Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF FEBRUARY 27, 2011 FBO #3382
MODIFICATION

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

Notice Date

2/25/2011
 

Notice Type

Modification/Amendment
 

NAICS

334290 — Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
 

Contracting Office

CECOM Contracting Center (CECOM-CC), ATTN: AMSEL-AC, Building 1208, Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5008
 

ZIP Code

07703-5008
 

Solicitation Number

W15P7T11RC001
 

Response Due

2/25/2011
 

Archive Date

4/26/2011
 

Point of Contact

David Hansen, (443) 861-4988
 

E-Mail Address

CECOM Contracting Center (CECOM-CC)
(david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil)
 

Small Business Set-Aside

Partial Small Business
 

Description

The following answers are in response to PWS questions/comments (Q/C) from industry received as of 16 February 2011. Q/C 1. RE: 3.14.12 Small Business Consideration. All delivery/task orders below the $1 Million threshold that do not require development/production/maintenance by an original equipment manufacturer or are otherwise restricted by proprietary requirements will be initially set-aside for small business awardees. If after a three (3) day period two or more Small Business awardees indicate that they will not or cannot fulfill the requirement, it will then be solicited to all contract awardees regardless of size. We recommend that the small business consideration value threshold be increased from $1 Million to between $5-$10 Million. The rationale is based on historical data from the current WWSS contract vehicle. This data indicates the vast majority of WWSS awards were in excess of $1 Million. To incentivize small business participation, the pool of potential procurements that will be set -aside for small business consideration needs to be significant enough to be meaningful in promoting small business. A1. The government will take this under consideration and the contracting officer in conjunction with the Small business office will make a determination. Q/C2. RE: CLIN Sheet Format Structure / Price Evaluation. Although not contained within the draft PWS, we would like to make some recommendation /suggestions for consideration regarding the structure of the CLIN Sheet that may be used / standardized for GTACS RTEP's: a) Based upon past CLIN Sheets provided in WWSS procurements, we suggests price evaluations be done for each CLIN versus one lump sum total. This recommendation is made so as to prevent Bidders from "gaming" the procurement. Although the Government is still responsible for evaluating price realism for individual CLIN's, the "lump sum" price evaluation structure can lend itself to juggling individual CLIN pricing for pricing strategy purposes and not cost-based purposes. b) Further to the issue preventing "gaming" and creating an environment for the Government to better assess pricing, we suggests that the Government clearly specify its intentions relative to the exercise of options. Many times for WWSS, CLIN's for optional quantities were presented that looked like the following: OPTIONS, POP through XX Month Year Total 001 AA 2.0 Widget # 6-50 45 002 AA 2.0 Widget # 51-100 50 003 AA 2.0 Widget # 101-200 100 004 AA 2.0 Widget # 201-300 100 005 AA 2.0 Widget # 301-500 200 Continuing the example, let's assume the Government has identified needs to procure a total quantity of 350 widgets over time. First point is, if he intent is to procure 350, consider one CLIN for 350 period versus a option ladder as depicted above. If funding, mission requirements, etc prevent one single CLIN for the total required quantity, then clearly indicate to industry how the total number will be ordered. Using the sample option ladder above, if 150 widgets are to be procured over time, would the Government execute CLIN's 001 (QTY:50) and 002 (QTY:100) to procure the 150 units, or execute CLIN 003 for 150 units. Please convey to Industry the manner in which the CLIN's will be utilized. The obvious answer is whatever is in the Government's best interest. That is understood. The situation from Industry's perspective is it may have to protect itself by not providing the quantity discount until the next higher quantity CLIN. For example, assume the procurement is for 150 units. Further assume there is a real production quantity price break from underlying suppliers at the QTY 75 level. The Contractor may not be able to pass this discount on until CLIN 003 if the Government has the option to procure just 65 units under CLIN 002 as an example. This is admittedly somewhat complicated and confusing to convey. The bottom line recommendation is to allow industry to structure its own optional CLIN's with quantity ranges that provide the most competitive position and ultimately the best value to the Government. If this cannot be done, then clearly state how quantities of options will be procured per the Option Ladder spreadsheet that is presented as part of the RTEP. A2. The government will take this under consideration and the contracting officer will make a determination. Q/C3. PWS 3.9 says that contractors are "not to establish relationships with other GTACS contractors, subcontractors or vendors......." This language implies that companies may not be on more than one team for the bid. Is that the Government's intention or is this language more applicable to collaboration amongst awardees after contract award? A3. The reference PWS 3.9 is in reference to a conflict of interest only. The government encourages Contractors, Subcontractors and Vendors to team partner and or enter into any agreement that does not create a conflict of interest. Excerpt from the PWS: "3.9 The Contractor agrees to accept and to complete all awarded DOs/TOs and not to establish relationships with other GTACS Contractors, Subcontractor or Vendors in a manner as to create an actual or perceived organizational conflict of interest." Q/C4. Also, considering teammates may be non exclusive to a prime offeror, there most likely will be instances where companies appear on multiple teams. Is it permissible to be a subcontractor on multiple teams? A4. Multiple team participation is permitted. Q/C5. Regarding vendors, many vendors, equipment manufacturers and service providers do not typically team exclusively as a business practice. Is it permissible for a vendor to be on multiple teams? A5. Yes Q/C6. Since there are both full and open and small business set aside awards anticipated, is it permissible for an offeror to be both a subcontractor and a prime offeror? Note that at the June industry day, the government encouraged "cross teaming". As a result, teaming engagements made early on may conflict with the language in PWS 3.9 A6. Yes Q/C7. PWS 3.14.12 states that the threshold for competing set aside TOs among SBs is $1M. This seems inconsistent with the NAICS code SB size standard of 750 employees and a program ceiling of $10B. A qualified company with an employee base as little as 50 or up to 750 employees will be easily capable of and extensively experienced with TO thresholds will above $1M. Will the Government consider increasing the set aside threshold to $5M? A7. The government will take this under consideration and the contracting officer in conjunction with the Small business office will make a determination. Q/C8. The Draft PWS paragraph 3.1 Contract Type states, "The Government intends to award... approximately 6 to 15 contracts." Is there a further breakdown for number of contracts to be awarded between large and small businesses? A8. Please refer to Q/C24. Q/C9. Draft PWS Paragraph 3.3 Place of Performance - are there any special site specific requirements for Contractor Sites? A9. Hardware and services will be purchased and supplied worldwide, and may have a requirement for a security level of up to and including top secret in individual DO/TO Q/C10. Draft PWS Paragraph 3.13.3 Services - will government make the QASP available in advance of the RFP? A10. Each delivery order will be unique in nature as such each QASP will depend on each DOs requirements. Q/C11. Draft PWS Paragraph 3.14.3 TEP - states, "the TEP size shall not exceed twenty (20) total text pages." Does this page limitation include both technical/management and the cost part of the DO/TO proposal? A11. Yes that is correct. Q/C12. Draft PWS Paragraph 4.2 - contract vehicles. For all the PM's and PDs areas listed, what acquisition vehicles are currently being used? Is there an archive of DO/TOs awarded? A12. There is no complete archive of contractual vehicles that is known that plans to utilize the GTACS contract, other than to say that any of contracts currently supporting the Program Executive Office - Command, Control, Communications Tactical (PEO C3T) are likely candidates to utilize the GTACS contract. Q/C13. SAMPLE TASK The draft PWS does not include sample task(s). Recommend that care is exercised in the scoping and selection of sample tasks. Some Federal procurement documents have crafted sample tasks in a manner that unnecessarily limits the participation of small business respondees. One example of this is to write a sample task of scope and scale that only a large business could possibly respond to and then cutting a percentage or portion of the work out for small business responses that in order to adequately answer, still require a complete build-out of an entire system or network (for example) to provide a proposed solution for. A13. The government will take this under consideration and the contracting officer in conjunction with the Small business office will make a determination. Q/C14. SAMPLE TASK Recommend that the evaluation sample task include a task that is representative of the types of small business tasks that will be issued under the awarded contract. A14. The government will take this under consideration and the contracting officer in conjunction with the Small business office will make a determination. Q/C15. MISSION ALIGNMENT The current iteration of the PWS emphasizes ACAT program level activities and efforts. The stated purpose of GTACS is to have the flexibility to support the GRRIP program, NRRC C3T missions, and DoD Interagency Information Sharing. Recommend that an effort is made to ensure that the PWS does not over-emphasize or solely focus on the ACAT program level of support at the expense of including the appropriate scoping to support the wide range of support services needed across all three support areas. A15. The government will take this under consideration. Q/C16. CLARIFY TASK What is the relationship between Tasks, Task Areas, and Services in PWS section 3.3? Recommend ensuring alignment and clarity between sections C, L, sample tasks, and M. A point of frustration to RFP respondents are mismatches between these sections that presents challenges when preparing written responses that address the evaluation factors, the PWS, and sample tasks while complying with section L. Recommend providing draft sections L and M to industry for comment. A16. Draft Section L&M are anticipated to be released for comment prior to release of the final RFP. The anticipated release date for the DRAFT Sections L & M has not yet been determined. Q/C17. COMMENT 5: CLARIFY 3.1.4 SECURITY This work requires that personnel hold a Top Secret clearance. Contractors must hold a top secret facility clearance to be able to provide these personnel. Should paragraph 3.1.4 be modified to require contractors to have a Top Secret facility clearance with secret safeguarding capability? A17. If you are referring to Section 3.8 of the released PWS -Security - Security clearance requirements for All Contractor facilities shall provide an appropriate means of storage for classified documents, classified equipment and materials, and non-classified equipment and materials, in accordance with Operational Security (OPSEC) and Communications Security (COMSEC) requirements. If this is referring to Section 3.4 Facilities - this section refers to government facilities. Q/C18. 6: 3.2.3 TASK EXECUTION PLAN (TEP) This paragraph requires that contractors submit a TEP within 14 days of receipt of a request for a TEP. For more complex systems (e.g. systems with a large, complex Bill of Materials), 14 days to develop a response may not be reasonable. We recommend that the Government consider including language such as "Unless other specified by the Government" to permit longer responses in these more complex requirements. A18. Excerpt from PWS Paragraph 3.14.3 "The Contracting Officer will determine the amount of time allowed for the Contractor to submit a TEP. On average this will be seven to fourteen calendar days from receipt of the RTEP". Q/C19. CLARIFY 3.2.4 TEP APPROVAL Please clarify the basis of award for TEPs. Recommend the use of best value evaluations and source selections. A19. The basis of award for TEPs will be determined on a case by case basis. Q/C20. Section 1.0 SCOPE 4th paragraph. The new PWS includes secure communications "...secure communications such as cryptosecurity, transmission security, emission security, traffic-flow security and physical security..." However, there are no additional details in Section 4.0 Contract Tasks where other Tasking Descriptions are discussed. Could you provide details on the secure communication related tasks that may be included in TO/DO? A20. The Sample Tasks will provide the details that the Offeror is expected to bid on. Q/C21. Section 4.3. The Section 4.3 title is "Command Control and Communications - Tactical (C3T) Systems remove". Could you clarify what the word "remove" at end of title indicates? A21. That word was a mistype and has been removed. Q/C22. Section 4.3. On the larger end of the spectrum, up to what size antenna dish is expected for GTACS related terminals. Would these include trailer and/or vehicle mounted systems? Or are these only single operator transportable systems? A22. The Sample Tasks will provide the details that the Offeror is expected to bid on. Q/C23. Section 4.3. Will GTACS only provide Element Management for SATCOM terminal specific hardware and utilize higher echelon Network Management systems from POR such as WIN-T or DGS? Alternatively, will GTACS procure an overall cross-domain end-to-end network management system? A23. GTACS is designed to provide support to Programs of Record and as such can be utilized to support all of the efforts above however for this bid the Sample Tasks will provide the details that the Offeror is expected to bid on. Q/C24. 3.1 Contract Type: The Draft PWS states "approximately 6 to 15 contracts are anticipated". Could you clarify the driving factors which will determine the ultimate number or awards, and how many are anticipated for small business? A24. Each proposal will be evaluated against the RFP criteria and the mix of Large/Small business Awards will be made after the review of the proposals. Q/C25. 3.6 Personnel: First paragraph seems to conflict with Performance Based and Incentive Fee task orders; i.e., no opportunity for contractor to deliver efficiencies. First paragraph: Will the Government provide a master list of labor categories and qualifications at the contract level? Last paragraph: This is unclear, i.e., what are "normal" workdays? Does this preclude 7-day operations? A25. The Government will provide a list of labor categories however that Offeror can chose to use their own as long as there is a cross reference to the Government categories. In either case personnel must be fully qualified for the tasks they are performing. Because of the broadness of the scope of the contract the Normal Work Day/Work Week is anticipated to be identified on a DO/TO basis, however the Government is not limiting the Offerors and they are encouraged to bid as they see fit. Q/C26. 3.14.3.1 TEP Preparation: sub para a. - The PWS does not specify "Option" periods, only basic contract years sub para b. - T&M contract type is not specified elsewhere in the PWS A26. This is a five year IDIQ each DO/TO will be competed and may have options associated with them. T&M will be removed from all reference material. There will be no T&M on this contract. Q/C27. 3.14.12 Small Business Consideration: Will small business, set-aside delivery/task orders be limited to small business, GTACS primes? Will large business, GTACS primes using 51% - or more - small business participation in their TEP and task execution be eligible for small business set-aside awards? A27. Only small businesses can prime a contract in the Restricted/Small Lot. If a large business wants to play in that lot they must be a sub to a small company and the small business must do 51% on each deliver order they win. Q/C28. 4.2 Projects, Programs, Products: Believe PD C-RAM is no longer under PEO C3T A28. This list is not all inclusive and this contract is focused on C3T not necessarily PEO C3T Q/C29. Reference Draft PWS dated 14 January 2011, the following note is in Section 3.14.3.3, as follows: Note: The GTACS Office plans to transition the RTEP and TEP submission process from an e-mail or SharePoint delivery to a web-based management information system approach to facilitate ease of management for both Government and GTACS contractors. The Contractor shall transition its approach for preparation and submission of TEPs as directed by the Contracting Officer at no additional cost to the Government. Can you define/identify what this web-based management information system is/will be? Is it an off-the-shelf product or, if a Government product, will it be provided to winning contractors as GFE? A29. As of yet the program has not been defined Q/C30. As GTACS will be a broad-based IDIQ contract, primes will be working to bring companies onto their teams to satisfy listed, but general requirements - many which will only be defined during the TEP/RTEP process. The question is, will the Government allow for the addition of new contractors to a winning prime team after contract award? A30. The request for the replacement of a sub-contractor after contract award shall be formally made to the contracting officer in writing - along with accompanying rationale for replacement. The KO will take this information into consideration and either provide or deny this request. Q/C31. The Government announced its intention to release a DRAFT version of Section L, Instructions and Section M, Evaluation Criteria, on or about 11 February 2011. Does the Government plan to release a DRAFT version of a SECTION B, which is required to properly review the evaluation requirements so that industry can provide meaningful comments back to the Government? A31. At this time the government does not anticipate releasing a DRAFT section B. The release date for the DRAFT Sections L & M has not yet been determined. Q/C32. Potential tasks under the IDIQ Contract may require use of a wide variety of COTS hardware and software products. Will the IDIQ vehicle allow trade evaluation and purchase of COTS from any potential vendor, or must teams arrange for pre-vetted technology vendors on their teams to utilize COTS? A.32. The Government does not limit the Offeror from purchasing COTS from any vendor to support its bid. Q/C33. Does the Government plan to issue a pipeline of the RTEPs planned for release to include Scope of Work, location and anticipated release date after award of the IDIQ vehicle? A33. The government will issue an RTEP whenever a requirement is received. Q/C34. Will IDIQ contract holders have the opportunity to make site visits prior to RTEP release, especially for efforts requiring construction? A34. Construction will not be part of this contract and all references will be removed from the PWS. Q/C35. RE: Pg: 7, Sec: 3.2, The period of performance is five (5) years from effective date of award. Will there be 5 base years and no option years or will it be 1 base year with 4 option years? A35. This is a five year IDIQ each DO/TO will be competed and may have options associated with them Q/C36. RE: Pg: 6, Sec: 3.1. The Government intends to award a multiple award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity type contract, and approximately 6 to 15 contracts are anticipated. RE: Pg: 16, Sec: 3.14.12. All delivery/task orders below the $1 Million threshold that do not require development/ production/maintenance by an original equipment manufacturer or are otherwise restricted by proprietary requirements will be initially set-aside for small business awardees. How many of the approximately 6 to 15 awards will be set-aside for small businesses? A36. This will vary depending on the number of acceptable awards. Q/C37. RE: Pg: 17, Sec: 4.1.1 This task area includes the design, development, fabrication, and testing of engineering developmental systems covering the complete range of tactical C3 systems. The sentence as written would require contractors to design, develop, fabricate, and test engineering developmental systems. What is meant by engineering developmental system? What is an engineering developmental system? A37. An engineering developmental system is a system that the Offeror used to test the design of a system during development before the initial production base line has been approved. Q/C38. Sec: 3.1 Contract Type, Pg: 6-7. We recommend 15 awards, with up to 3 small business reserves. DPWS shows the Government has designed GTACS to support a broad array of technologies, services and solutions. Because of the diversity of missions/capabilities PEO C3T may service via GTACS, a higher number of prime awards within the range specified provides the Government a competitive field of preferred providers across all requirements. A38. The Government will take this suggestion under consideration and the Contracting Office will make the final decision when the final RFP is released. Q/C39. Sec: 3.9 Organizational Conflict of Interest, Pg: 9. The DPWS mentions several times that SETA work will not be performed on GTACS and that organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) might arise for current SETA contractors. OCI is further detailed in section 3.9. We suggest that the Government restrict significant PEO C3T SETA contractors from bidding as a prime. It is highly likely that if SETA contractors are allowed to prime GTACS that many sub-contractors will not be given fair opportunity to submit responses to RTEPs, because their prime contractor has OCI concerns. This will restrict the Government from potentially getting the best value solution without access to those subcontractors. A39. The Government will take this suggestion under consideration and the Contracting Office will make the final decision when the final RFP is released. Q/C40. Sec: 3.10 Non- Developmental Items and Processes, Pg: 9. we recommend that all bidding primes be original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and/or organic providers of Non- Developmental Items (NDI) and Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products GTACS is a hardware/solutions focused vehicle. Primes need to have engineering, program/product management, and supply chain management expertise to credibly service mission critical requirements. A40. The Government will take this suggestion under consideration and the Contracting Office will make the final decision when the final RFP is released. Q/C41. Sec: 3.13.2 Software, Pg: 10. We agree that it is in the Government's best interest for software development that the prime contractor shall maintain a software quality system which operates at a Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 systems/software processes capability (or equivalent SEI rating). We concur it is in the Government's best interest that the prime contractors should be required to meet this criteria. Requiring all prime contractors meet this important quality standard ensures that all prime contractors understand, have quality oversight, controls, and can support the software development, resulting in a high quality and timely delivery to the Government. A41. The Government appreciates the concurrence. Q/C42. Sec: 3.14 Contract Management, Pg: 11. Recommend all bidding primes must have a Defense Control Management Agency (DCMA) approved Earned Value Management System (EVMS) at time of proposal submission GTACS is established to support a diversity of technologies, missions, and contract types. The Government will need well-established mechanisms to monitor progress of task execution plans (TEPs). A DCMA approved EVMS will provide a validated approach to ease this Government management need via management systems, planning and budgeting, accounting, analysis, and revision activities. A42. The Government will take this suggestion under consideration and the Contracting Office will make the final decision when the final RFP is released. Q/C43. Sec: 3.14.1 Work Control, Pg: 11. Recommend all bidding primes must have a fully functional web-based task order management system accessible by the Government for status/tracking at time of proposal submission. Once the GTACS vehicle is awarded, task execution volume will create a greater need for ease of management by ACC-APG and PEO C3T personnel. A password authenticated, web-based portal will enable the Government to have real-time access to current status at time of need. A43. The Government will take this suggestion under consideration and the Contracting Office will make the final decision when the final RFP is released. Q/C44. Sec: 3.14.3.1 TEP Preparation for all Orders, Pg: 12. Type of Contract (T&M, FFP, CR) - is sole appearance of T&M contract type in all of the Draft GTACS PWS. Should it be stricken? Clarify contract types included in GTACS. A44. T&M will be removed from all reference material. There will be no T&M on this contract. Q/C45. Sec: 3.14.3.3 TEPs for Cost Reimbursement Orders, Pg: 13. It is stated that labor categories will be used for cost reimbursement orders. It is expected that GTACS TEPs will generally be more hardware focused than services focused. With this in mind, we encourage the Government evaluate labor category pricing only as it relates directly to the sample tasks. This will provide the Government the opportunity to achieve price realism that relates closer to the RTEPs that are likely to be issued under GTACS. This will also avoid the unintended consequences of valuating and awarding, based on pricing of a large set of labor categories and assumed hours that are not a true metric to delivering the tactical communications systems that will be the bulk of the GTACS TEPs. A45. The Government will take this suggestion under consideration and the Contracting Office will make the final decision when the final RFP is released. Q/C46. We suggest that the sample tasks be priced and awardable. By requiring priced sample tasks and preferably by awarding these, the Government will receive more accurate and reasonable price and technical data to evaluate. This puts the onus on the contractors to submit "realistic" values and put forth the most technically sound solutions. A47. The Sample Tasks are representative of similar tasks that will be awarded under this contract however the sample tasks themselves will not be awarded. Q/C48. Will GTACS be a Government-Wide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) (e.g. other government entities will be able to use the vehicle)? A48. Yes Q/C49. Will MIPR of funds from other agencies into PEO C3-T be allowed on this contract? A49. Yes Q/C50. On Material Purchases, will there be a pre-established cap on prime contractor fee? A50. No, everything will be competed on a full and open basis. Q/C51. On work performed by subcontractors, will there be a pre-established cap on prime contractor fee? A51. No, everything will be competed on a full and open basis. Q/C52. What is the expected mix of Material Purchase vs. Services provided? During Industry day in July 2010, the KO had announced a 60% Material and a 40% Services mix. Will this stay the same of some other anticipated mix? A52. The mix will change however we are anticipating 70%-30% mix of Material and Service in support of said material. Q/C53. Based on section 4.2 of the Draft PWS, is the intent to move all stated supporting efforts to the GTACS IDIQ contract or will these efforts be allowed to continue under their existing contracts? A53. GTACS is an open contract to support all PEOC3-T efforts; it is up to the individual organization to decide how they want to manage their individual programs. Q/C54. Will any of the 5 Sample tasks be executable? A54. No Q/C55. Section 4.3 of the PWS states, "Command Control and Communications - Tactical (C3T) Systems remove." Is it the government's intent to remove this PWS paragraph? A55. No, the word remove was a mistype and has been removed. Q/C56. PWS Paragraph 3.6 - Personnel - Labor requirement will be specified in the RTEP. Will there be categories or rates at the IDIQ level? A56. Categories only the Offeror will propose rates. Q/C57. PWS Paragraph 3.12 - Travel - All travel requests must be approved in writing by the government. Who has the authority to approve (KO, COR, COTR, etc.)? A57. Only the Contracting Officer (KO) has authority to obligate government funds. The KO will work in coordination with the COR on such issues. Q/C 58. PWS Paragraph 3.13.1 - Hardware - The contractor must maintain a quality assurance system to ensure product integrity. Is the quality assurance system mandatory at the prime and/or subcontractor level? If subcontractors have the applicable systems in place, is this sufficient? A58. The Prime Contractor will be held responsible for the quality or their products and the system that assures that quality. Q/C59. PWS Paragraph 3.13.2 - Software - The contractor must maintain a software quality system. Is the software quality system mandatory at the prime and/or subcontractor level? If subcontractors have the applicable systems in place, is this sufficient? A59. The Prime Contractor will be held responsible for the quality or their products and the system that assures that quality. Q/C60. PWS Paragraph 3.14 - Contract Management - We have been directed to establish a single focal point for all administrative, financial, and managerial aspects of this IDIQ. Does this constitute a PMO and will these functions be setup as direct or indirect charges? A60. This is for a single point of contact, not a PMO. Q/C61. PWS Paragraph 3.14.3 - Task Execution Plan - Are we required to submit "No Bid" notices? A61. No response will be taken as a no-bid. Q/C62. PWS Paragraph 3.14.3.1 - TEP Preparation for all Orders - It is directed that we prepare our submittals in MS Office. We do this, but we PDF our submissions to the government. This reduces their file sizes and prevents unauthorized changes. Will the government accept submissions in this format? A62. Yes Q/C63. PWS Paragraph 4.5.11 - Certification - Similar to the questions for Hardware and Software, are certifications required at the prime level? Or is subcontractor certification sufficient? A63. All certifications are managed at the system level; as such the Prime is responsible for all certifications. Q/C64. What is the expected date for release of the final RFP? A64. It is anticipated to be the Second Qtr of calendar year 2011. Q/C65. Will companies be allowed to participate on more than one team? A65. Yes Q/C66. RE: Paragraph 3.14.12: What is the Small Business (SB) subcontracting goal? In addition, what will be the percentage breakout between the different categories of SB? A66. That information will be contained in future DRAFT section L & M releases. Q/C67. RE: Paragraph 4.1: What Task Areas will have Sample Task Orders? A67. The Government does not intend to release a draft version of the Sample Tasks. No information regarding the sample tasks will be released prior to the final RFP. Q/C68. RE: Paragraph 4.1: Will the government define what type of Sample Task Orders they expect to release with the RFP, for example SATCOM, etc.? A68. The Sample Tasks are representative of similar tasks that will be awarded under this contract however they sample tasks themselves will not be awarded. The Government does not intend to release a draft version of the Sample Tasks. No information regarding the sample tasks will be released prior to the final RFP. Q/C69 RE: Paragraph 3.2: Is this a five (5) year base contract or are there option years? A69. This is a five year IDIQ each DO/TO will be competed and may have options associated with them. Q/C70. RE: Paragraph 3.9: Can the government provide a list of the companies that are OCI? A70. The government will not be providing a list of the companies that are OCI. Q/C71. RE: Paragraph 3.10: Please define Non-Developmental Items (NDI)? A71. Per Federal Acquisition Regulation 2.101(b)(2) "Nondevelopmental item" means- (1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for governmental purposes by a Federal agency, a State or local government, or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement; (2) Any item described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency; or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) or (2) solely because the item is not yet in use. Q/C72. RE: Paragraph 3.13.2: Will the Prime be able to use their subcontractors CMMI ratings to meet this requirement? A72. Only if said subcontractor will definitely be utilized to provide the expected services in the future. Q/C73. RE: Paragraph 4.1.2: Will the Government provide a list of GOTS equipment? A73. GOTS will be defined at the DO/TO level based on the requirements. 2/8/2011 3:00 pmMichelle Giller of Raytheon Q/C 74. Much of the equipment referred to is emphasized to be COTS products that are already on GSA and other government purchasing arrangements with standard pricing, etc. What is the role of the pricing to be provided under GTACS vs. other standing arrangements? A74. Because the GTACS contract will be a contract with a relatively broad scope that encompasses all aspects of hardware and support services in support of PEO C3T programs, although many of the items to be purchased will be COTs items, there will also be requirements for more sophisticated integrated COTS, GOTS and developmental items to fulfill specific needs. Q/C75. Paragraph 3.3.1 Technical Expert Status Accreditation (TESA) addresses only Korea. In general we have seen TESA mainly in discussions about Germany/Europe. Will GTACS have potential scope in Europe and thus will TESA apply there? A75. This Paragraph is currently under review. Q/C76. Paragraph 4.5.7, Leasing of Communication and Transmission Systems, Facilities, and Equipment, states that GTACS will have this included within its scope. Will there be a requirement to coordinate with extant contracts with similar scope currently managed by DISA for DoD-wide use? A76. There is the potential to manage interfaces to the GIG managed by DISA. The following answers are in response to questions from industry received as of 25 February 2011, 12:00 PM. Q1. Does the government still plan to release drafts of section L & M for the upcoming GTACS procurement? A1. Yes, the release date for the DRAFT Sections L & M has not yet been determined. Q2. Has the Draft RFP been released? A2. No Q3. Has a new timeframe been determined? A3. No Q4. Has a timeframe been determined for the full RFP? A4. It is anticipated to be the Second Qtr of calendar year 2011. EFFECTIVE 19 January 2011, the CECOM Contracting Center - Army Contracting Command became the "U. S. Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance)." Acronym: ACC-APG (C4ISR). U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR) will be used for all future postings under Solicitation W15P7T-11-R-C001. All interested parties should continue to watch the Federal Business Opportunities Page (FEDBIZOPS) under the Solicitation # W15P7T-11-R-C001 for further information. Contracting Office: U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR) 6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005-1846 Point(s) of Contact: Mr. David Hansen, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4988 E-mail: david.e.hansen1@us.army.mil Mr. Stephen Jenniss, Contract Specialist Phone: 443-861-4989 E-mail: stephen.jenniss@us.army.mil Ms. Barbara Hansen, Contracting Officer/Group Chief Phone: 443-861-5061 E-mail: barbara.ann.hansen@us.army.mil
 

Web Link

FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/81a6176b8279e46087e82c090fcf6dfc)
 

Place of Performance

Address: U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (C4ISR) 6001Combat Drive, CCCE-CBC Aberdeen Proving Gnd MD

Zip Code: 21005-1846
 

Record

SN02387731-W 20110227/110225234223-81a6176b8279e46087e82c090fcf6dfc (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 |