Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 FBO #3588
MODIFICATION

59 -- 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

Notice Date

9/19/2011
 

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

10/21/2011
 

Archive Date

12/20/2011
 

Point of Contact

Stephen Jenniss, 443 861 1989
 

E-Mail Address

ACC-APG (C4ISR)
(stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil)
 

Small Business Set-Aside

Partial Small Business
 

Description

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
 

Web Link

FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/7470a499a6f25dd98f20f655227f7ebb)
 

Place of Performance

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

Zip Code: 21005-1846
 

Record

SN02582682-W 20110921/110919235617-7470a499a6f25dd98f20f655227f7ebb (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 |