08 Responses to Draft RFP Questions (2 Dec 21).docx

H9240022R0008 / SEPS

Government Response: Yes, it is approved as a 100% SDVOSB set aside.

Government Response: Yes. SEPS will result in a single IDIQ contract award (i.e., indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity). Although we have an indication (based on history) for a share of future task order requirements, the requirements are subject to adjustments based on current mission needs. A Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS) will will be provided to the awardee as task order requirements develop. There is also the potential for new task order requirements to develop.

*The three awardable task orders included as part of the IDIQ solicitation package has known performance locations included however, if mission needs were to shift those locations may also change.

Government Response: Yes, see Response to Q2.

Government Response: No, the NAICS is not expected to change.

5.4.12 Q: Only 10 of 11 federal holidays are listed. Was this an oversight?

Government Response: No, this was not an oversight and this change is currently pending internal guidance. Future changes to the number of Federal holidays listed result in an amendment to the RFP or a contract modification, as applicable.

H.4 Organizational Conflict of Interest

Q: Will the Prime / Offeror “contractor” (as defined on pg. 25, section ii) be required to submit a certification that it does not have an existing OCI?

Government Response: Yes. Section L4.3.5 is added accordingly.

H.4 Organizational Conflict of Interest

Q: Will all “contractors” (as defined on pg. 25, section ii) be required to submit a certification that they do not have any existing OCI? This would include subcontractors, joint ventures, etc…

Government Response: See response to Q6.

M5.2 Evaluation of Work Samples Q: What constitutes substantiating evidence that sub-contractor personnel performed the relevant work? Could the government clarify or provide examples?

Government Response: The data selected by the Offeror can vary, examples for some may include (1) a signed statement from the contractor (Prime) confirming the subcontractor role and performance, (2) a copy of the subcontract and (3) payroll records, or (4) a signed statement from the Government customer who received those services and payroll records…etc. Section M5.2 is revised to clarify.

Government Response: Yes, RFP L2.3 updated, to add acceptance of Adobe pdf files.

Government Response: RFP updated with revisions to Att 3, Part II inserting a separate section to allow work samples of the subcontractor to be validated by the Prime POCs.

L.6.7 Q: Will Major Subcontractors / subcontactors be required to submit a Professional Employee Compensation plan?

Government Response: The requirement to review Professional compensation applies to all proposed personnel. The RFP includes two relevant areas (price template and narrative). Proposed subcontractors shall submit the information necessary to the Prime to include in the Prime’s proposal. RFP L.6.7 is updated, as needed. Attachment 4 has also been updated to clarify instructions for subcontractor pricing submission.

252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist Q: Will Major Subcontractors be required to address applicable components in the checklist as part of the Offeror’s (Prim’s) proposal? For example, item 24, Basis of Estimates (BOES), will Major Subcontractors need to submit BOE as part of the Offeror’s price proposal?

Government Response: DFARS 252.215-7009 is deleted.

IDIQ PWS : 5.1.1

Q: What qualifications are required for the IDIQ Program Manager?

Government Response: IDIQ PWS updated to reflect the IDIQ PM qualifications.

Government Response:

No, however the PM is identified in SOFARS 5652.237-9001 as required key personnel and therefore the Government has the right to request the resume post award and validate that the individual meets the minimum qualifications.

Government Response: For this task order requirement, GFEBS experience is preferred but not specifically required.

Government Response: The deliverables should be restricted to the medium that is required by the classification of the information required and stated.

Government Response: Attach 5b. FIAR SOW is updated to replace fidelity with to “reliability.” The contractor shall support SOF AT&L efforts to improve the reliability of asset accountability.

Q: Based on this scoring methodology can the government reconsider allowing SUBCONTRACTORs to support more than two of the 5 work samples?

Government Response: No, the self-score provided by the Offerors on the self-score cards submitted will be used to provide the overall self-score that the Government then ranks numerically to identify the highest self-scored offer.

No.

In light of recent GAO rulings (B-419546) to allow joint venture pursuing DoD contracts to rely on the facility clearance of their member, will the government consider revising the solicitation to remove this requirement?

Government Response: No. The recent GAO rulings are indirect conflict with DoD/DCSA policy. Until interim DCSA guidance is issued, our requirement for Joint Ventures remains unchanged.

Government Response: See Response to Q1.

Sec M.5.2.a.iii Q: We understand per the solicitation instructions that the non-managing venturer may only bring two work samples of the maximum five. Will the Government please clarify/confirm that significant subcontractors (greater than 10% workshare) can bring another two of the maximum five work samples (as stated in M.5.2.b.), leaving a minimum of one work sample for the managing venturer to provide?

Government Response: RFP L.5.1 and M5.2.a.iii are updated to include a minimum number of work samples from the Prime Offeror and to clarify that the total minimum number required of subs.

L6.6.1 Q: Will the Government consider acceptable a 3rd-party verified (CPA firm audit) accounting system, rather than a DCAA verification? We understand per L6.6.1.c) that if an offeror is the HRTO and does not meet the requirements for the accounting system, a pre-award survey will be conducted, however we want to confirm this is necessary if the offeror has a valid/recent (within one year) audit by a CPA firm.

Government Response: No. If the Offeror does not have a recent audit IAW L6.6.1 a), a Pre-Award Survey will be completed IAW L6.6.1 d).

We conclude that the 2020 NDAA clearly and unambiguously prohibits DOD agencies, like the Air Force here, from issuing solicitations that require a joint venture, rather than the members of the joint venture, hold the required facility clearance.

Will the government change the requirement for the JV to hold the FCL to allowing a JV to be compliant provided that both members of the JV hold the required FCL level?

Government Response: See Response to Q20.

Why is the government putting limits on the number of work samples from the non-managing venturer?

Government Response: RFP does not include evaluation of past performance, but rather an assessment of capability through experience. Nonetheless, RFP M5.2.2 is updated to remove the minimum requirement for the non-managing partner.

Government Response: See response to Q1.

Government Response: Technical Conferences and Meetings may be scheduled in either forum (virtual or in person). Meetings are not anticipated to be classified.

Government Response: Reference response to Q13.

Government Response: Reference response to Q5.

Government Response: IDIQ PWS 8.1.3 is revised for clarity. Additionally, classified work is not authorized while telecommuting/teleworking or at an alternate worksite.

Government Response: PWS Section D, Para 10.1 is updated to require individuals to be cleared at the minimum of a Secret level (at the IDIQ level) Future task order requirements in some instances may specify Top Secret clearance when needed.

Government Response: PWS Section D, Para 10.2 is updated to remove “only at government facilities.”

Government Response: Specific requirements for obtaining Common Access Cards (CAC) are now added to Section H.5.

Government Response: The Government provides access to the required training, however it is the Contractor’s responsibility to ensure their employees have received all required training.

Section L Instructions, Conditions and Notice to Bidders, para L.4.3 Volume I (b), TS Facility documentation.

Q: Do subcontractors require a Top Secret Facility Clearance?

Government Response: No, this RFP requires FCL from the proposed prime at the IDIQ level; however, the prime may have its own requirement for subcontractors to have a FCL. Additionally, subcontractors performing at the task order level are required to possess an FCL commensurate to the work they are performing.

Government Response: See the revision to add a statement if L.6.6.1 subparagraph (c) is applicable.

Government Response: Yes, and reference L5.1. and M5.3.

Government Response: Yes, reference response to Q37.

Government Response: M5.2.7 is revised for clarity.

Government Response: In general, the expectation to meet surge requirements, if applicable, varies from one task order to another. In some instances, hours in addition to the total annual per FTE (ie. 1880 or 1920) are not required, but rather the contractor may be expected to adjust / manage personnel schedules periodically within the total annual hours in order to meet critical requirements that are unanticipated.

Government Response: Pricing template updated to include required security clearances IAW the task order SOWs.

from the five (5) work samples submitted, and only those five (5), unless otherwise noted.” May we submit past performances from both the prime and subcontractors?

Government Response: Reference response to Q25.

Government Response: Yes.

Government Response: The incumbent is St. Michaels Inc under contract H9222217D0004.

Government Response: See response above to Q35.

I(a) Executive Summary (Not Evaluated), 2 I(b) Contract Documentation, No Limit I(c) Transition Plan (Not Evaluated), No Limit II Technical Proposal Substantiating Data, No Limit III Cost/Price, No Limit

Are we to include I(a), I(b), and I(c) as three separate files in Word or all three as separate sections in one Word file?

Government Response: Three separate files; Section L2.0 updated.

Government Response: L2.1 updated to clarify.

Government Response: There is no need to include blank pages

Government Response: Yes. cross-referencing within the volume is permissible.

Government Response: No.

Government Response: Corrected to ‘CAGE’ code.

Government Response: Pointers are cross-references that point back to the exact area of the work sample that identifies the information that the offeror has used for self-scoring.

Government Response: Yes, that is correct.

Government Response: Reference M5.3, Burden of Proof.

Government Response: FAR 16.301-3 requires this information for Cost type contracts only.

Government Response: See revision to L6.1(b) and L6.3 updated for clarity.

disclosed accounting systems.” Is this information to be provided in Word or Excel?

Government Response: Reference Response to Q56.

disclosed accounting systems. What is meant by index?

Government Response: Reference to “index” has been removed.

Government Response: L6.7 is updated to remove.

Government Response: Reference response to Q11.

Government Response: Reference response to Q12.

Government Response: See response to Q14.

acceptable work sample.” If we use a multiple award contract, may we include all awarded task orders under the IDIQ as a past performance, or do we need to submit each task order separately?

Government Response: Reference response to Q43.

Government Response: As stated in Q25 past performance is not an evaluation factor. Teaming agreements; however, are required for identified teammates performing as a major subcontractor.

Government Response: See Response to Q10.

objectivity and an unfair competitive advantage regarding task order competition.” May we include an OCI mitigation plan with our proposal? If so in which volume, and will it count toward the page count?

Government Response: No.

objectivity and an unfair competitive advantage regarding task order competition.” Which awarded contracts would generate an OCI on this effort?

Government Response: This section is meant to detail how the SEPS award generates OCI. For specific contracts already held, the Offeror is responsible for evaluating their OCI and providing the required documentation IAW L.4.3.5.

objectivity and an unfair competitive advantage regarding task order competition.” Will a prime or subcontract award on the Naval Special Warfare Exercise and Training (NEXT) IDIQ cause an OCI?

Government Response: See response to Q67.

objectivity and an unfair competitive advantage regarding task order competition.” Would a prime or subcontract award on the Maritime Special Operations Forces Support (M-SOFS) IDIQ cause an OCI?

Government Response: See response to Q67.

objectivity and an unfair competitive advantage regarding task order competition.” Would a prime or subcontract award on the SOF CORE Services IDIQ cause an OCI?

Government Response: See response to Q67.

Government Response: No, unless they are excluded due to performance on specific task orders that create OCI. However, the SEPS awardee may be excluded from task order competition on SCS due to the stringent OCI clause.

Government Response: See Response to Q20 through Q25.

Government Response: Refer to M5.2.6 description of methods that may be used.

Government Response: See response to Q14.

Government Response: See response to Q43 and Q63.

Government Response: Section L.3.4 added to include the ability to utilize DoD SAFE.

Often CPAR information is considered proprietary and the Offeror’s prime contractor for the work sample is unlikely to share CPAR information with their subcontractor (the Offeror submitting the work sample).

Government Response: Reference response to Q65.

Government Response: No.

Government Response: See response to Q25.

Government Response: Reference response to Q20.

Was this an oversight or does USSOCOM intend to evaluate these areas?

If not, do the Work Samples consist of the sole Technical evaluated areas?

Government Response: See response to Q14. Evaluation will be completed on the documentation identified in Sections L and M only.

Does USSOCOM intend to stick to very prescriptive criteria – for 20 positions?

Government Response: Yes, the requirement is as written.

Does USSOCOM intend to require 100 TS/ SCI positions – for this SDVOSB set-aside?

Government Response: See revised scoring matrix.

General Evaluation Criteria Section M2.0 (a-f), Pp 67-71 Section M5.0

Attachment 2 – HRTO Self-Scoring Matrix

Q: The evaluation criteria in Section M2.0 beginning on Page 65 states that the offerors proposals will be ranked and evaluated in order based on their self-score provided, which will then be verified and validated. If verified and validated, the offerors’ price will be evaluated for fairness, realism, and reasonableness. If found to be FRR, the offeror will receive the award. This criterion creates an unfair advantage for the current vendor on the SWMS C contract when considering the stringent requirements laid out in Section M5.0 for substantiating work samples. Additionally, the requirements in aggregate severely limit the ability of otherwise similarly situated service- disabled veteran owned small businesses to compete and achieve a highly rated self-score. For example, having a single contract with 100 positions on a single task order or having multiple (up to 5) separate contracts with concurrent performance at three geographically separated locations is highly unlikely for a SDVOSB under the $16.5M size standard. Also, for Category 4 and Category 5 in Section M5, the inclusion of very specific experience, certification, and qualification criteria for being able to claim business and financial management and special operations planning and analysis experience unfairly limits competition.

Would the government consider revising the minimum requirements necessary to provide a valid work sample in Section M.5 to a standard realistically achievable by a SDVOSB at the 16.5M size standard to ensure fair competition? For example, recommend reducing the maximum scorable positions to 25 instead of 100. This recommendation for a maximum of 25 to also applies to the “Positions Transitioned Within 30 days” and “Experience filling TS/SCI positions” scorable items.

Government Response: See revised scoring matrix.

General Evaluation Criteria Section M2.0 (a-f)

Q: The evaluation criteria in Section M2.0 beginning on Page 65 states that the offerors proposals will be ranked and evaluated in order based on their self-score provided, which will then be verified and validated. If verified and validated, the offerors’ price will be evaluated for fairness, realism, and reasonableness. If found to be FRR, the offeror will receive the award. This criterion creates an unfair advantage for the current vendor on the SWMS C contract when considering the stringent requirements laid out in Section M5.0 for substantiating work samples make it easier for them to score points than other similarly situated SDVOSB concerns.

Would the government consider altering the HRTO evaluation process so that all offerors are evaluated for both technical and price to ensure fair competition for all offerors irrespective of their self-score?

Government Response: No.

Attachment 2 – HRTO Self-Scoring Matrix Q: Will the Government consider lowering the maximum scorable positions in Attachment 2, items 1, 6, and 7 from 100 to 25?

This will ensure fair competition for SDVOSB concerns operating in the $16.5M size standard. As written, the self-scoring spreadsheet would allow an offeror to claim up to 100 positions on a single task order and/or 100 filled TS/SCI positions. Aside from the current SWMS C vendor, there aren’t likely to be any SDVOSBs that can claim anywhere near those numbers which would inhibit their ability to be evaluated fairly and be awarded the contract. It also creates an insurmountable advantage for the current vendor on the self-scoring matrix.

Government Response: See response to Q83.

Attachment 2 – HRTO Self-Scoring Matrix Q: Section M5.2.2 states that “The Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of submitted work samples where performance occurred in at least three separate geographic locations on each work sample, not including TDY assignments. Performance at the three separate geographic locations must have occurred concurrently. Geographic locations must be separated by at least 100 miles.” This requirement severely limits the ability for capable small businesses to claim relevant work samples that contain less than 3 separate geographic locations. It also creates an opportunity for one offeror that happens to have multiple task orders under SWMS C to claim maximum points while other vendors with relevant work samples cannot score them because they may not perform at three concurrent locations.

Will the Government consider revising the criteria to state “Offeror shall rate itself based on any single work sample where performance occurred in at least three separate geographic locations, not including TDY assignments” rather than up to 5 separate samples or remove this requirement and have offerors document their experience providing services at multiple locations in the Technical Volume (including corporate experience managing contracts/teams at various locations)?

Government Response: The Government considers experience with multiple complex requirements value added, relevant, and complexity includes multiple simultaneous locations.

Attachment 2 – HRTO Self-Scoring Matrix Q: Section M5.2.4 states “Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of positions across all five samples whose primary purpose is providing business and financial management support. In order for a position from one of the five provided work samples to count against this category score, that position must contractually require the following minimum qualifications/certifications/experience…” The inclusion of the “must contractually require the following minimum qualifications/certifications/experience” creates issues for small businesses that employ people with the required qualifications/certifications/experience but whose contracts may not specifically require the same minimums at this RFP. The issue is compounded by the fact that any offeror that is able to meet the “contractually required” standard and receive max points in the self-scoring spreadsheet would have a potential 500-point advantage over other capable entities.

Will the Government please revise Section M.5.2.4 to allow for small businesses to score positions that meet the minimum qualifications/certifications/experience even if they are performing on a contract where those minimums aren’t contractually required?

Government Response: No, the Government maintains the position that the contractual requirement is relevant.

Attachment 2 – HRTO Self-Scoring Matrix Q: Section M5.2.5 states “Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of positions across all five sample whose primary purpose is providing SOF Strategic Planning and/or Operational Analysis support. In order for a position from one of the five provided work samples to count against this category score, that position must contractually require the following minimum qualifications/certifications/experience…” The inclusion of the “must contractually require the following minimum qualifications/certifications/experience” creates issues for small businesses that employ people with the required qualifications/certifications/experience but whose contracts may not specifically require the same minimums at this RFP. The issue is compounded by the fact that any offeror that is able to meet the “contractually required” standard and receive max points in the self-scoring spreadsheet would have a potential 300-point advantage over other capable entities.

Will the Government please revise Section M.5.2.5 to allow for small businesses to score positions that meet the minimum qualifications/certifications/experience even if they are performing on a contract where those minimums aren’t contractually required?

Government Response: See response to Q88.

This will ensure fair competition for SDVOSB concerns operating in the $16.5M size standard. As written, the self-scoring spreadsheet also would allow an offeror to claim up to 50 financial management related positions and 20 SOF planning/analysis positions. Aside from the current SWMS C vendor, there aren’t likely to be any SDVOSBs that can claim anywhere near those numbers which would inhibit their ability to be evaluated fairly and be awarded the contract. It also creates an insurmountable advantage for the current vendor on the self-scoring matrix.

Government Response: Reference updates and clarified language included throughout the package as the result of these questions to the draft RFP.

5.4.12 Holidays

Q: Juneteenth is not included in the list of U.S. Federal holidays names. Should Juneteenth be omitted from days off and subsequent calculations?

Government Response: See response to Q5.

Government Response: No.

J3 Directorate of Operations Pg 2, Sec 2.4 Sec 7.2 Q: In section 2.4, the SOW equates this task order to a FTE having 1,920 hours annually. In section 7.2, The SOW states, “Normal workdays for all personnel assigned at Tampa, FL are Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays, eight hours a day. This equates to 2,080 annually. Please confirm if the FTE workweek will be based on 1,920 hours annually or 2,080 hours annually?

Government Response: The difference is between productive and non-productive hours (holiday/vacation).

J3 Directorate of Operations Pg 2, Sec 2.4 Q: In section 2.4, the SOW outlines surge hours to be scheduled as required during after duty hours, weekends, and holidays.

Does the contractor have to obtain written approval from COR for the FTE to work those surge hours or can the contractor make that determination based on the workload?

Government Response: Statements of work revised to reflect Contracting Officer or COR approval of surge hours required.

Government Response: See response to Q30.

§C 4.1.2 Q: What specific computer-aided design/manufacturing platforms are currently in use? (e.g. AutoCad, Bluebeam, Revit)

Government Response: Required standards and relevant platforms in use will be defined in future task order packages, if needed.

§M 1.0 – Basis for Award The solicitation reads, “The basis for awards will be determined by the Highest Rated Technical Offer with a Fair, Realistic, and Reasonable price. (HRTO-FRR). Will the Government consider increases due to inflation as it determines what is fair and reasonable?

Government Response: The Government will utilize all pricing information submitted, including the narrative, to determine the fair and reasonable price.

Will slides be available after mtg?

Government Response: The slides will be posted to SAM.GOV when questions and answers are posted

What is the expected date release of RFP

Government Response: As currently posted, the Government’s target date is on or about 22-Dec-2021.

will the scripts from the presenters be available with the viewgraphs--the amplifications are very useful in making the VGs clear

Government Response: No, the slides are available, but the script is not.

Can a Work Sample address multiple evaluation criteria.?

Government Response: Yes.

Is this a single or multiple award IDIQ?

Government Response: Single award IDIQ.

How many Category 2 work samples are permitted? For instance are two Major subcontractors permitted to each provide 2 work samples (for a total of four)?

Government Response: No, total of two allowed from subcontractor experience.

Is the Self Scoring technical experience matrix limited to only reflect the maximum of 5 work samples, or should it reflect any and all relevant Offeror team experience?

Government Response: Limited to a total of five allowable work samples.

Will the USG consider publishing the final OCI language prior to RFP release in support of SDVOSB resource limitations?

Government Response: The Government does not anticipate updates to the OCI language provided in the Draft RFP. Should the language require an update, the revised language will be included in the forthcoming RFP, section H.