Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF JUNE 17, 2011 FBO #3492
MODIFICATION

59 -- Responses to Draft Sections L & M Questions from Industry: SOLICITATION W15P7T-11-R-C001 Global Tactical Advanced Communications Systems (GTACS) and Services

Notice Date

6/15/2011
 

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

7/15/2011
 

Archive Date

9/13/2011
 

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

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
 

Web Link

FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/1cf8cc48d60f1f613bac8fe0fd579095)
 

Place of Performance

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

Zip Code: 21005-1846
 

Record

SN02473184-W 20110617/110615234522-1cf8cc48d60f1f613bac8fe0fd579095 (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 |