Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF AUGUST 26, 2011 FBO #3562
MODIFICATION

59 -- 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

Notice Date

8/24/2011
 

Notice Type

Modification/Amendment
 

NAICS

334290 — Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
 

Contracting Office

ACC-APG (C4ISR), HQ CECOM CONTRACTING CENTER, 6001 COMBAT DRIVE, ABERDEEN PROVING GROU, MD 21005-1846
 

ZIP Code

21005-1846
 

Solicitation Number

W15P7T11RC001
 

Response Due

9/30/2011
 

Archive Date

11/29/2011
 

Point of Contact

David Hansen, (443) 861-4988
 

E-Mail Address

ACC-APG (C4ISR)
(david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil)
 

Small Business Set-Aside

Partial Small Business
 

Description

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
 

Web Link

FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/e361068182bf82e43ea172ad289a00b1)
 

Place of Performance

Address: ACC-APG (C4ISR) HQ CECOM CONTRACTING CENTER, 6001 COMBAT DRIVE ABERDEEN PROVING GROU MD

Zip Code: 21005-1846
 

Record

SN02547909-W 20110826/110825000414-e361068182bf82e43ea172ad289a00b1 (fbodaily.com)
 

Source

FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

---

| FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's FBO Daily Index Page |