47QFHA24R0001_T10_08_PRISM MATOC Exhibit 1_MATOC RFP 1st Set of Responses to Questions Posted.pdf

Question Number

Solicitation Section

Page Language Reference Question Text Response

L.4

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.

Solicitation requires CUI, however, per Q&A released with Final, encryption is not required. Will the Government consider removing CUI language from section L.4? No, CUI labeling is required.

G.3.2

The PCCM will serve as a primary contact and who will be authorized access to the evaluation for review and comment for PRISM and task orders awarded under PRISM. The PCPM shall respond promptly to past performance evaluations as documented by the PRISM CO. In addition, the PCCM will be required to identify an alternate contact that will be responsible for notifying the PRISM CO in the event the primary contact is unavailable to process evaluations within the required 30-day time frame.

The text refers to PCCM. Can the Government clarify this is the PCPM?

Corrected

H.9, L.5, M.5 37, 88, 116

The PRISM CO must tailor security requirements (both facility and employee), clauses, provisions, and other applicable terms and conditions specific to each task order’s solicitation and award.

What are Offerors required to submit within MATOC VOLUME 5 – SYSTEMS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND CLEARANCES - Tab F:

Security Clearances at the MATOC Level? For key personnel

252.215-7016 Notification to Offerors – Postaward Debriefings

(DEC 2022)

83 Postaward debriefing. Will the government allow all awarded TO to be protestable or only protestable above a certain threshold (e.g. $20M)?

Protests will be allowed in accordance with Federal Regulations and GSA Policies

Streamlined Task Order Ordering Procedures

(STOOP)

A request to provide a Price or Cost Proposal within 15 Days for the work included in the STOOP Notice or a Voluntary Removal of Fair Opportunity Response (VRFOR) regarding the STOOP Notice.

Will the government require any sort of tech approach response or orals based on the nature of the requirements of the TO?

Recommend requirement be left to End User/Owner of the Task Order be able to determine what type of technical approach/response, if any, should be required specific to STOOP procedure.

Included

M.3.6.a

Subject Matter Experts (Minimum of 6, Maximum of 10 – KP: 3-5 Each Pool)

The Subject Matter Expertise KP requires Ten (10) or more years of experience in three or more of the P&R Pool and/or MDoDS Pool functional areas listed in Factor 3 Corporate Experience, as a SME on Professional Services contracts at the task order level.

Recommend removing "as a SME on Professional Services contracts at the task order level" as SME personnel may have experience outside of service contracts within P&R or MDoDS functional areas.

No

Streamlined Task Order Ordering Procedures (STOOP) is

Task order competition is critical to the success of this MATOC; thus, awardees will only be allowed two (2) VRFORs per calendar year.

Do the three seed task orders in the MATOC Solicitation count against an Offeror's two (2) VRFOR per calendar year?

Yes, unless a waiver is received.

Streamlined Task Order Ordering Procedures (STOOP) is

Task order competition is critical to the success of this MATOC; thus, awardees will only be allowed two (2) VRFORs per calendar year.

Will the Government issue a waiver for an Offeror to no bid a Task Order that they may be precluded from supporting due to an existing OCI as to not count against the two (2) VRFOR per calendar year? Yes.

G.2.4

The Contractor’s PCPM shall attend and actively participate in all meetings, including all PMR Meetings.

Will the Government please define "all meetings" as it relates to the duties of the PCPM?

As required

G.2.3.4. Minimum Requirements for Non- Key Personnel

24 Minimum requirements speak to a Mid Level LCAT. Does Mid Level equate to the Journeyman Level found in Attachment Yes, Updated

G.2.3.4. Minimum Requirements for Non- Key Personnel

Minimum Requirements for non-key personnel will be verified at the task order level.

Is it the Government's intention to only allocate the Key Personnel in M.3.6 to fill potential Senior level LCAT Positions on the Task Orders?

KP is used ot qualify for base contracts and will be used at the TO level as applicbale.

M.3.5. TECHNICAL

APPROACH

Factor 1: Technical Approach (Tab A) – The Technical Approach evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s technical capabilities to satisfy the Government’s requirements.

The proposal will be evaluated based on the proposed approach to perform the work. The evaluation criteria for the Subfactors are provided below.

Will the Government consider adding Technical Approach Evaluation Criteria for the MATOC PWS Task Area responses?

Recommend adding a Subfactor 0 PWS Technical Response (Tab A0) under Factor 1 Technical Approach Tab A. No

M.3.5. TECHNICAL

APPROACH 102

Factor 1: Technical Approach (Tab A) – The Technical Approach evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s technical capabilities to satisfy the Government’s requirements.

The proposal will be evaluated based on the proposed approach to perform the work. The evaluation criteria for the Subfactors are provided below.

Is Factor 1 Technical Approach intended to be strictly a Management Approach summary of Subfactor 1, 2 or 3, and 4?

Responses are required for the subfactors.

M.3.4. SECTION M

DEFINITIONS 99

STOOP 6. a) Task order competition is critical to the success of this MATOC; thus, awardees will only be allowed two (2) VRFORs per calendar year. Awardees must provide a written justification and seek approval from a PRISM CO if seeking 3 or more VRFORs within a calendar year. Awardees with 3 or more VRFORs within a calendar year may be placed in Dormancy status and/or receive a negative CPARS rating, without written prior approval from a PRISM CO to exceed 3 VRFORs.

Will the Government provide a waiver from this requirement should awardees choose not to prime and instead subcontract with another prime bidder, per the teaming requirements stipulated in H.12 Prime to Prime Partnering?

Yes

Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation (Tab A4):

104/105

Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation (Tab A4) (h.) Additional Important Note for Other Than U.S. Small Businesses ONLY. A Small Business Subcontracting Plan is Required (FAR 52.219-9) Separate from Small Business Participation Plan for OTSB. Other than U.S. Small Business offerors must submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan). Other than U.S. Small Businesses must submit an acceptable subcontracting plan to be eligible for award. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan.

Will the Government confirm, for other than small business (OTSB) offerors, having to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9, the SB Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted within Volume 2 Responsibility as Tab E?

The current structure as is, disadvantages Large Businesses by reducing page count dedicated to their Technical Approach.

Alternatively, recommend removing Small Business Subcontracting Plan from the Factor 1 Technical Approach page count.

No page limit for Subcontracting Plans

Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation (Tab A4):

104/105

Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation (Tab A4): All offerors (both large and small businesses) are required to submit a Small Business Participation Plan for evaluation of the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The Small Business Participation subfactor will be evaluated using the Small Business Rating table which will be incorporated into the overall Technical Approach rating. Evaluation Criteria Include: a. List all proposed Subcontractors, with UEI number and CAGE code if applicable. b. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals (OTSBs are Encouraged to subcontract with SBs within the MATOC Pools). c. The extent of commitment to use such firms. d. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform. e. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition, or alternatively the percentage of ‘planned subcontracting’ dollars. f. The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals: DOD Small Business Program Goals (% of total contract value): Small Business: 30%, SDB 5%, HUBZONE: 3%, SDVOSB: 5%, and WOSB: 5%.

With the evaluation criteria information required within Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation, evaluation criteria (a) through (g), will the Government consider excluding the Small Business Participation (Tab A4) from the page count within Factor 1 Technical Approach?

5 pages edited to Technical Approach.

G.2.3.4

Minimum Requirements for Non-Key Personnel (Minimum requirements for non-key personnel will be verified at the task order level).

Section G.2.3.4 Minimum Requirements for Non-Key Personnel includes labor categories that are not included in the Attachment 3 Price Labor Rates Template, or Exhibit 2 Labor Categories and Definitions.

Examples: a. Information Assurance (Jr., or Mid.); b. Information Technology (Jr., or Mid.); c. Management Analyst (Jr., or Mid.); e.

Regulatory Compliance (Jr., or Mid.)

Please clarify the intent and meaning of RFP Section G.2.3.4 since it conflicts with Exhibit 2 Labor Categories and Definitions, Labor Rates Template.

Corrected

L.1

Section L.1 incorporates FAR 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. Paragraph (a) of this FAR clause requires offerors to submit a total compensation plan as a part of their proposals.

Neither Section L.5 Proposal Format nor the following sections describing the specific requirements of each Proposal Volume include a requirement to submit a Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

Given that the Government has provided the Direct Labor Rate ranges that are governing offeror's proposed rates, would the Government please confirm that despite the incorporation of FAR 52.222-46, Offerors shall not submit a Compensation Plan with their proposal responses?

If not confirmed, please amend the Proposal Format and Submission Instructions to include a requirement for a Compensation Plan, specify the Volume and Tab that the Compensation Plan shall be submitted with, and amend the Evaluation criteria to explain how the Compensation Plan will be evaluated.

edited evaluation details

F.4.1

F.4.1. Deliverable and Reporting Requirements

The Deliverables and Reports required for PRISM includes Meaningful Relationship and Teaming Commitment Letters (MRCL) (TCL).

The Proposal Volume requirements of Section L only reference the Teaming Commitment Letters (TCLs). Please confirm that Volume 5, Tab E shall also include Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters (MRCLs) if applicable.

Removed MRCL

23 L.5 88

MATOC Volume 6 – Cost/Price o Tab A: MATOC Pricing/SF 33 o Tab B: P&R OXD Seed Pricing o Tab C: MDoDS DRRS Seed Pricing o Tab D: P&R DEAMS Seed Pricing

Would the Government consider moving the SF33 to the Volume I - General response as a separate Tab?

No. SF33 will remain with the Vol. 6, Tab A.

No page count for Volume 6

24 L.5 88

MATOC Volume 6 – Cost/Price o Tab A: MATOC Pricing/SF 33 o Tab B: P&R OXD Seed Pricing o Tab C: MDoDS DRRS Seed Pricing o Tab D: P&R DEAMS Seed Pricing

Please confirm that two files may be provided to address Tab A of Volume 6; one file with the SF33 in .pdf format, and one file with the MATOC Pricing in the template provided as RFP Attachment 3.

If not confirmed, please clarify that the SF33 shall be included as an additional tab within the MATOC Pricing Template provided as RFP Attachment 3.

No actual pricing is required on the SF33 and Volume 6 has no page count

25 M.6.1 117

3. Binding Ceiling Rates: For each labor category the offeror shall provide cost element breakdown of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits, Overhead, and General and Administrative (G&A) for the ceiling rate for that labor category. Ceiling rates will apply to all PRISM task orders, as applicable. All percentages and rates shall be rounded to two decimal places. *Note: Profit and/or fee shall NOT be included in the binding ceiling rates.

Profit and/or fee will be negotiated at the task order level.

Is it the Government's intention that the binding ceiling rates are to be used for Cost Plus Task Orders? If so, we believe that establishing fully loaded labor rate ceilings for CPFF task orders will ultimately disadvantage the Government during contract performance. By requiring offerors to commit to CPFF labor rate ceilings at the time of proposal, prior to the identification of specific tasking requirements and the associated personnel requirements, means that offerors may set ceiling rates that will not accommodate all personnel ultimately needed under future tasking, when specific needs and requirements are known. This will harm the Government's mission and goals as much as it could harm the contractor financially, as the contractor will not be willing to lose money on a CPFF task order and will only provide the resources afforded by the CPFF ceiling rate. As a result, the Government may not be able to access the types of personnel and skill sets needed on future CPFF tasking. For the Government's benefit, we recommend removing the CPFF ceiling rates, and instead relying on FFP tasking when the Government seeks to contain their costs for task orders.

No change.

L.11

For the MATOC Pricing, offerors must complete and include the MATOC Cost/Price Template listed in Section J.

Offerors shall only provide the ceiling rates for Year 1 of the contract with a Start Date of 1 July 2024.

RFP Section L.11 states that offerors shall use a Start Date of 1 July 2024 for the Year 1 rates.

RFP Attachment 3 Price Labor Rates Template lists April 2024 as the start date for Year 1.

Respectfully request that Attachment 3 be updated to align to the 1 July 2024 Start Date to be consistent with the RFP text.

Amended

L.11

Completion of the Base Year and Option (OY) tabs will populate in the summary tab. Labor rates must be consistent with the binding labor rates submitted for the MATOC Base Contract Awards for the Prime contractor and the subcontractors. If a non-teaming subcontractor is being utilized for a task order requirement, the subcontractor labor rates cannot exceed those of the Prime contractor, unless approved by the PRISM CO.

The pricing instructions for the MATOC state "Labor rates must be consistent with the binding labor rates submitted for the MATOC Base Contract Awards for the Prime contractor and the subcontractors."

Please confirm that this statement applies to the Task Order pricing, and should be read as "Task Order Labor Rates must be consistent with the binding labor rates submitted for the MATOC Base Contract Awards..."

Correct

28 L.11 94 For the MATOC Pricing, offerors must complete and include the MATOC Cost/Price Template listed in Section J.

Please confirm that the MATOC labor rates and supporting documentation is requested of the Prime offeror only.

If not confirmed, please clarify the exact subcontractor pricing requirements (to include which volumes and Tabs are required); and further confirm that subcontractor proposals that include proprietary cost data (direct and indirect rates) may be submitted in sealed packages.

Also applies to Teaming Subcontractors.

29 L.11 94 For the MATOC Pricing, offerors must complete and include the MATOC Cost/Price Template listed in Section J.

Please confirm that the Prime offeror's MATOC labor rates are considered "team-wide" ceiling rates and apply to both the prime and all subcontractors.

If not confirmed, please clarify the exact subcontractor pricing requirements (to include which volumes and Tabs are required; and further confirm that subcontractor proposals that include proprietary cost (direct and indirect rate data) may be submitted in sealed packages.

Teaming Subcontractors must also complete the Direct Labor Rates spreadsheet. Non-teaming subcontractors can't exceed Prime ceiling rates.

30 L.11.2 96

Caution: Offerors are strongly advised to provide clear and convincing rationale to support indirect rates not generated from their acceptable accounting system, otherwise the proposed indirect rate may not be considered fair and reasonable, and the Offeror may not be eligible for award regardless of the technical score.

The RFP states that Offerors are strongly advised to provide clear and convincing rationale to support indirect rates not generated from their acceptable accounting system.

Volume 6 does not appear to allow for a written price narrative. Please clarify how and where an offeror's rationale should be submitted within the Proposal volumes / Tabs and/or price templates.

Price Narrative allowed for areas requested

32 L.11.1 95 Offerors are prohibited from including Profit and/or Fee in the Direct Labor Rates. Profit and/or Fee will be negotiated and determined at the task order level.

The RFP states that Offerors shall not include profit / fee in the MATOC rates, and that Profit / Fee will be negotiated and determined at the task order level.

The Seed task order pricing templates do not provide any space for offerors to propose Profit or Fee as a part of their proposed price.

Please provide revised Seed task order templates that include the ability to propose Profit / Fee at the task order level.

Profit or Fee section will be added

33 M.6.1 117

"The Prime is responsible for ensuring that the subcontractor provides a full and complete labor rate build that provides complete transparency for the direct labor rate component and each indirect rate applied to it."

Prior to this statement, there are no references in Section L Instructions regarding subcontractor price proposals.

Please clarify the subcontractor proposal requirements for the MATOC and (separately) the Seed Task Orders.

For example, in support of any subcontractor MATOC pricing, are subcontractors also required to submit a Volume 5 in order to provide evidence of their accounting system and proposed indirect rates?

Teaming subcontractors are also required to provide the MATOC Labor Rates attachment.

34 L.11 94-95

For the MATOC Pricing, offerors must complete and include the MATOC Cost/Price Template listed in Section J.

Offerors shall only provide the ceiling rates for Year 1 of the contract with a Start Date of 1 July 2024. Ceiling rates for Years 2 through 5 will automatically be calculated for each labor category by an escalation factor embedded in the Template. Offerors shall not change the escalation factor in the Template. This escalation factor is determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Economic Cost Index (ECI) and is based on the average annual BLS ECI for the previous three years from the date the PRISM solicitation is issued. The current BLS ECI 10-year average is 3.2%.

Completion of the Base Year and Option (OY) tabs will populate in the summary tab. Labor rates must be consistent with the binding labor rates submitted for the MATOC Base Contract Awards for the Prime contractor and the subcontractors. If a non-teaming subcontractor is being utilized for a task order requirement, the subcontractor labor rates cannot exceed those of the Prime contractor, unless approved by the PRISM CO.

Please clarify whether subcontractor pricing at the MATOC level is required, or whether subcontractors will be subject to the ceiling rates established by the Prime offeror.

Teaming subcontractors are also required to provide the MATOC Labor Rates attachment. Subcontractors that are only being used for isolated task orders will not be able to propose ceiling rates above the Prime ceiling rates.

35 M.6.1 117

All direct labor rates proposed for each LCAT shall be within the Government established labor rate range (Direct Labor Rate Range) as reflected in the PRISM Direct Labor Rate Range attachment.

Please confirm that if an offeror's proposed MATOC direct labor rates are within the ranges provided, no further supporting information is required to demonstrate fair and reasonable pricing.

Supporting information may be required consistent with other requirements in the Solicitation.

36 M.6.1 117

Pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(c)(2)(iii) a comparison will be done of costs proposed by the offeror for individual cost elements with (C) Other cost estimates received in response to the Government’s request, and (D) with the Independent Government cost estimates by technical personnel.

Please confirm that M.6.1, paragraph 5 is an evaluation technique that will be applied to the Seed Task Order pricing only, given that the offeror's forward pricing / approved billing rate documentation will support the fair and reasonable pricing of indirect rates and the Direct Labor rate ranges will determine the fairness and reasonableness of the direct labor rates.

Paragraph 5 will be removed.

J3.

47QFHA24R0001_T10_

08_PRISM MATOC

Attachment 3_Price Labor Rates Template V1.

Contractor Site Tab, rows

149-153 Will the Government update the Subject Matter Expert labor categories to include the Subject Matter Expert III? Corrected

J3.

47QFHA24R0001_T10_

08_PRISM MATOC

Attachment 3_Price Labor Rates Template V1.

Contractor Site Tab, rows

149-153 Will the Government update the SOC ID # for the Subject Matter Expert II labor category?

SOC ID numbers can be found in the labor category definitions

J30.

47QFHA24R0001_T10_

09_DEAMS Seed Attachment 4_Price Template..

Base Year, OY1-OY4, 52.217-8

Will the Government update the price template to remove the OASIS references in Columns M & N? Yes

43 L.11 95

Labor rates must be consistent with the binding labor rates submitted for the MATOC Base Contract Awards for the Prime contractor and the subcontractors. If a non-teaming subcontractor is being utilized for a task order requirement, the subcontractor labor rates cannot exceed those of the Prime contractor, unless approved by the PRISM CO.

Please define a "non-teaming subcontractor."

Subcontractors not teaming with the Prime Contractor on the MATOC Proposal.

RFP Solicitation Document, Section M3.5.

104 Subfactor 4 Is Tab A4 (Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation Plan) of the Technical Approach included in the 40 page limit? edited 5 pages

RFP Solicitation Document, Section L11

94 Tab A MATOC Pricing The solicitation states that "The current BLS ECI 10-year average is 3.2%," however the formulas for escalation in Attachment J3 are 3.02%. Can the government please issue an updated J3 attachment reflecting the 3.2% escalation rates?

Will correct

RFP Solicitation Document, Section M3.6

106 Factor 2: Key Personnel Can the Government please confirm that offerors should provide only 3-5 Subject Matter Expert Key Personnel if the Offeror is only bidding on the P&R Pool?

That is correct.

RFP Solicitation Document, Section M3.6

106 c. Project Managers Can the Government please confirm that offerors should provide only 1-2 Project Managers if the Offeror is only bidding on the P&R Pool?

That is correct.

RFP Solicitation Document, Section M3.6

106 P&R Pool Key Personnel Can the Government please confirm that an individual designated as a Key Personnel "Subject Matter Expert" may also be designated as "P&R Pool" Key Personnel?

Correct

RFP Solicitation Document, Section M3.6

106 Factor 2: Key Personnel Can the Government please confirm offerors should submit a maximum of 8 resumes for Key Personnel to include: Program Manager (1), Project Manager (1-2), and Subject Matter Experts (3-5)?

Bid it how you see it.

RFP Solicitation Document, Section M.6.1

117 MATOC Price Proposal Numbered bullet #3 titled Binding Ceiling Rates on page 117 of the RFP states that "ceiling rates will apply to all PRISM task orders, as applicable," however, the task order pricing templates do not include any entries for profit or fee. How will the government allow profit/fee on task orders?

See response to question 32

52 L.6.1. 89 L.6.1. Technical and Price Proposal Submissions, P&R Submission

The solicitation’s current structure unduly restricts competition, in that offerors who have information technology (IT) consulting experience and capabilities relating to financial systems typically would not have experience and capabilities for the other personnel and readiness (P&R) functions, which are largely advisory and assistance services as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). See FAR Subpart 37.200; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 237.201; EDP Enters., Inc., B- 284533.6, 2003 CPD ¶ 93 (finding agency violated the Competition in Contracting Act by improperly consolidating food services with other logistics support functions, such as base, vehicle, and aircraft maintenance services, where there was no reasonable justification for restricting competition by consolidating these varied services).

Questions:

1. Will the Government explain the rational basis for putting the Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System (DEAMS) Seed Task Order in the P&R Pool?

2. What is the link between P&R and financial systems?

3. Will the Government explain the consideration, if any, for not placing DEAMS in a separate pool that is focused on support for Federal financial management systems?

4. Will the Government explain if, and how, it determined that including the DEAMS Seed Task Order in the P&R Pool is necessary to satisfy the Government’s legitimate needs?

The Air Force is a Strategic Partner of OUSD. This requirement does not procure IT Services, it procures non-commercial Professional Services. EDP Enters., Inc., B-

284533.6 involves an A-76 procurement, competing private sector against the Governments "Most Efficient Organization" (MEO) and a "Bundled" requirement. Our Office of General Counsel and the agency HCA have all agreed that this requirement does not involve Consolidation or Bundling.

53 L.6.1. 89 L.6.1. Technical and Price Proposal Submissions, P&R Submission

General Services Administration (GSA) Personnel and Readiness Infrastructure Support Management (PRISM) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) pools involve contract consolidation, as addressed in FAR 7.107-2.

Questions:

1. Has the Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) or Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO) made a written determination that the consolidation is necessary, as prescribed in FAR 7.107-2? Per FAR 7.107-2(d)(3), “[r]eduction of administrative or personnel costs alone is not sufficient justification for consolidation unless the cost savings are expected to be at least 10 percent of the estimated contract or order value (including options) of the consolidated requirements, as determined by the SPE or CAO.” Please also note that administrative convenience is not a legal basis to justify consolidating requirements where the consolidation restricts competition (EDP Enters., B- 284533.6, supra).

2. What market research has the Government conducted that informed its decision to consolidate these requirements (FAR 7.107- 2(a)(1))?

3. Did the Government identify alternative contracting approaches that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation, as required by FAR 7.107-2(a)(2)? If so, what approaches did the Government consider?

See response to question 52.

54 H.4., M.3.

32-33 and 99-

H.4.4. PRISM DORMANT STATUS, M.3.4. SECTION M DEFINITIONS, STOOP

Per M.3.4, Streamlined Task Order Ordering Procedures (STOOP), paragraph 6.a:

“Task order competition is critical to the success of this MATOC; thus, awardees will only be allowed two (2) VRFORs per calendar year. Awardees must provide a written justification and seek approval from a PRISM CO if seeking 3 or more VRFORs within a calendar year. Awardees with 3 or more VRFORs within a calendar year may be placed in Dormancy status and/or receive a negative CPARS rating, without written prior approval from a PRISM CO to exceed 3 VRFORs.”

Questions:

1.Will the Government provide a list of planned task orders to allow vendors to estimate the Dormancy risk associated with bidding on PRISM, given the above restriction?

2.Will the Government confirm that no bid decisions pursuant to the following involuntary conditions are exempt from the Voluntary Removal of Fair Opportunity Response (VRFOR) process?

2 a.Organizational conflicts of interest per FAR Subpart 9.5 or General Services Acquisition Manual (GSAM) Subpart 509.5 2 b.Independence conflicts per Government Accountability Office (GAO), Government Auditing Standards 2024 Revision (also known as the Yellow Book), Chapter 3, paragraphs 3.17 through 3.108 2 c.Teaming as a subcontractor to another prime in accordance with solicitation Section H.12, Prime to Prime Partnering.

1). A list of planned task orders can not be provided at this point. 2). No bid decisions in response to the use STOOP will represent a Voluntary Removal of Fair Opportunity Response (VRFOR) process.

3) OCI situations will not represent a VRFOR process. 4). Any decision not to bid due to Conflicts of Interest will not represent a VRFOR process. 5). If a Prime decides to act as a Subcontractor with another Prime, it will not represent a VRFOR process.

55 M.3.6., M.3.7. 105-108, 111

M.3.6. MATOC KEY PERSONNEL (APPLICABLE TO BOTH POOLS), para. a through c and

P&R POOL KEY PERSONNEL, paragraphs a.-l.

and

M.3.7, para. 7. P&R Functional Financial Management Support (FFMS)

This solicitation is disproportionately weighted towards P&R, such that the solicitation is unduly restrictive of competition for the DEAMS Seed Task Order.

The requirements pertaining to key personnel and corporate experience are unduly restrictive of competition because six (6) of the seven (7) functional areas described in the P&R Pool are P&R-specific task areas. Only one (1) functional area is related to financial management systems.

For example, the only pool-level key personnel required to have experience supporting “two or more of the P&R functional areas listed in Factor 3 Corporate Experience leading teams” are those related to financial system experience, while the remainder of pool-level key personnel only require one. Further, the MATOC Key Personnel Program Manager (PCPM) and the Subject Matter Experts are required to have “three or more of the P&R Pool and/or MDoDS Pool functional areas listed in Factor 3 Corporate Experience,” while the Project Managers require “two or more of the P&R Pool and/or MDoDS Pool functional areas listed in Factor 3 Corporate Experience.” Program/Project Managers and Subject Matter Experts supporting financial management systems such as DEAMS would not reasonably be expected to have experience in any of the other six (6) P&R functional areas.

Questions:

1.Will the Government provide the rationale for requiring financial management experts to possess traditional P&R experience?

Financial management or professional services vendors do not typically provide all services described across the MATOC/pool level.

2.What is the logic behind linking financial management and P&R (Front Office Support, Resiliency, etc.) expertise for purposes of the key personnel and corporate experience evaluation criteria? These key personnel requirements are unduly restrictive to vendors who are not focused on P&R and reduce the bidder pool to a limited class of very large businesses who meet all requirements.

3.Given the focus of the other P&R functional areas (Front Office Support, Resiliency, etc.), key personnel possessing FFMS experience specific to the Air Force (AF) is the most critical requirement to meeting the seed task order.

3 a.Will the Government reduce the requirement for key personnel in paragraphs e. through l. from “two (2) or more” to “one (1) or more” functional areas, consistent with the other pool key personnel requirements and the practical requirements for execution of the seed task order? Will the Government reduce the requirement for MATOC key personnel from “two or more” or “three or more” functional areas to “one (1) or more” functional areas?

3 b.Absent the changes to the P&R pool key personnel, will the Government create a separate pool for FFMS functional area with appropriately tailored key personnel, corporate experience, and past performance criteria?

This is a MATOC with a broad set a requirements; thus, the government is seeking vendors capable of performing various types of professional services. All of the evaluation criteria includes "or similar" types of language and is not restricted to OUSD P&R experience. Some of the KPs will be reduced to "one or more P&R Functional Areas". The government will not establish a 3rd Pool.

56 M.6.2. 118 M.6.2 Seed Task Orders Utilizing STOOP

Subfactor 2 is a generic discussion of P&R Pool-level requirements and does not allow for the DEAMS Seed Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS) to be part of the evaluation.

Questions:

1.How does the Government intend to evaluate the technical capability of the offeror specific to the DEAMS Seed Task Order PWS and their ability to provide a low-risk solution to the Government, given the generic P&R Pool-level evaluation criteria provided in Subfactor 2?

2.The DEAMS Seed Task Order was specifically exempt from STOOP in the previous draft Request for Quotation (RFQ), given the complexity of the services. What has changed in the last 90 days that has reduced the complexity of DEAMS, resulting in the use of STOOP for the seed task order?

1). Factor 1, Subfactor 2 includes evaluation criteria essential to the type of work performed on DEAMS and similar Functional Financial Management Requirements. Nonetheless, a Task Order Specific Technical Approach will be edited to the evaluation criteria. 2) The government has determined that it is the most efficient use of government resources to also evaluate DEAMS through the STOOP procedures.

57 PRISM PWS, 2. 1 2. Description of Services/Introduction

The DEAMS Industry Day emphasized the Government’s need to acquire AF financial systems and AF functional accounting knowledge and expertise as it relates to the DEAMS Seed Task Order.

The PRISM PWS does not detail or define services for FFMS or AF financial systems.

Question: Because the PRISM PWS is the only PWS evaluated, will the Government clarify where the AF financial system requirement is defined in the PRISM PWS

The scope of work for DEAMS fits under tasks 2, 4 & 5 the PRISM PWS.

58 M.3.7. 111 M.3.7., para. 7. P&R Functional Financial Management Support (FFMS) Per review of the solicitation, the Government is requesting corporate experience related to P&R FFMS.

Question: Will the Government clarify which portions of the PRISM PWS support FFMS delivery?

See response to question 57.

59 M.3.6. 105-106 M.3.6. MATOC KEY PERSONNEL (APPLICABLE TO BOTH POOLS), para. a through c

The requirement for a minimum of five (5) MATOC key personnel to bid on one (1) pool or nine (9) key personnel to bid on both pools is unduly restrictive, does not promote competition, and unfairly limits the bidder pool to those vendors who focus on P&R. This requirement provides an unfair competitive advantage to P&R vendors only and is not fair to vendors across both pools, which unreasonably restricts a vendor’s ability to fairly compete for this work.

Questions:

1.Please explain the Government’s rationale for requiring five (5) MATOC key personnel per pool?

2.Please explain how five (5) MATOC key personnel are necessary to meet the Government’s minimum needs upon initial award, given that the “government is willing to fund a PCPM for a total of 480 hours per year, but only with one or more active task orders?”

This is a MATOC with a broad set a requirements; thus, the government is seeking vendors capable of performing various types of professional services. KP experience and qualifications are essential to ensuring a vendor pool capable of meeting the governments requirements.

PCPMs will be the primary POC for all active task orders being performed by a vendor.

60 M.3.7., M.6.

108-114, 118-

M.3.7, para. 7. P&R Functional Financial Management Support (FFMS) and

M.6.2 Seed Task Orders Utilizing STOOP

FFMS, and specifically DEAMS, are not consistent with the requirements described through the remainder of the P&R Pool, nor the Major Department of Defense Systems (MDoDS) Pool. Competing FFMS/DEAMS in this manner introduces unfair risk to the Government and will result in failure to meet the Government’s needs.

Questions:

1.Will the Government explain the purpose of procuring FFMS support through a P&R vehicle?

2.Why is FFMS, and specifically DEAMS, being procured as part of a P&R pool vs. being made a third pool?

See response to question 57.

61 H.5.1 33-34 H.5.1, PRISM NAICS Codes, para. 1-2

Per North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code description, 541330 Engineering Services is composed of:

“establishments primarily engaged in applying physical laws and principles of engineering in the design, development, and utilization of machines, materials, instruments, structures, processes, and systems. The assignments undertaken by these establishments may involve any of the following activities: provision of advice, preparation of feasibility studies, preparation of preliminary and final plans and designs, provision of technical services during the construction or installation phase, inspection and evaluation of engineering projects, and related services.”

Question: Will the Government explain how NAICS 541330 is relevant to this procurement?

This NAICS represents work that will be procured under PRISM.

62 H.8.1 35 H.8.1, Acceptable Accounting System Question: Will the Government confirm that a MATOC awardee that has an accounting system deemed to be acceptable by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) is eligible to receive a seed task order award that contains Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN)?

Yes

63 M.3.6 Key Personnel 105-107

Factor 2: Key Personnel

P&R POOL KEY PERSONNEL

8 of the 12 P&R Pool Key Personnel require experience in two or more of the P&R functional areas "and" expertise in Air Force or similar federal agency financial management policices, processes, and procedures specifcially in using the DEAMS or similar application.

These qualifications may not be related, and could significantly reduce the Key Personnel needed to support other areas of P&R required.

Can the Government change the requirement to state P&R functional areas "or" expertise in Air Force or similar federal agency? (vice "and")

Language broadened

64 M.3.6 Key Personnel 105-107

Factor 2: Key Personnel P&R Pool

P&R KP positions - In the final RFP the eight positions specifically targeted to DEAMs work require experience in two or more functional areas whereas all other technical key personnel for P&R and MDoDs pools only require experience in one or more functional areas.

Can the Government change the "two or more" to "one or more"? Yes - see answer #6

65 M.3.6 Key Personnel 105-106 *Note: Additional credit will be given for key personnel with experience in proposed roles dealing with TDLs, Multi-Tenant and/or Cost type contracting.

Does this note apply to all Key Personnel Positions or just the MATOC Key Personnel (PCPM, PM, SME)? Edited

M.3.6 Key Personnel &

J9. Exhibit 2 MATOC LCATS and Definitions

105-108

J9. Pg. 1

J9. Exhibit 2 MATOC LCATS and Definitions SENIOR: A Senior labor category has over 10 years of experience and a MAIMS degree. A Senior labor category typically works on high-visibility or mission critical aspects of a given program and performs all functional duties independently. A Senior labor category may oversee the efforts of less senior staff and/or be responsible for the efforts of all staff assigned to a specific job.

P&R POOL KEY PERSONNEL

a. Sr. Systems Analysts: Eight (8) or more years of experience in the proposed role in one or more of the P&R functional areas listed in Factor 3 Corporate Experience. Experience working on projects listed in Factor 3 Corporate Experience in the role proposed. Minimum bachelor’s degree in a relevant field of study (Engineering, Computer Science, etc.) and professional license (as applicable for the relevant field of study) preferred.

There is a disconnect between years of experience and education requirements stated in the Key Personnel Section and in Attachment J9. Exhibit 2 MATOC LCATS and Definitions. For instance, to be qualified as a Senior level of a labor category, Exhibit 2 states there is a requirement of 10 years of experience and a masters degree. This is in conflict with many of the Key Personnel positions in Section M.3.6.

We recognize the the note in Exhibit 2 says we can make exceptions during a task order proposal, but if we were to make an exception for key personnel requested in M.3.6, that would have to be done at the MATOC level.

Can the Government confirm, is this exception acceptable to be used for these MATOC level KP or are the KP requirements going to be adjusted to be in alignment with Exhibit 2?

Will correct

L.8 MATOC VOLUME 3-

Technical Proposals o Tab B: Key Personnel (KP) (1 Page Limit per KP Resume)

Can the Government consider increasing this 1 page limit to 2 pages to ensure sufficient detail for evaluation? See response to question ..

M3.7. FACTOR 3

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE

Major Department of Defense Systems (MDoDS) Pool

3. MDoDS Life Cycle Support

113-114

Major Department of Defense Systems (MDoDS) Pool

3. MDoDS Life Cycle Support Life Cycle Support Evaluation Criteria Includes:

a. Experience providing program life cycle support, systems engineering and analysis, integration, network engineering, systems maintenance, testing, training, implementation, hardware/software installation, life cycle management, and documentation to support systems in a reporting enterprise.

i. Experience providing software engineering, software development, systems engineering and analysis, integration, network engineering, systems maintenance, testing, training, implementation, hardware/software installation, life cycle management.

The criteria in MDoDS Life Cycle Support for "a." and "i." in the MDoDS Pool Corporate Experience evaluation criteria are very similar.

Can the Government clarify the intendend difference and understanding to be gained from the experience cited against these two evaluation factor bullets?

Deleted "I"

L.11 TAB A MATOC

Pricing, number 4.

For the MATOC Pricing, offerors must complete and include the MATOC Cost/Price Template listed in Section J. Offerors shall only provide the ceiling rates for Year 1 of the contract with a Start Date of 1 July 2024. Ceiling rates for Years 2 through 5 will automatically be calculated for each labor category by an escalation factor embedded in the Template. Offerors shall not change the escalation factor in the Template. This escalation factor is determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Economic Cost Index (ECI) and is based on the average annual BLS ECI for the previous three years from the date the PRISM solicitation is issued. The current BLS ECI 10-year average is 3.2%.

In Attachment 3 Price Labor Rates Template the escalation is stated as a factor of 1.0302.

Can the government confirm if this should be 1.032?

1.0302 is correct

M.4. MATOC VOLUME

4 PAST

PERFORMANCE

M.4.1. FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts to be procured under this MATOC. Offerors (and major subcontractor’s) are requested to provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) for all projects submitted under Factor 3 Corporate Experience to demonstrate the most relevant past performance.

For a contract that does not have a CPAR because the contract is an award fee contract, can the Government confirm that signed Award Fee Determination Reports are acceptable in place of a CPAR?

No, CPARS or PPQ required.

Attachment:

J3 J9

J3 J9

Missing LCAT definitions

Can the Government provide definitions and requirements for the following labor categories in J3. 47QFHA24R0001_T10_08_PRISM MATOC Attachment 3_Price Labor Rates Template V1, currently missing in the J9 Labor Categories and Definitions file?:

Accountants Oracle Consultants Systems Programmer IT Technology Specialist Trainer

All of these are covered under one of the labor category definitions. Accountans - 13- 2011; IT Technology Specialist and Systems Programmer - 11-3021 or 15- 1211 - 15-1242; Trainer - 11-3131, Oracle Consultants - 13-1111 or 15-1211

Attachments:

J18 J3

J18 J3

Validating LCAT mapping

Can the Government confirm that the labor categories in the J18. 47QFHA24R0004_T10_09_DRRS Seed Exhibit 3_Labor Hour Ranges file that do not have a level (Network Engineer, Database Scientist, Software Engineer, and Systems Analyst) map to the Journeyman level labor category in the J3. 47QFHA24R0001_T10_08_PRISM MATOC Attachment 3_Price Labor Rates Template V1.

File?

Correct

74 B.1 BACKGROUND 4

B.1. BACKGROUND – top of page 4 “Rates used to price the seed task order is binding on the contractor for the Seed to be valid.”

Can the government please provide additional guidance on the binding mechanism of the task order rates under the various contract and CLIN types? I.e. how the rates are bound on a FFP CLIN vs. a CPFF CLIN?

Binding labor rates will come into play for FFP is cost or pricing data or other than cost or pricing data is required.

M.6.1. Factor 5 Price Proposal.

Similarly, seed task order proposals below the threshold or floor of the established task order Proposal Pricing Range may be deemed unrealistic while those above the threshold or ceiling may be determined as not fair and reasonable.

The Government did not provide a "Proposal Pricing Range" for the Task Orders, only a range for labor hours.

Can the Government please provide a total price range for each Task Order?

Only a labor hour range was intended, will correct.

L.6.2 Naming Convention; M.6.2. Seed Task Orders Utilizing

STOOP

90; 118

L.6.2. Naming Convention Contractors must name all documents submitted according to the following naming convention

M.6.2. Seed Task Orders Utilizing STOOP The government intends to utilize STOOP selection procedures for the following seed task orders. Included is a STOOP Notice for each seed task order labeled “P&R Seed STOOP Notice” and “MDoDS Seed STOOP Notice” (No Additional Technical Information Required)

Contractor Seed Task Order Submission

For each seed task order, offerors are required to provide the following:

1. Provide staffing labor mix/level of effort (See Staff Matrix Attachment)

2. Provide a proposed price or cost to perform the work, including Assumptions/Exceptions, or

3. Provide a Voluntary Removal of Fair Opportunity Response (VRFOR).

These STOOP files are not listed in L.6. Naming convention. Can the Government clarify the name convention for the seed task orders and their associated files?

Will update

L.6.1. Technical and Price Proposal Submissions; L.6.2 Naming Convention;

L.11. MATOC VOLUME

6 – COST/PRICE (No Page Limit)

89; 90; 94

L.6.2. Naming Convention Contractors must name all documents submitted according to the following naming convention;

L.6.1. Technical and Price Proposal Submissions

Factor 6 COST/PRICE requires offerors submit the following files:

P&R Submission

SF 33

MATOC Labor Rates OXD Seed Task Order Price (Optional) DEAMS Seet Task Order Price (Optional) DRRS Seed Task Order Price (Optional)

MDoDS Submission

SF 33

MATOC Labor Rates DRRS Seed Task Order Price (Optional)

However, Section L.6.2 only provides one file name for Volume 6 Cost/Price. Can the Government please clarify the naming convention for the Volume 6 Cost/Price files?

Will update

L.4 Proposal Submission Instructions

86 The following instructions are for the preparation and submission of proposals. Can the Government provide the location where the proposals shall be submitted? Proposals are to be submitted by email.

L.4 Proposal Submission Instructions

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.

CUI documents must be transmitted through secure channels (i.e. DoD SAFE or encrypted email). However per 47QFHA24R0001_2nd Draft Solicitation Vendor Questions-Comments and Responses, this requirement would be removed in the final

RFP.

Can the Government please remove this requirement?

CUI documents don't have to be encrypted or transmitted through secure channels.

L.4 Proposal Submission Instructions

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.

Can the Government please confirm that CUI goes in the file name of each Technical and Cost Volume submitted, as that was not indicated in the naming convention section L.6.2.?

Correct, Will edit

L.4 Proposal Submission Instructions

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.

Can the Government please confirm that CUI//SP-SSEL//FEDCON goes at the top of the FIRST page of each volume or the top of every page within each volume?

CUI must be marked at top of the Proposal Cover Letter and 1st page of each volume.

L.5. PROPOSAL

FORMAT

87 The Offeror’s proposal shall be formatted into Six (6) separate electronic folders Can the Government clarify what is meant by "electronic folder"? Volumes. Will clarify.

L.5. PROPOSAL

FORMAT

87 The Offeror’s proposal shall be formatted into Six (6) separate electronic folders If proposals are to be submitted electronically, can the Government please clarify if there are file size restrictions?

Email file attachment restrictions are limited to 50MB per email.

L.5. PROPOSAL

FORMAT

88 The Offeror’s proposal shall be formatted into Six (6)…