inclusion with the proposal. On the last page of the Questionnaire the respondent is instructed to return the completed Questionnaire to the Contracting Officer. Can the Government please clarify the instructions regarding respondents' return of completed Questionnaires?

A8. Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire(s) are to be returned first from the POC to the Offeror for inclusion with the proposal. Proposals will then be submitted at the appropriate RFP closing date. Updates to the Draft Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire will be posted to ASFI and FedBizOpps as they become available.

Q9. For work performed as a subcontractor, we have found that the Government contracting officer / COR / COTR are often unwilling to provide past performance responses for a subcontractor. For work performed as a subcontractor, will the Government allow the Offeror to request Questionnaires be completed by the prime contractor's POC and by the prime contractor's technical representative (often a project or program manager)?

A9. Yes

Q10. Can the Government advise when they anticipate issuing attachment 4 for pricing purposes?

A10. The Government does not intend to release a draft version of attachment 4. The attachments will be released with the final RFP.

Q11. Is there an incumbent contract and if so, what is the contract number?

A11. No

Q12. Should I expect a Q&A document to be released with this information in the future, or should I not expect an answer?

A12. Yes, all questions from industry will be posted to FedBizOpps.

Q13. What date do you have set for the Industry Date?

A13. At this time, the Government has no plans for another Industry day.

Q14. The ASFI (Response Deadline) and the FBO.gov (Response Date) have different dates. The ASFI shows 5/5/2011 and the FBO.gov shows 5/12/2011. Which is the proper due date?

A14. The proper date is 12 May 2011.

Q15. What do the response date citations refer to as the material that is due?

A15. The date listed as a response date is for system purposes only. The synopsis is an informational notice and there is no required response at this time.

Q16. The 4/21/2011 Synopsis notice at FBO.gov states "This synopsis is provided for informational purposes and is not to be considered a request for proposal. However, all responsible sources may submit a proposal, which shall be considered by the agency when the final RFP is posted." This suggests that the Government will make no material or significant change in the final RFP as compared to what is already published for the solicitation as of 4/21/2011. Is that an accurate assumption on which one can base an early submission of proposal?

A16. No, that is not an accurate assumption. The posted Sections L and M are drafts, as identified in the document. The final RFP is forthcoming.

Q17. Is it possible to schedule an in-person demonstration of our technology to those involved and/or responsible for this pre-solicitation?

A17. Please refer to Q10 and A10 posted to FedBizOpps 06 January 2011.

Q18. What specific information/materials, and in what format, can be deliver now to you and/or those responsible for this pre-solicitation?

A18. Questions may be forwarded by e-mail to the points of contact listed below.

Q19. Do we need to be on the GSA or have an existing government contract to participate in this solicitation?

A19. No

Q20. If schedule an in-person demonstration of our technology is unfeasible, how can we arrange for no-cost on-line brief demo of our product to interested government technical representatives?

A20. Please refer to Q10 and A10 posted to FedBizOpps 06 January 2011.

Q 21 In accordance with the statement included in the posting of April 21, 2011 please clarify if the Government is requesting and accepting early submission of proposals and information at this time; and in advance of the issuance of the final solicitation and task orders.

A21. The Government is not accepting proposals at this time and will only accept proposals once the final RFP has been issued.

Q22. The statement included in this posting "This synopsis is provided for informational purposes and is not to be considered a request for proposal. However, all responsible sources may submit a proposal, which shall be considered by the agency when the final RFP is posted." implies the opportunity is available for the industry to submit proposals, capability statements, and information under this requirement which may be included and evaluated at the time of the final solicitation.

A22. The Government is not accepting proposals at this time and will only accept proposals once the final RFP has been issued.


Q23. Our company submitted its response to your Request for Information (RFI) on January 1, 2011. Please advise if additional information is desired and requested at this time.

A23. Additional information is not required at this point in time.

Q 24. In cases where a subcontractor on a GTACS Team is based out of Canada and has a subsidiary created for the purposes of conducting business with the U.S. Government, where the subcontractor's rates and cost build-up formulas are typically audited by the Canadian Commercial Corp. (CCC) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), will the requirement for submission of that subcontractor's proprietary cost information "sealed data" through an Army web site be waived, and normal CCC submission of the proprietary data be acceptable.

A 24. The contractor's forward pricing rate proposal, disclosed practices, and proposal methodology for the GTACS effort should be consistent.

Q 25. Please advise if the Government is planning to provide responses to all the questions submitted to date under this effort.
A25. The Government does plan to respond to all industry questions.

Q26. Does the Government plan to issue a pipeline of the RTEPs planned for release to include Scope of Work, location and anticipated release date after award of the IDIQ vehicle?
A26. The Government plans to award many Delivery and Task Orders under this contract over the next 5 years.

Q27. Will IDIQ contract holders have the opportunity to make site visits prior to RTEP release, especially for efforts requiring construction?
A27. Depending on the requirements for individual DO/TOs issued under the GTACS contract, the Offeror will have the ability to make site visits.

Q28. We would like to respond to this draft solicitation; however the three task orders are not listed. Could you possibly allow us to view the complete solicitation with the sample task orders or direct us to a location to view them?
A28. The sample tasks will be part of the final RFP.

Q29.I wanted to follow up with a request for a possible schedule; and the timeline you are planning to post responses to questions submitted to date on the GTACS effort.
A29. Question will be responded to as they are submitted and as the answers are available.

Q30. Reference: PWS Section 3.6 Personnel - The Contractor shall provide personnel having security clearances up to TOP SECRET, or as identified in applicable DO/TO. Will the Government consider revising requirement to TS-SCI in order to broaden the contract to allow TS-SCI efforts to be competed under the contract.
A30. The contracting officer will take this under consideration.

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001 Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services

As of May 13, 2011, 1500 Eastern Standard Time, the Government will no longer be accepting questions from industry.

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

The United States Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance) (ACC-APG (C4ISR)), 21010 intends to procure Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services.

The Government anticipates an estimated $10 Billion, five (5) year Firm-Fixed-Price/Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract, for the ability to rapidly acquire a wide range of tactical command, control and communications system hardware, software, engineering services, Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS), shipping, logistics support services, development, production, sustainment, test and system related support, in response to rapidly changing Warfighter communication needs. These requirements are for Contractor-provided hardware, software, services and data in support of the Program Executive Office Command Communications and Control (PEO C3T) Mission which is to develop, field and support networked communication systems to enhance Warfighter effectiveness. The GTACS contract will be competed full and open with a partial small business set aside. C3T systems include all programs, projects and products managed within PEO C3T, its Project Managers (PMs), Product Managers (PdMs) and Product Directors (PDs). During the period of performance of the GTACS contract it is expected that the organization and needs of PEO C3T, its PMs, PdMs and PDs will evolve and re-organize in response to the changing needs of the Warfighter and anticipated threats. The GTACS program and contract will provide the flexibility and responsiveness needed to support the mission of PEO C3T, its PMs, PdMs and PDs.

This synopsis is provided for informational purposes and is not to be considered a request for proposal. However, all responsible sources may submit a proposal, which shall be considered by the agency when the final RFP is posted. Solicitation Number W15P7T-11-R-C001 is assigned for reference purposes. The United States Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC-APG) has established the Federal Business Opportunities (FEDBIZOPPS) website as part of the Army's Single Face to Industry, to allow electronic posting of Solicitation for Request for Proposals (RFP) Request for Quotations (RFQ) and Invitation for Bids (IFB) from CECOM to Industry. All parties interested in doing business with The United States Army Contracting Command, are invited to access, operate, send and receive information from the FEDBIZOPPS at https://www.fbo.gov/. Questions and or concerns regarding this synopsis shall be directed to Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist, via phone (443) 861-4989 or email Stephen.Jenniss@us.army.mil or Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist, via phone (443) 861-4988 or email david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil. The Contracting Officer for this acquisition is Mrs. Barbara Hansen, via email Barbara.Ann.Hansen@us.army.mil.

EFFECTIVE 01 April 2011, the U. S. Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance), acronym ACC-APG (C4ISR), became the U. S. Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground, acronym ACC-APG. U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND will be used for all future postings under Solicitation W15P7T-11-R-C001.


The DRAFT Sections L and M and the DRAFT Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire for SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001 GTACS are still available on Army Single Face to Industry at https://acquisition.army.mil/asfi.


All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

The following answers are in response to questions from industry received as of 25 March 2011.

Q1. Do you have any news on the anticipated DRAFT RFP release of the Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems opportunity?

A1. The anticipated release date for the DRAFT RFP has not yet been determined. A DRAFT of sections L&M and the Past Performance Questionnaire were posted to Army Single Face to Industry and FedBizOpps on 25 March 2011.

Q2. Draft PWS Paragraph 4.1.1, Task Area 1 - Development: this paragraph indicates that work will be development work and will be performed by the system development contractor. Would task orders issued under this Task Area be considered exempt from the OCI Provisions in the contract pursuant to FAR 9.505-2(a)(3)?

A2. No

Q3. Will that exemption be identified in individual RTEPs and awarded Task Orders?

A3. No

Q4. Does the information technology requirement for this program (solicitation # W15P7T11RC001) include secure remote connectivity and/or secure file transfer capabilities between Windows based servers and other Windows and non Windows clients/devices.

A4. The Government has a requirement to transmit and receive information up to and including the Secret level. The Design, Execution and Implementation of that requirement will be a function of the individual offeror's proposal. The Government is providing no further guidance on this topic as it wants to encourage creative solutions that bring additional value to each offeror's proposal.

Q5. Has a decision been made on what specific contracting vehicle PEO C3T will use for these IDIQs?

A5. Please refer to Section 3.1, Contract Type, of the DRAFT PWS posted on18 Jan 2011.

Q6. Is the anticipated final RFP timeframe still the second quarter of 2011?

A6. Yes

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR)
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

The DRAFT Sections L and M (Without Sample Tasks) and DRAFT Past Performance Questionnaire documents are posted on Army Single Face to Industry (ASFI) Acquisition Business Web Site at https://acquisition.army.mil/ under Draft Solicitation W15P7T-11-R-C001

No response is required for DRAFT Sections L and M ( Without Sample Tasks) and DRAFT Past Performance Questionnaire, SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001 Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services this posting is for informational purposes only.

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR)
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

No response is required for DRAFT Sections L and M ( Without Sample Tasks) and DRAFT Past Performance Questionnaire, SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001 Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services, this posting is informational purposes only.

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR)
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

ATTACHED IS A DRAFT OF AN OCI CLAUSE SIMILAR TO WHAT WILL BE IN THE GLOBAL TACTICAL ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS (GTACS) SOLICITATION, AND SIMILAR TO THE ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) CLAUSE THAT WILL APPEAR IN MOST SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (SETA) SUPPORT CONTRACTS.

BECAUSE OF THE BROAD SCOPE OF THE GTACS CONTRACT AND SITUATIONS WHERE POTENTIAL OFFERORS CURRENTLY PROVIDE SETA SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE GOVERNMENT, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT(S) OF INTEREST TO DEVELOP SUCH AS DESCRIBED IN FAR 9.5.

EACH OFFEROR SHOULD REVIEW FAR 9.5 AND CONSIDER CAREFULLY THE EXTENT WHICH SUCH AN OCI MAY ARISE BEFORE MAKING THE DECISION TO COMPETE FOR THE GTACS EFFORT.

H-1 52.6001 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST / MARCH 2011

Specific fill-in information will be provided as appropriate on a Task Order basis.

(a) Definition.
Per FAR 2.101, an organizational conflict of interest means that because of other activities or relationships with other persons, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, or the persons objectivity in performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or a person has an unfair competitive advantage. It does not include the normal flow of benefits from incumbency.

(b) The Contracting Officer has determined that potentially significant organizational conflicts of interest may arise due to the nature of the work the Contractor will perform under this contract that may preclude the Contractor from being awarded future CECOM LCMC Acquisition Center contracts in a related area. Whereas the Contractor shall be ineligible to act as a prime contractor, consultant, or subcontractor to provide the equipment, items and services, it is agreed that the Contractor shall be ineligible to act as a prime contractor, consultant, or subcontractor to any prime contractor or subcontractor at any tier who is to supply the services, system or major components thereof for any project where the Contractor has provided or is providing support as described in FAR 9.5.

(c) The Contracting Officer may make a determination to allow a Contractor to participate in an acquisition subject to the submission of an acceptable mitigation plan in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2) below. This determination may not be appealed.

(1) If the Contracting Officer requests, and the Contractor submits an organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan that, after Government review is acceptable to the Government, the Contractor's parent corporation, subsidiaries, or other physically separate profit and loss centers may not be precluded from acting as a subcontractor or consultant on future CECOM LCMC Acquisition Center contracts. The Government's determination regarding the adequacy of the mitigation plan or the possibility of mitigation are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government and are not subject to the Disputes clause of the contract. The Government may terminate the contract for default if the Contractor fails to implement and follow the procedures contained in any approved mitigation plan.

(2) Any mitigation plan shall include, at a minimum, non-disclosure agreements to be executed by the Contractor and the Contractors employees supporting the Government per paragraph (c) above. Items for consideration in a mitigation plan include the following: identification of the organizational conflict(s) of interest; reporting and tracking system; an organizational conflict of interest compliance/enforcement plan, to include employee training and sanctions, in the event of unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information; a plan for organizational segregation (e.g., separate reporting chains); and data security measures.

(d) These restrictions outlined in paragraph (b) shall apply to - FILL IN --. This clause shall remain in effect for one year after completion of this contract.

(e) The Contractor shall apply this clause to any subcontractors or consultants, who have access to information, participate in the development of data, or participate in any other activity related to this contract which is subject to terms of this clause at the prime contractor level, unless the Contractor includes an acceptable alternate subcontractor provision in its mitigation plan. For subcontractors or consultants under this contract, if an organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan is submitted and acceptable to the Government, the subcontractor's parent corporation, subsidiaries, or other physically separate profit and loss centers may not be precluded from acting as a prime, subcontractor, or consultant on future CECOM LCMC Acquisition Center contracts.

(f) The Contractor's employees shall be trained and informed of Subpart 9.5 of the FAR and this contract provision, and shall execute a Contractor-Employee Personal Financial Interest/Protection of Sensitive Information Agreement as appropriate.

(g) The Contactor agrees that it will use all reasonable diligence in protecting proprietary data received by it. The Contractor further agrees it will not willfully disclose proprietary data to unauthorized parties without the prior permission of the Government, and that proprietary data shall not be duplicated, used or disclosed, in whole or part, for any purpose other than to accomplish the contracted effort. This restriction does not limit the contractors right to use, duplicate or disclose such information if such information was lawfully obtained by the contractor from other sources.

(h) The Contractor agrees to enter into written agreements with all companies whose proprietary data it shall have access and to protect such data from unauthorized use or disclosure as long as it remains proprietary. The Contractor shall furnish to the Contracting Officer copies of these written agreements. The Contractor agrees to protect the proprietary data and rights of other organizations disclosed to the Contractor during performance of this contract with the same caution that a reasonably prudent Contractor would use to safeguard highly valuable property. The Contractor agrees to refrain from using proprietary information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.

(i) The Contractor shall not distribute reports, data or information of any nature arising from its performance under this contract, except as provided by this contract or as may be directed by the Contracting Officer.

(j) Government Representatives shall have access to the Contractors premises and the right to inspect all pertinent books and records in order to insure that the contractor is in compliance with FAR 9.5.

(k) The Contractor agrees that if after award it discovers a potential organizational conflict of interest, a prompt and full disclosure shall be made in writing to the Contracting Officer. This disclosure shall include a description of the actions the Contractor has taken or proposes to take, to avoid or mitigate such conflicts.

(l) The Government may waive application of this clause when it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to do so.


All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.
Contracting Office:

U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR)
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

The following answers are in response to PWS questions/comments (Q/C) from industry received as of 16 February 2011.

Q/C 1. RE: 3.14.12 Small Business Consideration. All delivery/task orders below the $1 Million threshold that do not require development/production/maintenance by an original equipment manufacturer or are otherwise restricted by proprietary requirements will be initially set-aside for small business awardees. If after a three (3) day period two or more Small Business awardees indicate that they will not or cannot fulfill the requirement, it will then be solicited to all contract awardees regardless of size. We recommend that the small business consideration value threshold be increased from $1 Million to between $5-$10 Million. The rationale is based on historical data from the current WWSS contract vehicle. This data indicates the vast majority of WWSS awards were in excess of $1 Million. To incentivize small business participation, the pool of potential procurements that will be set -aside for small business consideration needs to be significant enough to be meaningful in promoting small business.

A1. The government will take this under consideration and the contracting officer in conjunction with the Small business office will make a determination.

Q/C2. RE: CLIN Sheet Format Structure / Price Evaluation. Although not contained within the draft PWS, we would like to make some recommendation /suggestions for consideration regarding the structure of the CLIN Sheet that may be used / standardized for GTACS RTEP's:
a) Based upon past CLIN Sheets provided in WWSS procurements, we suggests price evaluations be done for each CLIN versus one lump sum total. This recommendation is made so as to prevent Bidders from "gaming" the procurement. Although the Government is still responsible for evaluating price realism for individual CLIN's, the "lump sum" price evaluation structure can lend itself to juggling individual CLIN pricing for pricing strategy purposes and not cost-based purposes.
b) Further to the issue preventing "gaming" and creating an environment for the Government to better assess pricing, we suggests that the Government clearly specify its intentions relative to the exercise of options. Many times for WWSS, CLIN's for optional quantities were presented that looked like the following:

OPTIONS, POP through XX Month Year Total

001 AA 2.0 Widget # 6-50 45
002 AA 2.0 Widget # 51-100 50
003 AA 2.0 Widget # 101-200 100
004 AA 2.0 Widget # 201-300 100
005 AA 2.0 Widget # 301-500 200

Continuing the example, let's assume the Government has identified needs to procure a total quantity of 350 widgets over time. First point is, if he intent is to procure 350, consider one CLIN for 350 period versus a option ladder as depicted above. If funding, mission requirements, etc prevent one single CLIN for the total required quantity, then clearly indicate to industry how the total number will be ordered. Using the sample option ladder above, if 150 widgets are to be procured over time, would the Government execute CLIN's 001 (QTY:50) and 002 (QTY:100) to procure the 150 units, or execute CLIN 003 for 150 units. Please convey to Industry the manner in which the CLIN's will be utilized. The obvious answer is whatever is in the Government's best interest. That is understood. The situation from Industry's perspective is it may have to protect itself by not providing the quantity discount until the next higher quantity CLIN. For example, assume the procurement is for 150 units. Further assume there is a real production quantity price break from underlying suppliers at the QTY 75 level. The Contractor may not be able to pass this discount on until CLIN 003 if the Government has the option to procure just 65 units under CLIN 002 as an example. This is admittedly somewhat complicated and confusing to convey. The bottom line recommendation is to allow industry to structure its own optional CLIN's with quantity ranges that provide the most competitive position and ultimately the best value to the Government. If this cannot be done, then clearly state how quantities of options will be procured per the Option Ladder spreadsheet that is presented as part of the RTEP.

A2. The government will take this under consideration and the contracting officer will make a determination.

Q/C3. PWS 3.9 says that contractors are "not to establish relationships with other GTACS contractors, subcontractors or vendors......." This language implies that companies may not be on more than one team for the bid. Is that the Government's intention or is this language more applicable to collaboration amongst awardees after contract award?

A3. The reference PWS 3.9 is in reference to a conflict of interest only. The government encourages Contractors, Subcontractors and Vendors to team partner and or enter into any agreement that does not create a conflict of interest. Excerpt from the PWS: "3.9 The Contractor agrees to accept and to complete all awarded DOs/TOs and not to establish relationships with other GTACS Contractors, Subcontractor or Vendors in a manner as to create an actual or perceived organizational conflict of interest."

Q/C4. Also, considering teammates may be non exclusive to a prime offeror, there most likely will be instances where companies appear on multiple teams. Is it permissible to be a subcontractor on multiple teams?

A4. Multiple team participation is permitted.

Q/C5. Regarding vendors, many vendors, equipment manufacturers and service providers do not typically team exclusively as a business practice. Is it permissible for a vendor to be on multiple teams?

A5. Yes

Q/C6. Since there are both full and open and small business set aside awards anticipated, is it permissible for an offeror to be both a subcontractor and a prime offeror? Note that at the June industry day, the government encouraged "cross teaming". As a result, teaming engagements made early on may conflict with the language in PWS 3.9

A6. Yes

Q/C7. PWS 3.14.12 states that the threshold for competing set aside TOs among SBs is $1M. This seems inconsistent with the NAICS code SB size standard of 750 employees and a program ceiling of $10B. A qualified company with an employee base as little as 50 or up to 750 employees will be easily capable of and extensively experienced with TO thresholds will above $1M. Will the Government consider increasing the set aside threshold to $5M?

A7. The government will take this under consideration and the contracting officer in conjunction with the Small business office will make a determination.

Q/C8. The Draft PWS paragraph 3.1 Contract Type states, "The Government intends to award ... approximately 6 to 15 contracts." Is there a further breakdown for number of contracts to be awarded between large and small businesses?

A8. Please refer to Q/C24.

Q/C9. Draft PWS Paragraph 3.3 Place of Performance - are there any special site specific requirements for Contractor Sites?

A9. Hardware and services will be purchased and supplied worldwide, and may have a requirement for a security level of up to and including top secret in individual DO/TO

Q/C10. Draft PWS Paragraph 3.13.3 Services - will government make the QASP available in advance of the RFP?

A10. Each delivery order will be unique in nature as such each QASP will depend on each DOs requirements.

Q/C11. Draft PWS Paragraph 3.14.3 TEP - states, "the TEP size shall not exceed twenty (20) total text pages." Does this page limitation include both technical/management and the cost part of the DO/TO proposal?

A11. Yes that is correct.

Q/C12. Draft PWS Paragraph 4.2 - contract vehicles. For all the PM's and PDs areas listed, what acquisition vehicles are currently being used? Is there an archive of DO/TOs awarded?

A12. There is no complete archive of contractual vehicles that is known that plans to utilize the GTACS contract, other than to say that any of contracts currently supporting the Program Executive Office - Command, Control, Communications Tactical (PEO C3T) are likely candidates to utilize the GTACS contract.

Q/C13. SAMPLE TASK The draft PWS does not include sample task(s). Recommend that care is exercised in the scoping and selection of sample tasks. Some Federal procurement documents have crafted sample tasks in a manner that unnecessarily limits the participation of small business respondees. One example of this is to write a sample task of scope and scale that only a large business could possibly respond to and then cutting a percentage or portion of the work out for small business responses that in order to adequately answer, still require a complete build-out of an entire system or network (for example) to provide a proposed solution for.

A13. The government will take this under consideration and the contracting officer in conjunction with the Small business office will make a determination.

Q/C14. SAMPLE TASK Recommend that the evaluation sample task include a task that is representative of the types of small business tasks that will be issued under the awarded contract.

A14. The government will take this under consideration and the contracting officer in conjunction with the Small business office will make a determination.

Q/C15. MISSION ALIGNMENT The current iteration of the PWS emphasizes ACAT program level activities and efforts. The stated purpose of GTACS is to have the flexibility to support the GRRIP program, NRRC C3T missions, and DoD Interagency Information Sharing. Recommend that an effort is made to ensure that the PWS does not over-emphasize or solely focus on the ACAT program level of support at the expense of including the appropriate scoping to support the wide range of support services needed across all three support areas.

A15. The government will take this under consideration.

Q/C16. CLARIFY TASK What is the relationship between Tasks, Task Areas, and Services in PWS section 3.3? Recommend ensuring alignment and clarity between sections C, L, sample tasks, and M. A point of frustration to RFP respondents are mismatches between these sections that presents challenges when preparing written responses that address the evaluation factors, the PWS, and sample tasks while complying with section L. Recommend providing draft sections L and M to industry for comment.

A16. Draft Section L&M are anticipated to be released for comment prior to release of the final RFP. The anticipated release date for the DRAFT Sections L & M has not yet been determined.

Q/C17. COMMENT 5: CLARIFY 3.1.4 SECURITY This work requires that personnel hold a Top Secret clearance. Contractors must hold a top secret facility clearance to be able to provide these personnel. Should paragraph 3.1.4 be modified to require contractors to have a Top Secret facility clearance with secret safeguarding capability?

A17. If you are referring to Section 3.8 of the released PWS -Security - Security clearance requirements for All Contractor facilities shall provide an appropriate means of storage for classified documents, classified equipment and materials, and non-classified equipment and materials, in accordance with Operational Security (OPSEC) and Communications Security (COMSEC) requirements. If this is referring to Section 3.4 Facilities - this section refers to government facilities.

Q/C18. 6: 3.2.3 TASK EXECUTION PLAN (TEP) This paragraph requires that contractors submit a TEP within 14 days of receipt of a request for a TEP. For more complex systems (e.g. systems with a large, complex Bill of Materials), 14 days to develop a response may not be reasonable. We recommend that the Government consider including language such as "Unless other specified by the Government" to permit longer responses in these more complex requirements.

A18. Excerpt from PWS Paragraph 3.14.3 "The Contracting Officer will determine the amount of time allowed for the Contractor to submit a TEP. On average this will be seven to fourteen calendar days from receipt of the RTEP".

Q/C19. CLARIFY 3.2.4 TEP APPROVAL Please clarify the basis of award for TEPs. Recommend the use of best value evaluations and source selections.

A19. The basis of award for TEPs will be determined on a case by case basis.

Q/C20. Section 1.0 SCOPE 4th paragraph. The new PWS includes secure communications "...secure communications such as cryptosecurity, transmission security, emission security, traffic-flow security and physical security ..." However, there are no additional details in Section 4.0 Contract Tasks where other Tasking Descriptions are discussed. Could you provide details on the secure communication related tasks that may be included in TO/DO?

A20. The Sample Tasks will provide the details that the Offeror is expected to bid on.

Q/C21. Section 4.3. The Section 4.3 title is "Command Control and Communications - Tactical (C3T) Systems remove". Could you clarify what the word "remove" at end of title indicates?

A21. That word was a mistype and has been removed.

Q/C22. Section 4.3. On the larger end of the spectrum, up to what size antenna dish is expected for GTACS related terminals. Would these include trailer and/or vehicle mounted systems? Or are these only single operator transportable systems?

A22. The Sample Tasks will provide the details that the Offeror is expected to bid on.

Q/C23. Section 4.3. Will GTACS only provide Element Management for SATCOM terminal specific hardware and utilize higher echelon Network Management systems from POR such as WIN-T or DGS? Alternatively, will GTACS procure an overall cross-domain end-to-end network management system?

A23. GTACS is designed to provide support to Programs of Record and as such can be utilized to support all of the efforts above however for this bid the Sample Tasks will provide the details that the Offeror is expected to bid on.

Q/C24. 3.1 Contract Type: The Draft PWS states "approximately 6 to 15 contracts are anticipated". Could you clarify the driving factors which will determine the ultimate number or awards, and how many are anticipated for small business?

A24. Each proposal will be evaluated against the RFP criteria and the mix of Large/Small business Awards will be made after the review of the proposals.

Q/C25. 3.6 Personnel: First paragraph seems to conflict with Performance Based and Incentive Fee task orders; i.e., no opportunity for contractor to deliver efficiencies. First paragraph: Will the Government provide a master list of labor categories and qualifications at the contract level?
Last paragraph: This is unclear, i.e., what are "normal" workdays? Does this preclude 7-day operations?

A25. The Government will provide a list of labor categories however that Offeror can chose to use their own as long as there is a cross reference to the Government categories. In either case personnel must be fully qualified for the tasks they are performing. Because of the broadness of the scope of the contract the Normal Work Day/Work Week is anticipated to be identified on a DO/TO basis, however the Government is not limiting the Offerors and they are encouraged to bid as they see fit.

Q/C26. 3.14.3.1 TEP Preparation: sub para a. - The PWS does not specify "Option" periods, only basic contract years sub para b. - T&M contract type is not specified elsewhere in the PWS

A26. This is a five year IDIQ each DO/TO will be competed and may have options associated with them. T&M will be removed from all reference material. There will be no T&M on this contract.

Q/C27. 3.14.12 Small Business Consideration: Will small business, set-aside delivery/task orders be limited to small business, GTACS primes? Will large business, GTACS primes using 51% - or more - small business participation in their TEP and task execution be eligible for small business set-aside awards?

A27. Only small businesses can prime a contract in the Restricted/Small Lot. If a large business wants to play in that lot they must be a sub to a small company and the small business must do 51% on each deliver order they win.

Q/C28. 4.2 Projects, Programs, Products: Believe PD C-RAM is no longer under PEO C3T

A28. This list is not all inclusive and this contract is focused on C3T not necessarily PEO C3T

Q/C29. Reference Draft PWS dated 14 January 2011, the following note is in Section 3.14.3.3, as follows: Note: The GTACS Office plans to transition the RTEP and TEP submission process from an e-mail or SharePoint delivery to a web-based management information system approach to facilitate ease of management for both Government and GTACS contractors. The Contractor shall transition its approach for preparation and submission of TEPs as directed by the Contracting Officer at no additional cost to the Government. Can you define/identify what this web-based management information system is/will be? Is it an off-the-shelf product or, if a Government product, will it be provided to winning contractors as GFE?

A29. As of yet the program has not been defined

Q/C30. As GTACS will be a broad-based IDIQ contract, primes will be working to bring companies onto their teams to satisfy listed, but general requirements - many which will only be defined during the TEP/RTEP process. The question is, will the Government allow for the addition of new contractors to a winning prime team after contract award?

A30. The request for the replacement of a sub-contractor after contract award shall be formally made to the contracting officer in writing - along with accompanying rationale for replacement. The KO will take this information into consideration and either provide or deny this request.

Q/C31. The Government announced its intention to release a DRAFT version of Section L, Instructions and Section M, Evaluation Criteria, on or about 11 February 2011. Does the Government plan to release a DRAFT version of a SECTION B, which is required to properly review the evaluation requirements so that industry can provide meaningful comments back to the Government?

A31. At this time the government does not anticipate releasing a DRAFT section B. The release date for the DRAFT Sections L & M has not yet been determined.

Q/C32. Potential tasks under the IDIQ Contract may require use of a wide variety of COTS hardware and software products. Will the IDIQ vehicle allow trade evaluation and purchase of COTS from any potential vendor, or must teams arrange for pre-vetted technology vendors on their teams to utilize COTS?

A.32. The Government does not limit the Offeror from purchasing COTS from any vendor to support its bid.

Q/C33. Does the Government plan to issue a pipeline of the RTEPs planned for release to include Scope of Work, location and anticipated release date after award of the IDIQ vehicle?

A33. The government will issue an RTEP whenever a requirement is received.

Q/C34. Will IDIQ contract holders have the opportunity to make site visits prior to RTEP release, especially for efforts requiring construction?

A34. Construction will not be part of this contract and all references will be removed from the PWS.

Q/C35. RE: Pg: 7, Sec: 3.2, The period of performance is five (5) years from effective date of award. Will there be 5 base years and no option years or will it be 1 base year with 4 option years?

A35. This is a five year IDIQ each DO/TO will be competed and may have options associated with them

Q/C36. RE: Pg: 6, Sec: 3.1. The Government intends to award a multiple award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity type contract, and approximately 6 to 15 contracts are anticipated.
RE: Pg: 16, Sec: 3.14.12. All delivery/task orders below the $1 Million threshold that do not require development/ production/maintenance by an original equipment manufacturer or are otherwise restricted by proprietary requirements will be initially set-aside for small business awardees. How many of the approximately 6 to 15 awards will be set-aside for small businesses?

A36. This will vary depending on the number of acceptable awards.

Q/C37. RE: Pg: 17, Sec: 4.1.1 This task area includes the design, development, fabrication, and testing of engineering developmental systems covering the complete range of tactical C3 systems. The sentence as written would require contractors to design, develop, fabricate, and test engineering developmental systems. What is meant by engineering developmental system? What is an engineering developmental system?

A37. An engineering developmental system is a system that the Offeror used to test the design of a system during development before the initial production base line has been approved.

Q/C38. Sec: 3.1 Contract Type, Pg: 6-7. We recommend 15 awards, with up to 3 small business reserves. DPWS shows the Government has designed GTACS to support a broad array of technologies, services and solutions. Because of the diversity of missions/capabilities PEO C3T may service via GTACS, a higher number of prime awards within the range specified provides the Government a competitive field of preferred providers across all requirements.

A38. The Government will take this suggestion under consideration and the Contracting Office will make the final decision when the final RFP is released.

Q/C39. Sec: 3.9 Organizational Conflict of Interest, Pg: 9. The DPWS mentions several times that SETA work will not be performed on GTACS and that organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) might arise for current SETA contractors. OCI is further detailed in section 3.9. We suggest that the Government restrict significant PEO C3T SETA contractors from bidding as a prime. It is highly likely that if SETA contractors are allowed to prime GTACS that many sub-contractors will not be given fair opportunity to submit responses to RTEPs, because their prime contractor has OCI concerns. This will restrict the Government from potentially getting the best value solution without access to those subcontractors.

A39. The Government will take this suggestion under consideration and the Contracting Office will make the final decision when the final RFP is released.

Q/C40. Sec: 3.10 Non- Developmental Items and Processes, Pg: 9. we recommend that all bidding primes be original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and/or organic providers of Non- Developmental Items (NDI) and Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products GTACS is a hardware/solutions focused vehicle. Primes need to have engineering, program/product management, and supply chain management expertise to credibly service mission critical requirements.

A40. The Government will take this suggestion under consideration and the Contracting Office will make the final decision when the final RFP is released.

Q/C41. Sec: 3.13.2 Software, Pg: 10. We agree that it is in the Government's best interest for software development that the prime contractor shall maintain a software quality system which operates at a Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 systems/software processes capability (or equivalent SEI rating). We concur it is in the Government's best interest that the prime contractors should be required to meet this criteria. Requiring all prime contractors meet this important quality standard ensures that all prime contractors understand, have quality oversight, controls, and can support the software development, resulting in a high quality and timely delivery to the Government.

A41. The Government appreciates the concurrence.

Q/C42. Sec: 3.14 Contract Management, Pg: 11. Recommend all bidding primes must have a Defense Control Management Agency (DCMA) approved Earned Value Management System (EVMS) at time of proposal submission GTACS is established to support a diversity of technologies, missions, and contract types. The Government will need well-established mechanisms to monitor progress of task execution plans (TEPs). A DCMA approved EVMS will provide a validated approach to ease this Government management need via management systems, planning and budgeting, accounting, analysis, and revision activities.

A42. The Government will take this suggestion under consideration and the Contracting Office will make the final decision when the final RFP is released.

Q/C43. Sec: 3.14.1 Work Control, Pg: 11. Recommend all bidding primes must have a fully functional web-based task order management system accessible by the Government for status/tracking at time of proposal submission. Once the GTACS vehicle is awarded, task execution volume will create a greater need for ease of management by ACC-APG and PEO C3T personnel. A password authenticated, web-based portal will enable the Government to have real-time access to current status at time of need.

A43. The Government will take this suggestion under consideration and the Contracting Office will make the final decision when the final RFP is released.

Q/C44. Sec: 3.14.3.1 TEP Preparation for all Orders, Pg: 12. Type of Contract (T&M, FFP, CR) - is sole appearance of T&M contract type in all of the Draft GTACS PWS. Should it be stricken? Clarify contract types included in GTACS.

A44. T&M will be removed from all reference material. There will be no T&M on this contract.

Q/C45. Sec: 3.14.3.3 TEPs for Cost Reimbursement Orders, Pg: 13. It is stated that labor categories will be used for cost reimbursement orders. It is expected that GTACS TEPs will generally be more hardware focused than services focused. With this in mind, we encourage the Government evaluate labor category pricing only as it relates directly to the sample tasks. This will provide the Government the opportunity to achieve price realism that relates closer to the RTEPs that are likely to be issued under GTACS. This will also avoid the unintended consequences of valuating and awarding, based on pricing of a large set of labor categories and assumed hours that are not a true metric to delivering the tactical communications systems that will be the bulk of the GTACS TEPs.

A45. The Government will take this suggestion under consideration and the Contracting Office will make the final decision when the final RFP is released.

Q/C46. We suggest that the sample tasks be priced and awardable. By requiring priced sample tasks and preferably by awarding these, the Government will receive more accurate and reasonable price and technical data to evaluate. This puts the onus on the contractors to submit "realistic" values and put forth the most technically sound solutions.

A47. The Sample Tasks are representative of similar tasks that will be awarded under this contract however the sample tasks themselves will not be awarded.

Q/C48. Will GTACS be a Government-Wide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) (e.g. other government entities will be able to use the vehicle)?

A48. Yes

Q/C49. Will MIPR of funds from other agencies into PEO C3-T be allowed on this contract?

A49. Yes

Q/C50. On Material Purchases, will there be a pre-established cap on prime contractor fee?

A50. No, everything will be competed on a full and open basis.

Q/C51. On work performed by subcontractors, will there be a pre-established cap on prime contractor fee?

A51. No, everything will be competed on a full and open basis.

Q/C52. What is the expected mix of Material Purchase vs. Services provided? During Industry day in July 2010, the KO had announced a 60% Material and a 40% Services mix. Will this stay the same of some other anticipated mix?

A52. The mix will change however we are anticipating 70%-30% mix of Material and Service in support of said material.


Q/C53. Based on section 4.2 of the Draft PWS, is the intent to move all stated supporting efforts to the GTACS IDIQ contract or will these efforts be allowed to continue under their existing contracts?

A53. GTACS is an open contract to support all PEOC3-T efforts; it is up to the individual organization to decide how they want to manage their individual programs.

Q/C54. Will any of the 5 Sample tasks be executable?

A54. No

Q/C55. Section 4.3 of the PWS states, "Command Control and Communications - Tactical (C3T) Systems remove." Is it the government's intent to remove this PWS paragraph?

A55. No, the word remove was a mistype and has been removed.

Q/C56. PWS Paragraph 3.6 - Personnel - Labor requirement will be specified in the RTEP. Will there be categories or rates at the IDIQ level?

A56. Categories only the Offeror will propose rates.

Q/C57. PWS Paragraph 3.12 - Travel - All travel requests must be approved in writing by the government. Who has the authority to approve (KO, COR, COTR, etc.)?

A57. Only the Contracting Officer (KO) has authority to obligate government funds. The KO will work in coordination with the COR on such issues.

Q/C 58. PWS Paragraph 3.13.1 - Hardware - The contractor must maintain a quality assurance system to ensure product integrity. Is the quality assurance system mandatory at the prime and/or subcontractor level? If subcontractors have the applicable systems in place, is this sufficient?

A58. The Prime Contractor will be held responsible for the quality or their products and the system that assures that quality.

Q/C59. PWS Paragraph 3.13.2 - Software - The contractor must maintain a software quality system. Is the software quality system mandatory at the prime and/or subcontractor level? If subcontractors have the applicable systems in place, is this sufficient?

A59. The Prime Contractor will be held responsible for the quality or their products and the system that assures that quality.


Q/C60. PWS Paragraph 3.14 - Contract Management - We have been directed to establish a single focal point for all administrative, financial, and managerial aspects of this IDIQ. Does this constitute a PMO and will these functions be setup as direct or indirect charges?

A60. This is for a single point of contact, not a PMO.

Q/C61. PWS Paragraph 3.14.3 - Task Execution Plan - Are we required to submit "No Bid" notices?

A61. No response will be taken as a no-bid.

Q/C62. PWS Paragraph 3.14.3.1 - TEP Preparation for all Orders - It is directed that we prepare our submittals in MS Office. We do this, but we PDF our submissions to the government. This reduces their file sizes and prevents unauthorized changes. Will the government accept submissions in this format?

A62. Yes

Q/C63. PWS Paragraph 4.5.11 - Certification - Similar to the questions for Hardware and Software, are certifications required at the prime level? Or is subcontractor certification sufficient?

A63. All certifications are managed at the system level; as such the Prime is responsible for all certifications.

Q/C64. What is the expected date for release of the final RFP?

A64. It is anticipated to be the Second Qtr of calendar year 2011.

Q/C65. Will companies be allowed to participate on more than one team?

A65. Yes

Q/C66. RE: Paragraph 3.14.12: What is the Small Business (SB) subcontracting goal? In addition, what will be the percentage breakout between the different categories of SB?

A66. That information will be contained in future DRAFT section L & M releases.

Q/C67. RE: Paragraph 4.1: What Task Areas will have Sample Task Orders?

A67. The Government does not intend to release a draft version of the Sample Tasks. No information regarding the sample tasks will be released prior to the final RFP.

Q/C68. RE: Paragraph 4.1: Will the government define what type of Sample Task Orders they expect to release with the RFP, for example SATCOM, etc.?

A68. The Sample Tasks are representative of similar tasks that will be awarded under this contract however they sample tasks themselves will not be awarded. The Government does not intend to release a draft version of the Sample Tasks. No information regarding the sample tasks will be released prior to the final RFP.

Q/C69 RE: Paragraph 3.2: Is this a five (5) year base contract or are there option years?

A69. This is a five year IDIQ each DO/TO will be competed and may have options associated with them.


Q/C70. RE: Paragraph 3.9: Can the government provide a list of the companies that are OCI?

A70. The government will not be providing a list of the companies that are OCI.

Q/C71. RE: Paragraph 3.10: Please define Non-Developmental Items (NDI)?

A71. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation 2.101(b)(2) "Nondevelopmental item" means-
(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for governmental purposes by a Federal agency, a State or local government, or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement; (2) Any item described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency; or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) or (2) solely because the item is not yet in use.

Q/C72. RE: Paragraph 3.13.2: Will the Prime be able to use their subcontractors CMMI ratings to meet this requirement?

A72. Only if said subcontractor will definitely be utilized to provide the expected services in the future.

Q/C73. RE: Paragraph 4.1.2: Will the Government provide a list of GOTS equipment?

A73. GOTS will be defined at the DO/TO level based on the requirements.

2/8/2011 3:00 pm Michelle Giller of Raytheon

Q/C 74. Much of the equipment referred to is emphasized to be COTS products that are already on GSA and other government purchasing arrangements with standard pricing, etc. What is the role of the pricing to be provided under GTACS vs. other standing arrangements?

A74. Because the GTACS contract will be a contract with a relatively broad scope that encompasses all aspects of hardware and support services in support of PEO C3T programs, although many of the items to be purchased will be COTs items, there will also be requirements for more sophisticated integrated COTS, GOTS and developmental items to fulfill specific needs.

Q/C75. Paragraph 3.3.1 Technical Expert Status Accreditation (TESA) addresses only Korea. In general we have seen TESA mainly in discussions about Germany/Europe. Will GTACS have potential scope in Europe and thus will TESA apply there?

A75. This Paragraph is currently under review.

Q/C76. Paragraph 4.5.7, Leasing of Communication and Transmission Systems, Facilities, and Equipment, states that GTACS will have this included within its scope. Will there be a requirement to coordinate with extant contracts with similar scope currently managed by DISA for DoD-wide use?

A76. There is the potential to manage interfaces to the GIG managed by DISA.


The following answers are in response to questions from industry received as of 25 February 2011, 12:00 PM.

Q1. Does the government still plan to release drafts of section L & M for the upcoming GTACS procurement?

A1. Yes, the release date for the DRAFT Sections L & M has not yet been determined.

Q2. Has the Draft RFP been released?

A2. No

Q3. Has a new timeframe been determined?

A3. No

Q4. Has a timeframe been determined for the full RFP?

A4. It is anticipated to be the Second Qtr of calendar year 2011.


EFFECTIVE 19 January 2011, the CECOM Contracting Center - Army Contracting Command became the "U. S. Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance)." Acronym: ACC-APG (C4ISR). U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR) will be used for all future postings under Solicitation W15P7T-11-R-C001.

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR)
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

The following answers are in response to questions from industry received as of 04 February 2011, 12:00 PM.

Q1. Are set-aside task orders only for efforts less than or equal to $1M, regardless of scope, i.e. the scope could address any aspect of the GTACS PWS?
A1. At this time the intent is that all orders below the $1 Million threshold that do not require development, production, or maintenance by an original equipment manufacturer or are otherwise restricted by proprietary requirements are to be initially set-aside for small business awardees.

Q2. Are all task orders valued over $1M, regardless of previous OEM involvement, to be solicited among all contract awardees?
A2. Fair opportunity requirements shall be in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations, and case law, including Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 6.3 - Other Than Full and Open Competition.

Q3. Does the Government intend to release a draft version of the full RFP, particularly Section L, Instructions and Section M, Evaluation Criteria?
A3. The Government does not intend to release a draft version of the full RFP. No sample tasks will be released prior to the final RFP. A DRAFT version of Section L, Instructions and Section M, Evaluation Criteria is anticipated to be released on or about 11 February 2011.

Q4. What is the correct date for response for industry comments to the DRAFT PWS?
A4. The response date for industry's questions and or comments on the GTACS DRAFT PWS is 11 February 2011. Non-response does not exclude any offeror from participating in the future Request for Proposal (RFP) when it is released.

Q5. Is the Contracting Center acronym really "AAC-APG" or is that a typo and it should read, "ACC-APG"?
A5. There was a typo; the acronym is ACC-APG, as corrected below.

EFFECTIVE 19 January 2011, the CECOM Contracting Center - Army Contracting Command became the "U. S. Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance)." Acronym: ACC-APG (C4ISR). U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR) will be used for all future postings under Solicitation W15P7T-11-R-C001.

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.
Contracting Office:

U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR)
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

The UPDATED RESPONSE DATE for industry's questions and or comments on the GTACS DRAFT PWS is 11 February 2011. Non-response DOES NOT exclude any offeror from participating in the future Request for Proposal (RFP) when it is released.

EFFECTIVE 19 January 2011, the CECOM Contracting Center - Army Contracting Command became the "U. S. Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance)." Acronym: AAC-APG (C4ISR). U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR) will be used for all future postings under Solicitation W15P7T-11-R-C001.

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR)
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

The following answers are in response to questions from industry received as of 21 January 2011, 12:00 PM.

Q1. Are there any industry days or conferences coming up on this?
A1. No industry days or conferences are planned at this time.

Q2. Will companies who don't have the personnel to support OCONUS be eliminated from competing?
A2. It is the Governments intent to promote and provide for full and open competition in soliciting offers and awarding contracts. The requirements and evaluation factors will be found in the RFI once released. Please refer to Q9 & A9 of the 06 January 2011 posting for additional information.

Q3. FBO lists the response date as March 19, 2011; is this for the Sources Sought notice in the December 20, 2010 change notice with respect to the GTACS dated 14 January 2011.
A3. The 19 March 2001 response date is for industries response to the DRAFT PWS posted on 18 January 2011. Please refer to the 12 January 2011 posting for additional information.

EFFECTIVE 19 January 2011, the CECOM Contracting Center - Army Contracting Command became the "U. S. Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance)." Acronym: AAC-APG (C4ISR). U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR) will be used for all future postings under Solicitation W15P7T-11-R-C001.

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR)
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

A DRAFT Performance Work Statement, SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001 Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services has been posted on Interactive Business Opportunities Page (IBOP), https://abop.monmouth.army.mil/, under Army Solicitations, CECOM-2011.

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.
Contracting Office:

CECOM Contracting Center - Army Contracting Command
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

The following answer is in response to questions from industry received as of 18 January 2011, 12:00 PM.

Q1. Have you considered making pre-solicitation W15P7T11RC001 a Small Disadvantaged Veteran Owned business set aside?

A1. Because of the scope of this solicitation/contract, the entire effort is not anticipated to be a set-aside. However, please refer to the Questions & Answers posted on 06 January 2011, QUESTION # 13.

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
CECOM Contracting Center - Army Contracting Command
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

There will be no extension of the response date for the GTACS RFI; the respond date remains Wednesday, 12 January 2011. Responses to the GTACS RFI are for market research only and are not for evaluation. Late responses cannot be assured of inclusion in the market research documentation. Non-response to this RFI does not exclude any offeror from participating in the future Request for Proposal (RFP) when it is released.

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
CECOM Contracting Center - Army Contracting Command
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

The response date for the GTACS RFI is extended to 12 January 2011, 4:30 PM Eastern Standard Time.

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
CECOM Contracting Center - Army Contracting Command
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@usarmy.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

(Subject Continued) Services


The following answers are in response to the corresponding questions from Industry recieved as of 06 January 2011, 12:00 PM.

Q1. What date is the RFI submission due?
A1. The RFI response is due on 10 January 2011.

Q2. What time is the RFI response due on January 10th 2011?
A2. The RFI response is due by 4:30 PM Eastern Standard Time on 10 January 2011.

Q3. Should the RFI response be submitted electronically or paper copy?
A3. A single copy of the RFI is to be e-mailed to David Hansen at david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil or Stephen Jenniss at Stephen.Jenniss@us.army.mil . Please do not submit paper copies of the RFI response, they will not be accepted.

Q4. What documents can be submitted in the RFI response?
A4. The following documents may be submitted in response to the RFI:

Document 1. Past and current products your company offers which most closely match the capabilities specified to include any available product brochures, specification sheets, photographs, illustration and technical descriptions which describe your company's current products which most closely match these capabilities.

Document 2. A "White Paper" (no more than 10 pages in length) describing how your company's products and technical expertise could produce and deliver such a capability.

Document 3. Your company's past and current customers to which you provided similar products, including a customer/company name and point of contact, phone number and address/e-mail where they can be contacted.

Document 4. Responses to the RFI questions.

Documents must be submitted in Microsoft Office Word 2007 or PDF format. Each document may be e-mailed separately. There is a five (5) mega-byte limit per email.

Q5. What is the relationship between this RFI for W15P7T-11-R-C001 and the RFI for W91LV2-10-R-0011?
A5. They are the same effort with minor revisions. The location has changed from the contracting center at Fort Dix, New Jersey to the contracting center at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, thus the reason for the change in solicitation number.

Q6. Will responses to RFI W91LV2-10-R-0011 still be considered?
A6. Both RFI's are for market research only. Continue to watch ASFI/Federal Business Opportunity Page for additional information.

Q7. Does this response supersede a response to the RFI for W91LV2-10-R-0011?
A7. Both RFI's are for market research only not for evaluation.

Q8. Will the RFI be used to select those businesses who are invited to bid on the proposal?
A8. No - the RFI is for market research only.

Q9. Is a Draft RFP expected to be released this month?
A9. No date for the release of a Draft RFP has been determined.

Q10. Can contractors meet on a one-on-one individual basis with the GTACS team?
A10. No - questions will be accepted via e-mail through the contracting office (e-mail to David Hansen at david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil or Stephen Jenniss at Stephen.Jenniss@us.army.mil). Answers will be provided via ASFI/FEDBIZOPS under solicitation number W15P7T-11-R-C001.

Q11. Does the RFI NAICs code include Manufactures only and exclude Integrators and support services.
A11. No - the NAICs code only reflects what is anticipated to be the greatest portion of the effort. It does not exclude contractors providing support services or integrator services. All industry responses to the RFI are welcomed.

Q12. Are 750 employees too large for a small business?
A12. No - The U. S. Small Business Administration Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes, which can be located at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf, lists the size standards in number of employees for the RFI NAICs code 334290 as 750.

Q13. Will there be a small business set-aside for this procurement?
A13. At this time a multiple award contract is planned with small business set-aside procedures for orders below a threshold yet to be determined.

Q14. Will there be an opportunity to see the sample tasks before the final RFP?
A14. At this time there is no plan to release the sample tasks before the final RFP.

Q15. Will Tasks 4 and 5 be removed or only sample tasks associated with those two categories eliminated?
A15. At this time Sample Tasks 4 'Special Projects' and Sample Task 5 'Small Business' have been removed from the effort.

All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
CECOM Contracting Center - Army Contracting Command
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail:david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@usarmy.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil

1. Program Executive Office Command, Control, Communications-Tactical's (PEO C3T's) Special Projects Office (SPO), Northeast Regional Response Center (NRRC) Fort Dix, NJ and PM Warfighter Information Network Tactical (PM WIN-T) are seeking information for the Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) initiative from experienced providers of turn-key systems and associated support services. The tactical integrated communications systems may support both commercial and military operations, globally.

Large and small businesses that are experienced in providing turn-key tactical integrated communications systems and associated support services (NAIC) 334290 small business standard is defined by 750 employees or less for the systems specified below are requested to respond to this RFI.

2. The intent of this RFI is to identify multiple prime contractors and subcontractors capable of providing the broad range of equipment, services and support required to accommodate both DoD and civil agency missions. The Companies shall meet every capability as listed below to respond to this RFI. These demands may require equipment to facilitate support to the Government in the areas to include but not limited to: Baseband ( examples such as: Non-Secure Internet Protocol Router (NIPR), Secure Internet Protocol Router (SIPR), Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS), Centcom Regional Intelligence Exchange System (CENTRIX), Commercial and Net Equipment, Tactical Communications Platforms (examples such as: Mobile Broadband Global Area Network Access Capabilities (MBAC), Satellite Communications (SATCOM) Terminals (LARGE, Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT), Hand Held), Highly Mobile Communications, Very High Frequency (VHF), Ultra High Frequency (UHF), Ku, Ka, C, X, L, Land Mobile Radio (LMR), Mobile satellite services (examples such as: Satellite Phones, Secure Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), Cell Service Development). These demands may require non-Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (non-SETA) services to facilitate support to the Government in the areas to include: systems engineering; engineering; development; maintenance; software development, production, sustainment and support; program management and analysis; business functions; logistics; supply chain management; technical field assistance; test and evaluation; modeling and simulation; information operations/assurance support; fielding and training; facilities management; administrative support pertinent to the above. These services will be performed in conjunction with all new and existing federal Government system of systems, family of systems, platforms, systems, subsystems and items as required to support hardware and software purchases.

3. Security Requirements for the basic contracts will be as follows: Facility Clearance required shall be TOP Secret. Level of Safeguarding required shall be Secret

4. Interested companies should furnish the following information: Name and address of company, Point of Contact (Name, address, phone number, and e-mail), Identify past and current products your company offers which most closely match the capabilities specified above. Please provide any available product brochures, specification sheets, photographs, illustration and technical descriptions which describe your company's current products which most closely match these capabilities. Interested companies may also provided a "White Paper" (no more than 10 pages in length) describing how its products and technical expertise could produce and deliver such a capability. Also, identify your company's past and current customers to which you provided similar products, including a customer/company name and point of contact, phone number and address/e-mail where they can be contacted.

Responses must also address the following:

4.1 What are the core competencies of your employees that support your current tactical integrated communications systems?

4.2 Describe any experience operating in hostile, contingency or combat environment, in support of military operations worldwide.

4.3 Describe your experience designing and integrating turn-key tactical integrated communications systems that have been operated in worldwide environments.

4.4 Describe your experience implementing tactical integrated communications systems product improvements and enhancements.

4.5 Describe your experience performing military and commercial tactical integrated communications systems certifications.

4.6 What is the maximum production rate per month for each type of the tactical integrated communications systems that you have previously delivered?

4.7 Provide the total number of individuals currently employed by your company that support your tactical integrated communications systems program.

5. This RFI is for informational purposes only and does not obligate the Government to implement or acquire any communication systems, equipment or service addressed in any information received or change any acquisition strategy. This RFI does not obligate the Government for cost reimbursement for preparation of response.

6. The anticipated schedule of events for this GTACS effort are: draft RFP release (without sample tasks) January 2011; formal RFP release sometime 1st Quarter of 2011; anticipated award date of 3rd quarter 2011. Special Note: Sample Tasks 4 'Special Projects' and Sample Task 5 'Small Business' have been removed from the effort.

Note: The Solicitation, Number W15P7T-11-R-C001 replaces Solicitation Number W91LV2-10-R-011 which started at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Both solicitations reflect the same effort. From here forward follow Solicitation Number W15P7T-11-R-C001 for updates and information.

THE DATE LISTED ABOVE AS 'RESPONSE DATE' IS FOR SYSTEM PURPOSES ONLY. THIS IS AN INFORMATIONAL NOTICE, AND THERE IS NO REQUIRED RESPONSE AT THIS TIME.

SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001
Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) And Services

Date: 29 October 2010
Formerly known as: W91LV2-10-R-0011, Mission and Installation Contracting Command, Ft. Dix NJ.
This notice is to advise all potential offerors that responsibility for the future GTACS acquisition program has been transferred to the Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) Contracting Activity, Aberdeen Proving Grounds (APG), MD.
A Draft Request for Proposals is anticipated to be released in the first quarter of 2011. The final Request for Proposals is not anticipated to be released prior to March 2011. All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information.

Contracting Office:
CECOM Contracting Center Army Contracting Command
6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 2105-1846

Point(s) of Contact:
Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988
E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil
Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989
E-mail: stephen.jenniss@usarmy.mil
Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061
E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil