47QFHA24R0001_2nd Draft Solicitation Vendor Questions-Comments and Responses.pdf

Section/Page #/Tab/Attachment

Section Sort

Question Response

Attachment 1, PRISM PWS, General Attach 1

The PRISM PWS appears to cover only the P&R Pool. Does the Government intend to incorporate a separate PWS for the MDoDS Pool? Covers both

Attachment 1, PRISM PWS, 7.5, Page 5 Attach 1

This section states: “Place of performance - Primary place(s) of performance will be Government facilities (estimated 75%); and Contractor facilities (estimated 25%).

Contractor shall complete tasks at Government and Contractor facilities in the National Capitol Region, and other locations directed by the DRRS Implementation Office on a case-by-case basis.”

Will the Government confirm that while 75% of the work will be performed in Government facilities, 75% of the work does not have to be performed in the National Capital Region (NCR)?

Depends on requirement

Attachment 1, PRISM PWS, Tasks 3 - 14 and corresponding sub-tasks, Pages 45-91 Attach 1

PRISM PWS Tasks 3-14 and corresponding sub-tasks are not reflective of non-P&R Seed Task requirements. A few examples include: cleaning up Unliquidated Obligations (ULO) for P&R contracts, requiring Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS) access, assisting P&R with audit material weakness remediation, providing P&R with Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE)/Program Objective Memorandum (POM) inputs, assisting P&R with closing out old contracts, etc. Will the Government update the PRISM tasks to eliminate requirements unrelated to non-P&R Seed Tasks? No

Attachment 1, PRISM PWS, 11.3.6, Page 50 Attach 1

This section states: “SUBTASK 6: Program Advisory & Transformation Services

1. The Contractor shall support the phases of business processes and operations including transformation, transition, analysis, integration, communication, and all lines of effort within a given P&R agency/directorate and across relevant stakeholders using commercially grounded approaches, methodologies, and solutions. When applicable, fuse institutional Department of Defense knowledge with relevant commercial experience to enhance and drive innovative strategies, techniques, and business process to close the divide between government and the private.”

Would the Government consider the following language to improve the quality of responses:

“1. The Contractor shall support the phases of business processes and operations, including transformation, transition, analysis, integration, communication, and all lines of effort within a given P&R agency/directorate and across relevant stakeholders using grounded approaches, methodologies, and solutions. When applicable, fuse institutional Department of Defense knowledge with relevant commercial experience to enhance and drive innovative strategies, techniques, and business process to close the divide between Government and the private.”

No

Attachment 12 Cost Pricing Template Attach 12

Rather than having the base year rate calculate as a SUM of the Direct and Indirect rates, can the Gov’t modify the calculation to how offerors would calculate a fully burdened labor rate? No

Attachment 15: Small Business

Subcontracting Plan Sample Subfactor 4:

Small Business Participation Plan Attach 15

PRISM MATOC DRAFT RFP Page 49 references Attachment 15 under item J.24, but the attachment is not included. Please provide. Please also provide the template for the Small Business Participation Plan, and clarify if these requirements should be addressed in a separate Volume in the Proposal response.

See final RFP Attachment 15: Small

Business Subcontracting Plan

Sample Attach 15

PRISM MATOC DRAFT RFP Page 49 references Attachment 15 under item J.24, but the attachment is not included. Please provide.

See final RFP

DEAMS PWS; 1.6.11.2

Personnel DEAMS PWS

We request the Government replace the 10 years of AF DEAMS experience in the Key Personnel requirements to 10 years Oracle EBS or 10 years DoD Financial Management accordingly. The requirement, as stated, limits competition to the incumbent. See final RFP

DEAMS PWS; 1.6.11.2

Personnel DEAMS PWS

If a vendor is unable to meet the TO Key Staffing Requirements, is it considered a non-compliant proposal?

Must meet the requirements for

Key Personnel for the MATOC Pool of interest or all KP if competing for both pools

Draft RFP Questions – Comments and Responses.pdf

Answer: “We had discussed that the contractors may be excused from only one or two task orders before they become “dormant”

Draft RFP Q&A

REsponses

Will the government please consider the Small Business hardship to reply to all Task Orders throughout the contract and not require a response to all but one or two task orders before a contractor becomes dormant.

See final RFP

General General

Are vendors required to respond to all Task Orders (TOs) issued by their associated pool (e.g. MDoDS or P&R) or is there an option to no-bid TOs?

Option to "No Bid" up to 3 times a year.

General General

The size requirements that define a small business have differed between the draft PWS documents. Will the Government please clarify the size/$$ requirements for a Small Business prior to the final solicitation? See final RFP

General General

The change in scope of the DRRS Pool from DRRS related systems to the much broader field of Major Department of Defense Systems has significant impact on the Corporate Experience and Past Performance requirements in Section M of the solicitation. Request the Government confirm the intent to expand the scope of “similar systems” from systems similar to DRRS and/or DEAMS to any Major Department of Defense System that is relevant to the MATOC and/or Task Order requirements? See final RFP

General General

Does an offeror need to prove they can perform the overarching Personnel and Readiness Infrastructure Support Management (PRISM) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) work before they can bid on any specific Pool and/or Seed? Specifically, Subfactor 3 of the Technical Approach may not map directly to work being performed in Seed Task Orders.

Seeds will be evaluated after Base Awardees are selected.

General General

For the overarching MATOC level, the Corporate Experience is highly specific to the Task Orders. Considering the Pools are substantially different in the scope of work, will the Government consider leveraging Corporate Experience at the MATOC level to include aspects related to the ability to manage a large multiple Task Order contracts and additionally evaluate Corporate Experience at the Pool and Task Order level based on relevant factors to the specific Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS)? No

General General

The scope of the PRISM PWS seems to be inconsistent with the scope of the included Task Order PWSs. For example:

Subfactor 3 does not appear to be an appropriate evaluation criteria at the MATOC level.

PRISM PWS Security Requirements vary from Task Order PWS requirements.

PRISM PWS deliverable/contract management tasks (e.g., Monthly Technical Meetings, Project Management Plans, Engineering and Security Task, Health Services) differ from Task Order PWSs.

Will the Government consider aligning the evaluation criteria as follows?

At the MATOC level to include aspects related to the ability to manage large multiple Task Order contracts, key personnel résumés of the PRISM Contractor Program Manager (PCPM) and PRISM Contractor Contracts Manager (PCCM), etc.

At the Task Order/Pool level to evaluate Corporate Experience, Past Performance, Task Order Key Personnel, etc.

At the Pool and Task Order level based on relevant factors to the specific Task Order PWS. No

Section - B.1.4 Section B4

Contract Type section states that PRISM will allow for FFP, CPFF, and cost reimburseable type contracts at the task order level. DEAMS TO Price template shows T&M Labor CLINS for Surge Support. Please clarify the contradicting contract types. Will be corrected.

Section C., Page 7 Section C

This section lists seven relevant PWS attachments. The support Office of the Executive Director (OXD) Seed PWS is listed as Attachment 3 in this section;

however, it is labeled in the draft documents as Attachment 6. Please confirm this is a typo and an attachment is not missing. See final RFP

Section G.3.1 Small Busines Subcontracting

Plan Section G

Please clarify the governments Small Business Subcontracting goals.

Page 22 of 105 (G.3.1) states Subcontracting Goals as SB 22%, SDB 10.57%, HUBZone 3%, SDVOSB 3%, and WOSB 5%; however Page 89 of 105 – Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation Plan – the government states small business subcontracting goals are SB 30% and SDB 5%. 30% and 5%

Section G.3.1 Small Busines Subcontracting

Plan Section G

Will the government please confirm for the PRISM MATOC (Base Contract Vehicle) that OTSB Offererors should use an estimate of anticipated award based on the MATOC Vehicle Minimum Guarantee (B.1.5) page 5 of 105 of $1,000,000,000 for the development of SB Subcontracting Plan participation goals. For a MATOC IDIQ, pricing cannot be determined to estimate SB % of participation until all cumulative TO awards are received.

Minimum guarantee is

$2,500. MATOC

Capacity is $1.8B

Section G.2.4., Page 20 Section G2

Please clarify whether key personnel in this context is just the PCPM or PCCM and not all the key personnel listed on the DEAMS effort?

Key Personnel is listed in section

M.

Section G.3.1 SB Goals

(p.22) Section G3 The small business goals in Section G.3.1 (p.22) differ from the small business goals in Subfactor 4 (p.89), can the Government clarify? See final RFP

Section G.3.1 and M.3.4, Pages 22 and 89 Section G3

Subcontracting goals defined in Section G.3.1 differ from those in Section M.3.4.

Please clarify. See final RFP

Section H.16 Section H16 Sections H.16 and H.17 are missing from solicitation. Both sections are referend in Section G.3 (p22) and Section H.13 (p32). corrected.

Section H.4.1 Section H4

Will the government consider the use of NAICS code 541519 Other Computer Related Services which seems more relevant to the scope of this vehicle vs NAICS code 541715 Research and Development. No

Section H.4.1, Page 27 Section H4 Would the government consider adding NAICS 541211 (Office of CPAs) for future Task Order flexibility? No

Section H.6.5, Page 29 Section H6

Please confirm that offerors may propose commercial item subcontractors on a Time and Materials (T&M)/Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) basis and any subcontractors approved at the proposal phase will be considered approved/accepted for contract performance?

No T&M in this requirement.

Section H.6.6, Page 29 Section H6

This section states: “if applicable.”

Is this section applicable to all Task Orders? See final RFP

Section K 52.204-8 Section K This reference is for NAICS 541519. Please advise if the government intends to use this code as suggested in the previous question. No

Section L.2, 52.216-1 – Type of Contract (APR

1984), Page 68 Section L2

52.216-1 – Type of Contract (APR 1984) Pg 73 of 113 The Government contemplates award of a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), and Cost Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) hybrid contract resulting from this solicitation. Will the Government consider T&M / Labor Hours for any Task Orders? No

Section L.3 Pg 73-82 Section L3

The government has not indicated anywhere in the Proposal instructions or Volumes where the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (G.3.1) and/or Small Business Participation Plan (Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation Plan) are to be address.

Please address instructions, Volume Number, Subfactors, etc., and provide clear instructions for the content to address these two items. Please consider “No Page Limit” to address tables, supportive document artifacts, or other information that will need to be included in this section.

SB Participation and

Subcontracting Plan should be addressed IAW

Subfactor 4

Section L.3.5 Section L3

This reference twice cites Monday, 4 December 2023 as the required submission date for questions vs that which is listed in SAM (Friday, 22 December, 2023). No action

Section L.3., Page 73 Section L3

This section states: “One MATOC consisting of two (2) Pools (P&R Pool) and (MDoDS Pool) will result from this solicitation. Offerors may compete for more than one MATOC Pool; however, the Offeror will be required to submit a separate proposal for each Pool.”

Please confirm offerors may submit a proposal for only one of the two Pools. Correct.

Section L.4 Section L4

Proposal Format Volume 3 0 Tab D: DEAMS Seed Task Order and Volume 6 - Cost/Price: MDoDS DEAMS seed Price Spreadsheet. Please advise how this volume correlates with those detailed in sections M.7-10, Volumes 1-4 See final RFP

Section L.4, p.75 Section L4 Is the offeror required to respond to the DEAMS Seed Task Order for a P&R Pool submission? No

Section L.4, p.75 Section L4 Is the offeror required to provide a price spreadsheet for each seed listed at TABs B through F for each Pool? No

Section L.4, p.75 Section L4 Will the Government indicate which seed price spreadsheets are required for the P&R Pool and which are required for the MDoDS Pool? See final RFP

Section L.4, p.75 Section L4

The proposal format section indicates that the DEAMS Seed Task Order is a tab in Volume 3. However, the DEAMS Task Order Award Proposal Formatting section (p.77) indicates a separate submission with four Volumes. Does the government intend to require separate proposals for each task order that includes MATOC level information or one MATOC proposal and sub responses for each pool and task order? See final RFP

Section L.4., Page 75, 98-100 Section L4

Please confirm the proposal format (i.e., six volumes) provided in this section applies to each Pool-level proposal response. If so, offerors intending to bid only on the Personnel and Readiness (P&R) Pool would have to address the DEAMS Seed Task Order, which falls under the Major Department of Defense Systems (MDoDS) Pool. See final RFP

Section L.4. and M.6, Pages 75 and 96 Section L4

Section L.4., Volume 6 shows Tabs A through F; however, Section M.6 only identifies evaluation of Tabs A through D. Please clarify whether Tabs E and F will also be part of the pricing evaluation. See final RFP

Section L.4., Page 75 Section L4

This section states: “All proposal documents shall be in Adobe (.pdf) format, except for the Cost/Price Template - Attachment 12, shall be in Microsoft Office Excel - 2007 (.xls) format.”

Please confirm price templates for Seed Task Orders required in Section L.4. (i.e., Volume 6, Tabs B through F) are also to be provided in Excel format. See final RFP

Section L.4., L.5.1.1, Pages 75-76 Section L4

This section states: “Proposal submissions shall not be locked, encrypted, or otherwise contain barriers to opening.”

However, Section L.5.1.1 states: “All documents provided by the offeror shall be labeled as CUI//SP-SSEL//FEDCON in the top of the document and CUI in the file name.”

Since offerors must encrypt Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) files, will the Government either provide a Department of Defense (DoD) Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) link or otherwise confirm that offerors WILL be considered compliant if they password-protect/encrypt files marked CUI?

Encrypting not required

Section L.4., L.5.1.1, Pages 75, 77 Section L4

Section L.5 states, "This Volume SHALL NOT INCLUDE TECHNICAL OR PRICING INFORMATION." However, in Section L.5.1.1., MATOC AWARD PROPOSAL FORMATTING, Tab D, CLIN prices are required. Please clarify. See final RFP

Section L.5 Volume 1 - General Section L5

Reference the citation: This volume should be clearly marked “VOLUME I - GENERAL, RFP 47QFHA24R0001". If a vendor is bidding the MDoDS Pool, please advise if the General section should use the PRISM P&R POOL solicitation number cited or the MDoDS Pool #47QFHA24R000X. See final RFP

Section L.5.1.1, Formatting Guidelines, Page 76 Section L5

Will the Government confirm no headings and/or content are missing from the solicitation between Section L.5.1.1 and the “Formatting Guidelines” section? The requirements go from detailing the requirements of Volume I - General, SF 33 (Section L.5.1.1) to describing high-level formatting guidelines and then MATOC award proposal formatting. See final RFP

Section L.5.1.1, Formatting Guidelines, Page 76 Section L5

This section states: “The non-price portion shall be organized to correspond with the contract Statement of Work and submitted in an 8½-in X 11-in format using 12-point Times New Roman type and 1-in margins.”

Please confirm header/footer information (e.g., labeling information, page numbers) may be included within the 1-inch margins and include a smaller font size than 12-point. See final RFP

Section L.5.1.1, “MATOC AWARD

PROPOSAL

FORMATTING” and

“DEAMS TASK ORDER

AWARD PROPOSAL

FORMATTING,” Pages 77-78 Section L5

The "MATOC AWARD PROPOSAL FORMATTING" section includes a description of requirements for Volume I only and then the section describes requirements for the "DEAMS TASK ORDER AWARD PROPOSAL FORMATTING." Please clarify whether the information required in the "DEAMS TASK ORDER AWARD PROPOSAL FORMATTING" section should be included elsewhere under Tab D in Volume 3 (in Section L.7)? If not, please clarify.

See final RFP

Section L.5.1.1, "DEAMS TASK ORDER

AWARD PROPOSAL

FORMATTING", Pages

77-78 Section L5

Instructions are provided for a Task Order proposal only for DEAMS. Please confirm if this is the only Seed Proposal response offerors are to submit.

Other seed task orders will be included within the solicitation.

Section L.5.1.1, "DEAMS TASK ORDER

AWARD PROPOSAL

FORMATTING", Pages

77-78 Section L5

In order to demonstrate technical capability so the Government can select the highest-quality offer, we respectfully request the Government consider increasing page count for offerors to provide the necessary technical information. Considering the highest evaluation criteria is the Technical Approach, it is in the Government’s best interest to allow offerors the opportunity to provide full context of their technical approach. We recommend the Government consider adjusting the page count of this section to 30 pages to allow offerors to fully define their technical approach, affording the Government full transparency into the knowledge, approach, and capabilities of the offerors. See final RFP

Section L.7, pg 81 Section L7 The Government indicates 3 evaluation factors but lists 4 TABs (A-D). Is the TAB D:

MDoDS DEAMS Seed Task Order an evaluation factor for both Pools? No

Section L.7., Page 77 Section L7

This section states: “Technical Proposals are divided into three (3) Evaluation Factors.”

However, four tabs are included (Tabs A-D). Please confirm this is a typo and should read “four (4) evaluation factors.” See final RFP

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Small

Business Plan/Small Business Participation

Plan, Pg 83-105 Section M

The government references Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation Plan (Tab A4) on page 89 of 105 under M.3.4 Technical Approach (page 86 of 105), but makes no mention of Subfactor 4 OR G.3.1 Subcontracting Plan in Proposal Content, Section L.3. Also, please clarify the Tab A4 Reference – Tabs are not mentioned in the instructions. Please clarify if the Government intends for the SB Plan and SB Participation Plan to be included in a Separate Volume, and provide clear instructions. See final RFP

Section M, Page 83 Section M

Will the Government clarify the following with regard to evaluation:

Will the proposal submission be evaluated for the purposes of awarding at MATOC Pool level only?

Will Seed Task Orders be awarded along with the MATOC Pools? Please clarify the role of the Seed Task Order information submitted with this proposal.

Yes, seed task orders will be awarded along with the MATOC

Pools.

Section M.1, Page 83 Section M1

This section states: “The Offeror will be evaluated in accordance with Preparation, Submission, and Negotiation of Subcontracting Plans.”

Will the Government confirm this is in reference to General Services Administration (GSA) Clause 552.219–72? If not, please clarify. See final RFP

Section M.1, Page 83 Section M1

This section states: “Offerors must identify which pool (PRISM P&R Pool, or PRISM MDoDS Pool) for which their technical and price proposals are being submitted.”

Will the Government confirm this information should be included in Volume 1, Tab A - Transmittal Letter? If not, please clarify. See final RFP

Section M.10, Pages 104-105

Section M10

Please clarify whether the completed DEAMS Price template should be included as part of the requirements in Section M.10 or as part of the MATOC submission defined in Section M.6 (Volume 6, Tab D). For DEAMS

Section M.3.4 Technical Approach, Subfactor 3 Section M3

Subfactor 3: Management Approach to Critical MDoDS (DRRS or similar MDoDS).

This vendor requests the addition of the DEAMS program as a reference point. Thus stating: (DRRS, DEAMS or similar MDoDS). See final RFP

M.3.5 Key Personnel & M7 Volume 1 DEAMS

Staffing Plan Section M3

Please advise if the Key Personnel required for DEAMS staffing also apply to the M.3.5 Key personnel positions. See final RFP

Section M.3.6 Corporate Experience

(Tab C) Section M3

Major Defense of Defense Systems Pool. Please globally replaces the reference to (DRRS or similar MDoDS) to (DRRS, DEAMS or similar MDoDS). See final RFP

Section M.3, pg 86 Section M3

Is there a standard format for submitting a Voluntary Removal of Fair Opportunity Response (VRFOR)?

Will provide prior to proposal due date

Section M.3, pg 87 Section M3

Does the Government intend for the offeror to tailor their technical approach to all PWSs listed in Section C (p.7) or just the PRISM MATOC Attachment 1_PWS? No

Section M.3, pg 87 Section M3 Is Subfactor 3, Management Approach to Critical MDoDS (DRRS or similar MDoDS) Function Areas required for a P&R Pool submission? MDoDS Pool

Section M.3.4, Page 86- 91 Section M3

Please confirm that the evaluation criteria for Factor 1 - Technical Approach and Factor 2 - Key Personnel apply regardless of the Pool offerors plan to bid. For example, Factor 3 - Corporate Experience has separate evaluation criteria applicable to the P&R Pool vs. the MDoDS Pool. However, Factors 1 and 2 appear to have only one set of evaluation criteria applicable to both Pools. Yes.

Section M.3.4, Subfactor 3, Page 87 Section M3

This subfactor references only MDoDS; please confirm this is to be addressed in the proposal for both Pools. MDoDS Pool

Section M.3.5, Pages 89-91 Section M3

The PWS tasks included under both Pools cover a wide array of work, with each requiring separate and unique capability and experience requirements in order to successfully deliver.

As an example, under the P&R Pool, the corporate capability and personnel experience required to successfully support Task 3 - Program Business Operations (e.g., audit support) differs vastly from the capability and personnel experience required to successfully support Task 5 - Operations and Security. As a result, the wide array of tasks, combined with the Government’s intent to only provide three large business and small business awards, will limit the Government’s ability to acquire specialized support services in each of the PWS areas when procuring at the Task Order level. For example, an award would likely be made to a large offeror that has the experience supporting all PWS tasks in a limited capacity and not making awards to offerors specializing in one or more PWS tasks (i.e., lacking the capability and experience to cover ALL PWS tasks). This approach significantly increases the risk of unsuccessful performance at the Task Order level, as awardees may lack specialized capabilities and experienced personnel depending on the PWS task.

Noted.

Section M.3.6, Pages 91-95 Section M3

This section states: “*Note: Additional credit will be giving for corporate experience in the below functional arears that includes experience with TDLs, Multi-Tenant and Cost type contracting...”

Will the Government consider removing this requirement as these areas not relevant to DEAMS? No

Section M.3.6, Pages 91-95 Section M3

Will the Government confirm that offerors may use projects more than once across each Pool subcategory if applicable (e.g., same project used under MDoDS Pool, 1.

Major Defense of Defense Systems Sustainment, 2. Major Defense of Defense Systems Modernization, and 3. Major Defense of Defense Systems Life Cycle Support)? Yes.

Section M.3.6., Page 93 Section M3 Does Government intend to apply “extra credit” at the MDoDS Pool level even if the requirements do not apply to all Seeds?

Bid it as you see it.

Section M.4.1, Page 96 Section M4

Please confirm the following related to Past Performance:

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) may be included in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), if available.

PRISM PPQs are to be sent directly to the Government from the client (i.e., not with the offeror’s proposal).

Additional narrative may be provided in this volume to further demonstrate recency, relevancy, and quality. Confirmed

Section M.4.1, 1., Page 96 Section M4

This section states: “To be recent must have been completed within the last ten (10) years of issuance of this solicitation or is ongoing but substantially complete (90% or more complete. *Note, a Narrative is required to show that a project is 90% or more complete. A failure to provide a narrative may result in the record being determined to be Not Recent).”

Will the Government instead consider projects that are at least 50% complete? 90% will limit the ongoing projects an offeror can utilize.

Will the Government consider reducing “last ten (10) years” to “last seven (7) years” to improve recency and relevancy of performance of the offeror? No

Section M.4.1, Page 97 Section M4

Given the complexity of the current Task Order’s PWSs, would the Government consider changing the required evaluation rating from “neutral” to “adjectival ratings based on the evaluation chart” to require offerors to present relevant and recent past performances and corporate experience? No

Section M.3.5, Pages 89-91 Section M5

Please confirm that all key personnel labor categories listed are applicable to both the P&R and MDoDS Pools. For example, several of the labor categories including the Senior (Sr.) Software Engineers, Sr. Systems Engineers, Sr. Network Engineers, and Sr. Database Administrators require a Bachelor’s degree in a relevant field of study (e.g., Engineering, Computer Science); however, the P&R Pool includes several unrelated PWS requirements, including budget formulation, policies and procedures development, audit support, and manpower and Human Resources (HR) support, and PWS tasks requiring a multitude of completely separate experience and education requirements.

The Pools are substantially different in the scope of work. The Government should consider evaluating the appropriateness of the requested Key Personnel Labor Categories based on the specific requirements of the Pool and/or Task Order:

The Government should consider leveraging the PCPM and PCCM as the only Key Personnel at the MATOC level. The Key Personnel requirement should be at the Pool or Task Order level. Key Personnel within each Pool or Task Order should be evaluated based the skillsets needed to perform the specific work.

In its current state, the PRISM PWS incorporates a multitude of key personnel requirements that may not be necessary to execute the work required in the current PWSs and future Task Orders selected for this contract vehicle. See final RFP

Section M.5., Page 98 Section M5

Please confirm:

The Government does not intend to give more favorable consideration to offerors with Systems (Purchasing and Estimating), Certifications, and Clearances, as it is not a requirement for the DEAMS Seed response.

With regards to Forward Pricing or Approved Rates, if Task Orders are non-flexibly (e.g. FFP / T&M) priced, these requirements do not apply.

May apply if negotiaitons are required.

Section M.6, EVALUATION

FACTORS, Page 101 Section M6

The “EVALUATION FACTORS” section starting on page 101 includes a discussion of evaluation for DEAMS information only. Please clarify: 1) whether these factors are to be addressed in a DEAMS Seed proposal separately, as well as in the DEAMS Seed response required in Section L.4, Volume 3, Tab D on page 75, or 2) if these factors define the requirements of the DEAMS Seed response required in Section L.4, Volume 3, Tab D on page 75. See final RFP

Section M.6, EVALUATION

FACTORS, Page 101 Section M6

Please confirm this description of the DEAMS Seed proposal evaluation should fall under Section M.3.1 instead of M.6. as it currently does. See final RFP

Section M.7, Factor 1, d., Page 101 Section M7

This section states: “See ‘Method of Evaluation Rating Definitions - Factors 1 & 2’”

This section does not exist. Please clarify. See final RFP

Section M.7., Factor 1 - Staffing Plan, a., Page

101 Section M7

This section states: “The Offeror shall redact/black out names of any proposed key personnel in their proposal submission and on the resumes submitted for any proposed key personnel.”

Has the Government considered having full transparency into the composition of the offerors’ teams to ensure individuals bid in responses reflect the team composition at the time of delivery/kick-off (i.e. unredacted resumes)?

In addition, will the Government consider leveraging signed letters of commitment from the individuals proposed? See final RFP

Section M.8, Factor 2, e., Page 101 Section M8

This section states: “Technical Capability will be evaluated and assigned a rating from the chart below…”

There is no chart in this section. Please include an evaluation rating chart referenced within the documents for the DEAMS PWS. See final RFP

Section M.9, Page 103 Section M9 Please confirm these past performance requirements are separate and in addition to the past performance requirements detailed in Sections L.8 and M.4. See final RFP

G.2.4 versus G.2.4.1 and G.2.4.2 number 6 / beginning on page 20 Section G2

G.2.4 states no costs for Contractor Key Personnel may be billed to the PRISM Program Office; however, G.2.4.1 and G.2.4.2 number 6 states the Government is willing to fund a COPM or COCM for 480 hours with active task orders. Request G.2.4 and G.2.4.1/G.2.4.2 be synced Corrected

Section I, 52.212-5 page 41 Section I

This FAR clause is terms and conditions for commercial products and services. This procurement was deemed to be non-commercial so request this be removed.

Clause included for rare instance that we may have something that needs to be deemed commercial

Section L Section L

The DRAFT solicitation refers to page counts in several places; however, the DRAFT solicitation does not specify page limitations for any volume. Does the Government intend to provide page limitations, particularly with respect to the Technical Volume? Included

L.5.1.1 SF33 page 76 Section L5

Under this heading for the SF33, there are formatting guidelines. Do these formatting guidelines apply to the entire proposal or just the SF33. If the former, suggest moving to paragraph outside of the SF33 instructions Yes

L.5.1.1 SF33 Page 77 DEAMS task order award proposal formatting Section L5

This is included under the header L.5 Volume I – does this mean all the DEAMS TO response should be included in Volume I? If not suggest moving to its own section.

See final RFP

L.5.1.2, L.5.1.3, L.5.1.4 Section L5

These sections are all under the main section of L.5 which is Volume I but not listed in TAB listing. Should a response to each of these paragraphs, if applicable, be included in Volume I for the MATOC following TAB F? Should they each be their own tab? Included

L.5.1.1 Tab C Section L5

For the MATOC this requires Reps and Certs to be included in Volume I; however, L.6.1.1 also requires reps and certs to be included in Volume II. Please confirm reps and certs are to be included in two volumes. Volume I

Page 77 DEAMS task order award proposal formatting Section L5

This contains instructions DEAMS task order award proposal formatting and these instructions are under Volume I; however, the instructions for Volume 3 (page 80 –

81) notes Tab D is to be the MDoDS DEAMS seed Task Order. Are all the items beginning on page 77 for DEAMS to be included in Volume 3 or Volume 1?

See final RFP

L.7/M.3.4 Section L7

Section L.7 does not provide any instructions with respect to what should be addressed in the offeror’s technical approach other than pointing to Section M.

Section M.3.4 states that “The offeror shall tailor the technical approach to achieve the requirements as identified in Section C” which in turn points to the Draft PWS. See final RFP

L.8, 79 Section L8

“the offeror shall provide a copy of this rating with their proposal”. Please clarify if GSA is requesting offerors to provide their CPAR ratings only for each corporate experience submission (if it has a CPAR) and NOT the entire CPAR. For Corp. Ex.

L.9m 81 Section L9

So it is not left up to interpretation of what evidence is to be provided, please provide the specific references to Section H of what systems, certifications and clearances are to be provided. Included

L.10.3, 82 Section L10

Requires all percentages and rates to be rounded to decimal places. As some indirect rates / FCCM rates would be greater than 2 decimal places, this may create rounding errors. The answer in the latest round stated rounding to 2 decimal places will suffice; however, some rates are greater than 2 decimals.

Requirement remain

M.1 Pg 83 Section M1

This states the evaluation factor for Volume I is whether or not the accounting system is approved; however, the accounting system approval letter is required to be included in Volume 3 not Volume I.

Required if you don't have an approved system

M.1 Pg 83 Section M1

This states the evaluation factor for Volume I is an acceptable subcontracting plan;

however the subcontracting plan is being evaluated as part of the technical evaluation (reference page 89). Corrected

M.3.1 Page 84, #6 Section M3 This states “failure to find or negotiate” – will negotiations be conducted? See final RFP

M.3.3 page 85 Section M3 Is this provided for information purposes for how future TOs will be evaluated? If not, please provide what will be evaluated per this section. See final RFP

M.3.5 factor 3 versus G.2 Section M3

M.3.5 factor 3 is key personnel. As defined in Section G.2, the key personnel are the Prism contract manager and prism program manager. However, this evaluation factor notes additional key personnel. Please reconcile which positions are considered key personnel and which will be evaluated for the MATOC. See final RFP

M.3.5 pg 88 Section M3

As this is a MATOC, offerors will not be able to provide a letter of commitment for each key personnel for 5 years as there may not be task orders released requiring those positions and companies would not be able to keep all those positions employed full time without a task order requiring them. Recommend for the MATOC level, only the Program manager be considered key and key personnel can be evaluated at the TO level. The answer to the latest question states this is for subcontractors; however that is not clear in M.3.5 See final RFP

Page 98 Seed Task Order price Proposals Section M6

Are offerors required to provide only pricing for these referenced TOs? Yes Page 98 Seed Task

Order price Proposals Section M6 What Pool will these seed TOs be awarded under? See final RFP

Page 98 Seed Task Order price Proposals Section M6

Are these sample task orders or will they be awarded with the MATOC award?

Seed task orders to be awarded with the MATOC

Page 100 Tab D Section M6

This notes Tab D of the price volume is DEAMS Seed task order and provides instructions for each DEAMS volume within that task order response. It is unclear if the DEAMS Seed task order response should be in the Technical Volume or the price Volume. Recommend the Government make this task order response its own separate set of files as it is confusing where the information is to be included or evaluated See final RFP

Attachment 1, 11.7.10 and 11.8.10 Attach 1

The PRISM PWS remains unchanged, and its specificity to the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) excludes DEAMS and other MDODS. Will the Government expand the scope of Tasks 7 and 8 to MDODS including DEAMS? Covers it.

Attachment 10 CLIN XX20 Attach 10

This CLIN has a contract access fee which is associated with OASIS. Suggest removing. Removed

Attachment 10 CLINS Attach 10 These do not match Section B CLINs. How do they correlate? See final RFP

Attachment 12 Cell B7 Attach 12 This is titled “PRISM P&R Labor categories” are there different labor categories for the “MDoDS” Pool? See final RFP

Attachment 12, Row 5 and the tab title, Att 6

Excel Template Attach 12 Refers to Government site With the final, please provide tab for Contractor site

See final RFP

Local GSA Clause – Electronic Submission through ITSS of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports page

15 versus DFARS 252.223-7006 page 17 Clauses

Please chose one way to submit invoices either through ASSIST or through WAWF.

Through ASSIST

G.3.1 & M.3.4 Section G3

Section G.3.1 notes a Small Business Goal of 22% and an SDB Goal of 10.57%

Section M.3.4 Subfactor 4 notes a Small Business Goal of 30% and an SDB Goal of 5%

Will the Government please clarify the Small Business Subcontracting Goal? See final RFP

L.4; M.7; M.8; M.9 Section L

L.4. Proposal Format, Volume 3 – Technical Proposal requires offerors to submit the DEAMS Seed Task Order as Tab D.

Sections M.7 – M.9 require Offerors to submit the following as a part of Tab D:

DEEMS Seed Task Order:

Volume 1 DEAMS Staffing Plan Factor 1 - Staffing Plan

a. Key Personnel (TAB A)

b. Retention Plan (TAB C)

c. Staffing Labor Mix/Level of Effort (TAB C)

Volume 2 DEAMS Technical Capabilities Factor 2 - Technical Capabilities Cost Control Method (TAB A) Technical Approach to Audit Support and Readiness (TAB B) Training Plan (TAB B) Communication Plan (TAB C)

Volume 3 DEAMS Past Performance Factor 3 - Past Performance

Is it the Government’s intent, that within Volume 3 – Technical Proposal, that Offerors submit three additional volumes as a part Tab D: DEAMS Seed Task Order? See final RFP

L.4; M.7; M.8; M.9 Section L4

L.4. Proposal Format, Volume 3 – Technical Proposal requires offerors to submit the DEAMS Seed Task Order as Tab D.

Sections M.7 – M.9 require Offerors to submit the following as a part of Tab D:

DEEMS Seed Task Order:

Volume 1 DEAMS Staffing Plan Factor 1 - Staffing Plan

a. Key Personnel (TAB A)

b. Retention Plan (TAB C)

c. Staffing Labor Mix/Level of Effort (TAB C)

Volume 2 DEAMS Technical Capabilities Factor 2 - Technical Capabilities Cost Control Method (TAB A) Technical Approach to Audit Support and Readiness (TAB B) Training Plan (TAB B) Communication Plan (TAB C)

Volume 3 DEAMS Past Performance Factor 3 - Past Performance

Will the Government please clarify the requirements for Volume 3 – Technical Proposal, Tab D: DEAMS Seed Task Order? See final RFP

L.4; M.7; M.8; M.9 Section L4

L.4. Proposal Format, Volume 3 – Technical Proposal requires offerors to submit the DEAMS Seed Task Order as Tab D.

Sections M.7 – M.9 require Offerors to submit the following as a part of Tab D:

DEEMS Seed Task Order:

Volume 1 DEAMS Staffing Plan Factor 1 - Staffing Plan

a. Key Personnel (TAB A)

b. Retention Plan (TAB C)

c. Staffing Labor Mix/Level of Effort (TAB C)

Volume 2 DEAMS Technical Capabilities Factor 2 - Technical Capabilities Cost Control Method (TAB A) Technical Approach to Audit Support and Readiness (TAB B) Training Plan (TAB B) Communication Plan (TAB C)

Volume 3 DEAMS Past Performance Factor 3 - Past Performance

Is it the Government’s intent that all offerors respond to Tab D: DEAMS Seed Task Order regardless of the Pool being bid? No

L.4; M.4.1; M.7; M.8;

M.9 Section L4

L.4. Proposal Format, Volume 3 – Technical Proposal requires offerors to submit the DEAMS Seed Task Order as Tab D.

Section M.9. Volume 3 DEAMS Past Performance states that “Offeror shall submit narrative documentation of up to three (3) previous or current contracts/task orders that are relevant to this RFP.”

Under sub bullet (b) DRFP states “For current or ongoing contracts/task orders, the contract/task order shall be in place for at least one (1) year from the closing date of this RFP;”

These instructions appear to conflict with the evaluation criteria provided M.4.1 for Volume 4 - Past Performance, which states “To be recent must have been completed within the last ten (10) years of issuance of this solicitation or is ongoing but substantially complete (90% or more complete)”

Is it the Government’s intent that offerors provide three additional past performance references as a part of Tab D: DEAMS Seed Order, Volume 3 Past Performance, separate from those provided in Volume 4 – Past Performance?

No, PP only required at

MATOC Level.

See final RFP

L.5.1.1 Standard Form

(SF) 33

Draft RFP Questions- Comments and

Responses Section L5

Under section L.5.1.1 Standard Form (33), DRFP states “All documents provided by the offeror shall be labeled as CUI//SP-SSEL//FEDCON in the top of the document and CUI in the file name. For more information pertaining to CUI please visit https://www.archives.gov/cui”

Draft RFP Questions- Comments and Responses, Pg. 5 – Question: The solicitation states "All documents provided by the offeror shall be labeled as CUI//SP‐SSEL//FEDCON in the top of the document and CUI in the file name. For more information pertaining to CUI please visit https://www.archives.gov/cui." Can the Government please confirm this is correct and the Offeror shall label all documents as such?

Answer: Yes

Draft RFP Questions- Comments and Responses, Pg. 5 – Question: Requires all documents provided be labeled CUI. What is GSA considering would be CUI in our response?

Answer: Will remove.

Will the Government please confirm whether or not Offerors shall label all documents as CUI//SP‐SSEL//FEDCON? See final RFP

Section L.7 Section L7

Section notes Technical Proposals are divided into 3 eval factors, and includes a Tab D for MDoDS DEAMS Seed Task Order. Is this a mistake, or will proposals for either pool be evaluated against MDoDS DEAMS Seed Task Order? See final RFP

Section M3.4 Section M3

What is a “Tab”? Is it a stand-alone document, a section in a document, a folder, etc.? Specifically, is Factor 1: Technical Approach (Tab A) expected to be a separate document form Subfactor 1: MATOC Management Approach (Tab A1)? Noted

Section M3.4 Section M3

M.3.4. TECHNICAL APPROACH

Subfactor 3: Management Approach to Critical MDoDS (DRRS or similar MDoDS) Functional Areas (Tab A3)

Is it the Government’s intent that all Offerors respond to Subfactor 3: Management Approach to Critical MDoDS (DRRS or similar MDoDS) Functional Areas (Tab A3), regardless of which pool they are submitting for (PRISM P&R Pool or PRISM MDoDS Pool)? No. See final RFP