Amend 1 clarifications.docx

Follow-Up Clarifications for Evolve Amendment 1

1. The RFP states that personnel assigned to the contract must be US Citizens and must possess a security clearance (RFP Section H.9.2.C). The answer to question #1017 states the clearance is not required for the proposed PM for each functional category. It is unclear if this means the clearance is not a minimum requirement, but may still be considered in scoring / evaluating the proposed PM (for example, will PMs with a clearance be more highly scored/evaluated than those without?). Without clarity, offerors cannot be certain what is considered compliant and also cannot know how their proposed PM may be evaluated. Please confirm the proposed PM for each functional category is not required to have a security clearance and whether the clearance is an evaluation factor.

The IDIQ PM POC is not a billable position. There is not a security clearance requirement for the IDIQ PM POC. All billable positions under Evolve must have the requisite security clearance as will be identified at each Task Order solicitation. The IDIQ PM POC does not earn the Offeror additional self-scoring points for having a PM POC security clearance. The PM POC under the Offeror’s Management Approach volume will not be evaluated more favorably or less favorably due to the presence or absence of a security clearance.

2. The released Q&A makes it clear that PPQs must be submitted. Offerors may have already begun the process of collecting PPQs prior to the release of the amendment (and some Government customers may have been kind enough to support those requests by providing the completed PPQs prior to the holiday break). With Amendment 1, an updated PPQ form was released. Is it necessary for offerors to go back to customers and request the updated form be completed or may we submit the original completed PPQ form without any impact to scoring or evaluation?

The PPQ form only had minor corrections to remove the mention of CPARS; therefore any PPQs already in-process are likely viable. The REP form (v2) had more edits; however, this form is to be completed by the Offeror and not the customer/reference. The REP form includes all the elements of self-scoring to ensure efficient validation. Offerors may choose to send a fresh PPQ to customer(s) or may submit the original PPQs which had erroneous CPARS language in the header, and both options will be considered compliant.

3. There is imbedded formatting in the original PPQ form which begins a new page with each section, so that there is considerable white space in the file. How should Offerors resolve the presence of extra white space in the files?

The Government will only evaluate text included within the file up to the page limit as stated in the RFP; however, white space as described will not count towards the page limit.

4. The Q&A states in #939 that the Commitment to Cybersecurity Compliance Statement is required to be a standalone document in submissions, while answers to 1040 and 896 assert that the statement should be included within the cover letter or cover sheet.

The Government will accept the Cybersecurity Compliance Statement as an element embedded within the Cover Letter, or as a separate file submitted and labeled as part of the Cover letter.

5. Reference: RFP Section L.13.2.e, Page 143; Attachment J-30 Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE; Q&A #646, #735, and #844

Based upon updates in the most recent set of Question and Answers and RFP Amendment 0001, DOS is requesting that offerors provide substantiation of FTEs which is defined as Full Time Employees as opposed to Full Time Equivalent and is required to be “validated by the customer.”

Question 1: Please confirm that the Contracting Manager of the Prime can sign off on the validity of the staffing spreadsheets/timesheet information.

Yes, the Offeror’s Contracting Manager or a person authorized to bind the firm may provide initial validation of FTE counts.

Question 2: Would DOS consider supporting the more commonly used definition of FTE to be Full Time Equivalent?

Yes, the Government’s intent is to request full time equivalents (note, the scoring element allows Offerors to “round up” to a whole number for any FTE numbers at .5 or higher.

6. [Table L3, J-23, Q&A #40] Q&A #40 states that subcontractors are required to provide completed DD-254s with the Phase 1 submission. Subcontractor DD 254 forms are not listed as being required to be submitted in Phase 1 (Table L3) along with the Prime completed J-23 DD254. Table L3 specifically calls for the “Bidder’s DD Form 254”. Typically, primes do not issue subcontractor DD254’s until after award and the post-award completion of the prime’s DD254.

The intent of Q&A #40 relates to subcontractors that are providing evidence as part of a meaningful relationship or JV. Subcontractors DD254 forms are not required to be submitted at the time of the proposal submission if the Offeror is not a JV or entering a meaningful relationship as indicated in L.13 Table L5. The Government may require that Offerors provide their subcontractors’ DD254’s after IDIQ awards are made.

7. [L.2, Q&A #176, J-28] Although Amendment 1 revised the overall Small Business goal from 42% to 38%, the Amend 1 Attachment J-28_Small Business SubK Plan.v2 still shows the FY 2022 SB Goal of 42% versus FY 2023 SB Goals of 38%. In addition, on page 1 of the J-28, the government states “A subcontracting Plan is required if the estimated cost of the contract may exceed $700,000 ($1,500,000 for construction) Small businesses are excluded.” and under item 5. Flow-down Clause, $700,000 should read $750,000 in accordance with FAR 19.702 statutory requirements.

Offerors shall edit J-28 as needed in order to comply with the language of the RFP. Note, where attachments disagree with RFP language, the language of the RFP governs.

8. [Attachment J-28] It’s a common practice for a company’s DCMA approved Master Subcontracting Plan (MSA) to include references to its Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) as an Attachment. To be compliant with both company’s approved DCMA MSA and the DoS RFP requirement in L.18.2, can an Offeror substitute Attachment J-28 with its own SBSP form?

The Offeror may submit an SBSP form along with J-28; however, J-28 must also be completed. The SBSP may not replace J-28.

9. [Attachments J-15, J-17, J-19, J-21, J-22] There are two different places for rater signature; on the first page and the very bottom of the form. The check boxes in the rating tables are symbols that can’t be checked electronically. The rating scale of 1-5 at the bottom is not configured for electronic submission. POCs may have issues if they are asked print this out, sign and scan.

Recommendation: Clarify which signature block to use and clarify that the scoring elements can be modified to enable electronic completion. The other option is to provide forms that can be electronically completed.

Offerors may add e-signature blocks and fill-ins to help customers complete the PPQ form(s) electronically. This may be achieved by a number of methods. One example is to print the document to .pdf and using the edit/fill and sign/digital signature options. The RFP will be updated to show that the PPQ may be submitted in either MS Word (native file type) or .pdf for clarity.

10. [L.19] The Q&A removed all STO pricing, yet Section L.19 still requires a STO price narrative and submission of STO pricing table, which creates a potential compliance issue. We recommend removing these conflicting instructions from L.19.

This will be removed at the next amendment.

11. In Amendment 1, DOS stated, "C.9.3 and C.9.4 have been added as sub-capabilities for application development (FC3) under RFP section L.13.2." However, the J-20 REP and J-21 PPQ for FC3 have not been updated to include the two additional sub-capabilities, meaning that Offerors cannot properly document the qualifications for this scoring element in our submission to Symphony. Are Offerors permitted to edit these documents to include the missing sub-capabilities?

Yes, the form may be edited to include the missing sub-capabilities.

12. Amendment 1 Q&A 858 indicates that Offerors may include a CO or COR signature to indicate validation of items that cannot otherwise be verified with unsigned documentation. Will DOS be updating these forms in line with this new instruction? Or should Offerors add an additional signature page our CO or COR may sign that includes the information we are asking them to verify?

The form may be modified to allow for electronic text entry and signatures as needed. Validating signatures will not count towards the page limit.

13. [L.13.2(c), Q&A #93, Symphony (My Company > Business Factors)] Symphony asks offerors to select either CMMI Development or Services, but not both. If an Offeror has both CMMI Development and Services, and Q&A #93 discusses both. How can Offerors indicate and upload both in Symphony?

Only one CMMI entry may be claimed for self-scoring points. Question 93 states Dev may be submitted “in lieu of” Services. This means “one or the other”.