CMWD_AAS_SSD_OSD_PPA_Draft_RFQ-RFP_Responses_to_Industry.pdf

HSHQDN-17-Q-0007 - Attachment 5 Question/Comment Template

Number Section / Attachment Paragraph Page Number

Comment OPO Response

1 General Comment One major hurdle precluding industry participation in CWMD acquisitions are overly restrictive approaches to Organizational Conflict Interest (OCI) resolution. OCI avoidance prevents companies, large and small, from competing for numerous opportunities because of existing work in other areas of CWMD. If CWMD can implement a broader strategy of OCI mitigation, there will be increased competition from companies with enhanced capabilities that fully understand the CWMD mission set. Overly restrictive approaches to OCI resolution impedes small business participation in many case because the small business is forced to make decisions on which contracting effort they must support. OCI avoidance prevents companies large and small from competing for numerous opportunities because of existing work in other areas of CWMD. Small business would benefit and see a growth opportunity by being able to support multiple contracting actions where OCI mitigation is possible.

Our response is provided for planning purposes and may be further defined/revised prior to release of final RFP/RFQ(s).

The limitation of future contracting and organizational conflict of interest clauses will be revised. Vendors will be allowed to compete as a prime and/or sub on all three A&AS efforts (SSD, OSD & PPA).

A&AS support task order awardees and their first tier subcontractors will not be allowed to compete for DHS/CWMD requirements to include contracts for detection and/or identification equipment (including supporting operations and maintenance), contracts for operations and/or maintenance support to other CWMD programs (e.g. BioWatch, NBIC, BD21, MDDP, etc.), contracts for support to CWMD’s budget and finance office, and IT support contracts. This restriction will remain during the life of the A&AS task orders. We are currently working on revising the applicable contract clauses. They will be provided with the final RFP/RFQ(s). A first tier subcontract is defined as a subcontract awarded directly by the contractor for the purpose of acquiring supplies or services (including construction) for performance of a prime contract.

2 Currently the RFQ is being issued with SINs 871-1 through 871-6.

Would the Government consider placing all work on the effort under PSS SIN 874-1 Integrated Consulting Services to allow more competion among PSS scehdule holders?

No, RFQ will be issued as stated.

3 General Comment We would like to encourage the Government to keep the contract T&M. For most small businesses, T&M contracts are more practical in terms of infrastructure and execution. The costs associated for maintaining a cost-plus accounting system is prohibitive and will often knock most small businesses out of the competition. Although Watermark maintains an auditable accounting system, we would need to invest heavily in accounting personnel on our staff to properly maintain the system for cost-plus accounting, something that would be cost-prohibitive for us.

Ok.

4 General Comment In order to keep small businesses engaged and growing, we suggest allowing small businesses of the same economic status to team up to meet the 51% workshare requirement for small business set-asides.

This will allow small business to entice larger companies to enter into teaming agreements with significant workshare to ensure mission needs are being met.

Under an MAS CTA the Team must perform fifty percent (50%) of the value of the work in the aggregate. For example, on a team consisting of three contractors, the Team Leader could perform thirty percent (30%) of the work and each Team Member could perform ten percent (10%) of the work to meet the fifty percent (50%) requirement. The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the work may be performed by subcontractors working under any of the team members Schedule contracts. All members of a CTA must be small business contract holders. Socioeconomic restrictions do not apply to subcontractors;

i.e., they may be large business.

5 Instructions to Offerors III Page 3 States "If a GSA Prime Contractor / Subcontractor Arrangement(s) is proposed, only the Prime Contractor must have a GSA Schedule 70 contract". If the opportunity is being issued on PSS why does any offeror need a Schedule 70 contract?

If a GSA Prime Contractor / Subcontractor Arrangement(s) is proposed, only the Prime Contractor must have a General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 00CORP Professional Services Schedule (PSS) Special Item Numbers (SIN) 871- 1 through 871-6 contract

6 Submission Instructions, Contractor Teaming Arangements, Section III / Attachment 2 Draft RFP

12 3 In Section III of Contractor Teaming Arrangements in Attachment 2 DRAFT RFP on page 3, the insructions state "only the Prime Contractor must have a GSA Schedule 70 contract" .

Will the governemnt please confirm that references to Schedule 70 are erroneous and that this procurement will be on the GSA 00CORP/PSS Schedule?

If a GSA Prime Contractor / Subcontractor Arrangement(s) is proposed, only the Prime Contractor must have a General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 00CORP Professional Services Schedule (PSS) Special Item Numbers (SIN) 871- 1 through 871-6 contract.

7 N/A N/A N/A Given the NAICS Small Business Size Standard of $16.5M , and the that fact that 78 Fed. Reg. 61114 (October 2, 2013) and SBA No. SIZ- 5207 (2011) specifically allows contracting officers at their discretion to require offerors to recertify their size as a small business for an order issued under a GWAC/BPA, will the government include a small business size recertification requirement in the final RFP?

Rationale: Including this requirement will ensure that businesses which currently qualify as a small business are allowed a fair opportunity to compete for this contract. Failing to require offerors to recertify as a small business creates a de facto full and open competition (1) negating the policy of setting aside this type of requirements for small businesses and (2) driving the competition to large businesses.

This requirement is open to 00CORP PSS small business contract holders. Recertification will not be required.

Systems Support Directorate (SSD) Questions & Answers

8 N/A N/A N/A If a small business that has a GSA PSS schedule formed a JV with a large business, we understand that JV is a separate legal entity. As such, can the government please confirm that unless a separate GSA PSS schedule was awarded to the JV, the small business is ineligible for responding as a JV to the CWMD SDD RFP.

The government intends to research this answer and provide a response by Friday, November 15, 2019.

9 N/A N/A N/A Will the government consider updating the current OCI language to be consistent for all three CWMD solicitations (i.e., SSD, OSD, and PPA)?

As an example, the current SSD solicitation has specific language relative to OSD, but the reverse is not evident.

Rationale: Due to the unique nature of the CWMD mission and the manner in which contractors support CWMD, consistent language throughout the RFPs/SOWs will provide contractors with a clear understanding of potential OCI issues across the three solicitations.

Refer to Question 1

10 Draft SOW 1 34 Can a small business support both SSD and OSD as a subcontractor and then withdraw, or enter into a mitigation plan on SSD, if they end up on the winning team on both procurements?

Rationale: Allowing small businesses who have no chance to bid as a prime contractor improve their competitive posture allowing them to support both SSD and OSD teams during the proposal & bidding process allows for the maximum competition and also the best potential solution for the government on both procurements.

Refer to Question 1

11 Draft SOW 1 34 Does the OCI language in the RFP restricting companies from "performing any of the requirements" also restrict companies from being a part of multiple proposals (SSD, OSD, PPA), i.e., and then later choose which contract to support?

Refer to Question 1

12 Draft SOW 1 34 Would the government considering applying the OCI language only to large businesses?

Rationale: This restriction would ensure a large business would not end up being a prime on OSD or PPA and also on a SSD Team, where by default they could directly influence the entire CWMD contract team.

Refer to Question 1

13 Draft SOW N/A 34 Would the government considering providing answers to the OCI related questions in the next 10-14 days versus waiting for the final RFP not due out for almost two months.

Rationale: Inconsistency of OCI language between the SSD, OSD and PPA Draft RFPs and CWMD's history relative to the subject, is currently limiting the ability to of offerors to finalize teaming agreements. Waiting until end of November for this clarification will result is an unnecessary restructure of teams and hurried responses which is in no one's best interest.

Refer to Question 1

14 Draft SOW N/A N/A The Draft Solicitation does not include FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting, so the similarly situated small provision should apply.

Would the regulations at 13 C.F.R. § 125.6 apply thereby allowing similarly situated small subcontractors to count towards the 50% that must be performed by a small business?

Rationale: To bring the best solution to the government, a small business prime contractor may determine that a combination of other companies supporting the 51% small businesses requirement will provide the greatest probability of mission success with significant risk reduction for the government.

Added to FAR Clause table.

15 Draft SOW d 33 Is the prime contractor or any of it's subcontractors permitted to perform any work under the PPA contract?

Yes, refer to Question 1

16 Attachment 2 Factor 2 4

"The Management Approach shall demonstrate the feasibility and accountability of the organizational approach of the vendor’s team, including the roles and management of teaming partners and subcontractors, rationale for the organizational structure and the portion of work to be performed by each entity." Does the goverment want to see portion of work described by task, contract dollars, or by any means?

Portion of work.

17 Attachment 3, Pricing N/A N/A

Can the government please review/update the total hours on Base Period Tab (224, 736) versus Total Cost Tab (240,096) which should be the same.

Will update for final RFQ

18 Attachment 2 N/A 6

If a rate that is not on the prime contractor’s GSA FSS Schedule is used, an explanation must be provided explaining how that rate was calculated (i.e., if it is on a teaming partner’s FSS).

Can the government please clarify if a small business prime uses a rate(s) from a teaming partner/subcontractor GSA FSS Schedule, it does not have to explain how that rate was calculated?

Explanation shall be provided for any rates that are not on the prime's contract.

19 Attachment 3 Excel Workbook

Tabs:

Base Period, Option Periods 1-

Column C and D provide the labor category and labor hours. Column G and H provide an hourly rate for Contractor and Government site.

Column I provides a total price.

QUESTION: what rate should be applied to the hours to get the total price? Should there be two more columns, one for Contractor site price and one for Government site price?

Updated to reflect contractor site price and Government site price (offsite/onsite)

20 Attach 1 Draft SOW

HSAR 3052.209-

73 Limitation of Future Contracting 32

States that "CWMD has already determined that some COIs do exist, cannot be adequately mitigated and will not be waived." Would the Government please provide information regarding the nature of the COIs that CWMD has already identified?

Refer to Question 1

21 Attach 2 Submission Instructions

Factor 3 Past Performance

5 “…The vendor shall provide three (3) references for the prime contractor (or CTA members). In addition, the vendor may submit up to a total of three (3) references for the critical subcontractors…"

Comment: A small business to have three past contracts of similar size ( $100 million ) in last 3 year period or, in the case of CTA, to have two or more small businesses with similar size, scope and complixity seems to be very restrictive.

Recommend this be changed to “The vendor shall provide up to three references… that are similar in size, scope, and complexity…”, and allow some of those three references be critical subcontractor(s) experience

The Government realizes that small business firms will not have three past performance references of a size similar to this requirement. The RFQ language is in the process of being revised, please see the final RFQ for past performance requirements.

22 Attach 2 Submission Instructions

Factor 3 Past Performance

5 Second paragraph under Factor 3 states that "In addition, the vendor may submit up to a total of three (3) references for the critical subcontractors." Is this "up to 3" references for each critical subcontractor, or no more than 3 references total regardless of the number of critical subcontractors?

Past performance requirements are being revised; however, it is anticipated that the RFQ will require past performance references from the prime or CTAs and all major subcontractors. Major subcontractors will be defined in the final RFQ.

23 Attach 1 Draft SOW HSAR 3052.209- 73 Limitation of

Future Contracting

32 Assuming that Offerors meet all of the requirements of the subject clause (HSAR 3052.209-73) paragraphs (a)-(c), why has the Government determined that this OCI cannot be mitigated via a submitted OCI Mitigation Plan?

Refer to Question 1

24 General Comment In order to increase competition from industry, the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) Systems Support Directorate (SSD) Advisory and Assistant Services could consider offering more industry engagements to allow end users to communicate the various requirements with potential offerors. The more information the Government can share with industry concerning program goals, challenges, and emergent needs, the more encouraged industry will be to compete.

Pre-solicitation conference is being held on November 8.

25 General Comment One major hurdle precluding industry participation in CWMD acquisitions are overly restrictive approaches to Organizational Conflict Interest (OCI) resolution. OCI avoidance prevents companies, large and small, from competing for numerous opportunities because of existing work in other areas of CWMD. If CWMD can implement a broader strategy of OCI mitigation, there will be increased competition from companies with enhanced capabilities that fully understand the CWMD mission set. Overly restrictive approaches to OCI resolution impedes small business participation in many case because the small business is forced to make decisions on which contracting effort they must support. OCI avoidance prevents companies large and small from competing for numerous opportunities because of existing work in other areas of CWMD. Small business would benefit and see a growth opportunity by being able to support multiple contracting actions where OCI mitigation is possible.

Refer to Question 1

30 OCI The government could see increased competition and offerors would benefit and see a growth opportunity by being able to support multiple CWMD contracting actions where OCI mitigation is possible.

Will the government allow SSD subcontractors to mitigate the OCI and participate on either the PPA or OSD opportunities by establishing firewalls?

Refer to Question 1

1 (SOW) All Is this solicitation a new requirement or a consolidation of previous contracts? Can you share related contract information please?

Currently being filled by the following Task Orders:

70RDND19F00000016, 70RDND18F00000013, 70RHAD19C0000001

32 2 (Instructions) Can a large business teaming partner be a part of the CTA or directly as a sub?

Under an MAS CTA the Team must perform fifty percent (50%) of the value of the work in the aggregate. For example, on a team consisting of three contractors, the Team Leader could perform thirty percent (30%) of the work and each Team Member could perform ten percent (10%) of the work to meet the fifty percent (50%) requirement. The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the work may be performed by subcontractors working under any of the team members Schedule contracts. All CTA members must be small business contract holders.

Socioeconomic restrictions do not apply to subcontractors; i.e., they may be large business.

Draft Instructions Submission Instructions 3

For CTAs, the RFP states that only the Prime Contractor must have a GSA Schedule 70 contract. Please confirm that the requirement is for a GSA FSS 00CORP PSS contract.

If a CTA is proposed, all CTA members must hold a 00CORP PSS contract. If a Prime Contractor / Subcontractor arranngement is proposed, only the Prime Contractor must hold a 00CORP PSS contract.

Draft Instructions Factor 3: Past Performance 5

The RFP requires a list of all relevant DHS contracts ongoing or completed in the past five years. We recommend that this list not be included in the past performance page limit, but can rather be submitted as an appendix.

Not included in Technical Volume page count

Draft RFP Paragraph 1 3

Indicates a single award under PSS SINs 871 1 through 871 6. Can the government provide clarity if one or more of these SINs are acceptable for the prime? If all are required, can a prime and subcontractor team collectively cover all SINs?

One or more of these SINs is acceptable for the prime

36 Draft Instructions Factor 3: Past Performance 5

Past Performance plays a critical role in this evaluation, and it requires offerors to clearly demonstrate each project's relevance, including performance-based methodologies, subcontractors, and management actions for overcoming obstacles. To clearly demonstrate each project's relevance, we recommend changing the page limit for past performance to one page per reference rather than one page for all prime and subcontractor references combined, as we believe this will enable the Government to fully evaluate each Offeror's past performance.

See final RFQ for page limitations.

5.0 / 1 1 22 Is it possible to include terms and definitions or ensure acronyms are spelled out throughout the SOW to reduce ambiguity?

Yes, will update

7.0 / 1 1 22

Suggestion: We believe SOW 5.0 should be changed to 6.0 (5.0 is Terms and Definitions)

This section will be used for terms/definitions/acronyms

39 2.5 / 1 1 13 Surge Support is vague; can you provide more information on the scope and nature of this support?

See final RFQ.

40 12.0 / 1 Clause 52.217-9 26 Suggestion: We believe bullet c, Total Duration of this contract, should say 66 rather than 60.

Should remain 60. FAR 52.217-8 provides the government with the option to extend the period of performance up to 6 months.

RFQ Continuation of SF1449 First Paragraph 3 of 13

First sentence states: "The government anticipates awarding a single Task Order under the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 00CORP Professional Services Schedule (PSS) Special Item Numbers (SIN) 871-1 through 871-6…" However, Attachment 2 (Quotation Submission Instructions), CTA or GSA Prime Contractor/Subcontractors Section III states: "...only the Prime Contractor must have a GSA Schedule 70 contract..." Question: Can the Government please clarify which GSA contract vehicle will be used for this acquisition?

The government anticipates awarding a single Task Order under the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 00CORP Professional Services Schedule (PSS) Special Item Numbers (SIN) 871-1 through 871-6

Attachment 1 - Draft SOW

12.0 - HSAR

3052-209-72 Organiza-tional Conflict of Interest (Jun 2006) 34

Per the referenced clause, as we consider priming this opportunity, and knowing that the current incumbents on the CWMD SETA and CWMD SE&I contracts are providing support in the organizations identified in the SSD and OSD opportunities, can the Government please identify the new specific OCI issue so that companies selecting teammates can confirm that these companies are OCI free when pursuing the SSD opportunity?

Refer to Question 1

Attachment 2 - Quotation Submission Instructions

Factor 3: Past Per-formance, Second Paragraph 5

Referenced paragraph states: "These references should also be from different contracts."

Question: Can the Government clarify which references should be different? For example, if the prime and critical subcontractors performed different roles under ths same contract, then can only one reference be submitted?

Correct, references for prime and critical subcontractor should be from separate contracts.

Attachment 2 - Quotation Submission Instructions

Factor 3: Past Per-formance, Third Paragraph 5

Referenced paragraph states: "Evidence of performance-based methodologies in past performance shall be provided where available."

Question: Can the Government clarify the performance-based methodologies that are to be provided through examples and provide the types of evidence expected to be included with these methodologies?

Removed this requirement.

Attachment 2 - Quotation Submission Instructions

Factor 3: Past Per-formance, Second Paragraph 5

Referenced paragraph states: "Further, vendors should provide a list of all relevant DHS on-going contracts or contracts completed in the last (5) years."

Question: Can the Government clarify if this list should include contracts held by the Prime contractor (or CTA members) only; Prime contractor (or CTA members) and critical subcontractos only; or Prime contractor (or CTA members), critical subcontractors, and subcontractors (all team members)?

Shall provide a list of all relevant DHS contracts for all team members.

Attachment 2 - Quotation Submission Instructions

Factor 3: Past Per-formance, Fourth Paragraph 5-6

Referenced paragraph states: "For each past performance reference submitted, provide the following information, in the format provided." The last row of the format provided requests "Description of Work (Types of work performed, problems encountered and their resolutions, any subcontractors or partnerships...)." However, the format provided by the Government limits a narrative response for the Description of Work to half the width of the page.

Question: Can the Government adjust the Past Performance format to allow the Description of Work response to be provided in a separate table row that spans the full width of available page space (within the required 1" margins)?

See final RFQ for page limitations.

Attachment 2 - Quotation Submission Instructions

Volume 1 -

TECHNICAL

QUOTA-TION 3

Referenced paragraph states: "Volume 1 shall be limited to 25 pages, excluding the labor category descriptions, labor category cross reference matrix, the cover letter, title page, executive summary, and table of contents."

Question: Can the Government provide specific instructions for the required content to be provided in the Executive Summary?

Executive Summary should support main points of technical volume

Attachment 2 - Quotation Submission Instructions

Submission Instruc-tions 2

Referenced paragraph states: "To aid in the evaluation process, quotations shall be clearly and concisely written as well as neat, indexed and cross indexed, and logically assembled."

Question: Can the Government clarify the requirement for indexing and cross-indexing by providing examples of how the quotation should be both indexed and cross-indexed?

Index and cross-index is similar to reference and cross referencing.

Making mention of a capability and being able to reference back to it to support that capability. (Mention of management approach capability, which is supported by information somewhere else in the quotation).

Attachment 2 - Quotation Submission Instructions and Attachment 3 - Draft SSD Pricing Table

Volume 2 - Price Quotation 6

Referenced paragraph in Attachment 2 states: "The evaluation hours and travel/ODC amounts provided in the pricing table shall not be changed." However, in the Attachment 3 - Draft SSD Pricing Table, the total hours between the Tabs does not match. For example, the Base Period hours provided equals 224,736, where on the Total Cost Sheet, there are 240,096 hours. A similar discrepancy proves out between each Option Period Tab and the Total Cost Tab.

Question: Can the Government clarify the correct hours for consistency across the various tabs in the Attachment 3 - Draft SSD Pricing Table?

Will update prior to final RFQ

Attachment 1 Bullet 5 4

Would the contractor that developed the RFI be ineligible to bid on RFPs that result from it?

Refer to Question 1

51 Attachment 2 3 3 Should this reference GSA schedule 874?

This is a small business set-aside under GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Professional Services Schedule (PSS) 00CORP Special Item Numbers (SIN) 871-1 through 871-6 under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 - Engineering Services:

Att. 3 - Pricing Table n/a n/a

The "Total Cost" tab hours (column D) don't seem to match the total hours for both base and option years. For example, "Base Period" tab hours total 224,736 hours. The "Total Cost" tab's hours total 240,096 hours for the base period.

Will update prior to final RFQ

Att. 2 - Submission Instructions 4 1

Small Businesses may not have the full range of required labor categories established on their Professional Services Schedule (PSS).

We recommend allowing vendors to propose labor category mappings from RFP required categories to categories that are established on their PSS.

Draft RFQ states: Vendors shall provide a cross reference matrix that lists all the labor categories suggested by the Government under this task order and the correlating labor categories proposed by the vendor.

Attachment 2 - Instructions CTA Paragraph

III

Paragraph 2 on Page 1 states that this award will be made under the GSA FSS Professional Services Schedule. However, Paragraph III in the CTA section refers to GSA Schedule 70 ctonract. Please update this paragraph to refere to the GSA PSS contrct.

Updated.

Att 1: Section 12.0 and Attachment 2 N/A 24-44

There are clauses provided in the SOW, which are not included in the Attachment 2 Instructions; can the Government please advise where offerors are to include their responses to the Clauses requiring offeror certification/ responses?

Clause fill-ins shall be part of the Pricing Volume.

Att 2: VOLUME 1 -

TECHNICAL QUOTATION

Factor 3: Past Performance Format 5 and 6

Will the Government please allow offerors to modify the formatting of the information requested for each past performance reference submitted (i.e. reduce column size to increase the space for the response to each item)?

See final RFQ for page limitations.

Att 1: HSAR 3052.209-72 and HSAR 3052.209-73 N/A 31-34

If a wholly-owned subsidiary of a parent company is awarded the contract, is their parent company subject to the OCI restrictions? If the parent company is also a member of an SBA-approved mentor protege joint venture, is the joint venture also subject to the OCI?

Refer to Question 1

58 Att 1: HSAR 3052.209-72 and HSAR 3052.209-73 N/A 31-34

Will parent companies of potential awardees be excluded from any potential or perceived OCIs/COIs?

Att 1: HSAR 3052.209-72 and HSAR 3052.209-73 N/A 31-34

Does the potential or perceived OCI/COI include current and future contracts with all of the Operational and Support Components that make up the Department as well (i.e. FEMA, TSA, etc.)?

Refer to Question 1

Att 1: HSAR 3052.209-72 and HSAR 3052.209-73 N/A 31-34

Will parent companies be limited in participating in the defined potential OCI/COI activities on current and future contracts within DHS and its Operation and Support Components?

Refer to Question 1

Att 1: HSAR 3052.209-72 and HSAR 3052.209-73 N/A 31-34

Does the Government anticipate that any Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive type of contracts could have the potential for an OCI/COI?

Refer to Question 1

Att 1: HSAR 3052.209-72 and HSAR 3052.209-73 N/A 31-34

Does the potential OCI/COI include contracts where offerors will be performing any type of Information Technology (IT)/ Cyber Security/ Information Management related services for DHS or any of its Operational and Support Components?

Refer to Question 1

Att 1: HSAR 3052.209-72 and HSAR 3052.209-73 N/A 31-34

Does the OCI restriction limit awardees from performing on any and all upcoming Information Technology (IT) type contracts within DHS and its Operational and Support Components?

Number Section / Attachment

Paragraph Page Number

Comment Disposition of Question/Comment

2 Draft OSD

RFP

HSAR

3052.209- Organizatio nal Conflict of Interest

(JUN 2006)

24-25 “The Government’s provision (HSAR 3052.209-72) regarding Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) indicates that companies with developer or provider of technology or product operations have an OCI for this procurement. The provided SOW has a combination of program management support, budgetary support, and subject matter expertise. With the majority of the contractors who have this specific CWMD experience and expertise having contracts supporting the DHS mission, the majority of the potential bidders would have an OCI. Does the Government have any specific examples of risk mitigation strategies that would be deemed sufficient to approve an OCI plan? Would the Government consider separating the SOW and removing the program management tasks to a separate contract?”

Our response is provided for planning purposes and may be further defined/revised prior to release of final RFP/RFQ(s).

The limitation of future contracting and organizational conflict of interest clauses will be revised. Vendors will be allowed to compete as a prime and/or sub on all three A&AS efforts (SSD, OSD & PPA). A&AS support task order awardees and their first tier subcontractors will not be allowed to compete for DHS/CWMD requirements to include contracts for detection and/or identification equipment (including supporting operations and maintenance), contracts for operations and/or maintenance support to other CWMD programs (e.g. BioWatch, NBIC, BD21, MDDP, etc.), contracts for support to CWMD’s budget and finance office, and IT support contracts. This restriction will remain during the life of the A&AS task orders. We are currently working on revising the applicable contract clauses. They will be provided with the final RFP/RFQ(s). A first tier subcontract is defined as a subcontract awarded directly by the contractor for the purpose of acquiring supplies or services (including construction) for performance of a prime contract.

3 SOW 4.2 36 Does this work take over existing work that began in May 2019, or will the final RFP include a revised Period of Performance?

There will be a revised period of performance and this will be a continuation of work from the current support contract bridges

4 SOW 1.4.2 5 Will the government make the National Domestic Detection CONOPS available to prospective offerors?

Can be provided upon request; document is FOUO, Law Enforcement Sensitive

5 RFP 1.0 5 The draft RFP refers to working with the OCSO, PSD to complete/submit SF85 questionnaires to process background investigations for Public Trust Positions, however, does not make explicit a minimum baseline level of security clearance (such as SECRET). Is it the government's intent to make and communicate such minimum baseline to include the requisite completion of security forms?

The minimum baseline clearance is Secret, and has been explicitly stated in the SOW; yes

6 RFP 5.2 41 Is the "Percentage of Total Subcontracting Dollars" requirement applicable as a function of all A&AS procurements or just the A&AS OSD procurement?

Just the A&AS OSD procurement

7 SOW 1.2 3 The SOW states all personnel must be able to o btainand maintin a DHS Suitability and SECRET level clearances, however, the RFP makes no such reference. Is it the government's intent to make and communicate such minimum baseline to include the requisite completion of security forms?

See line 5 above

8 SOW 2.4 16 The SOW states the "The Contractor shall have access to and monitor classified information at the Secret and Top Secret (Sensitive Compartmented Information" levels, however th RFP makes no such reference. Is it the government's intent to make and communicate such minimum baseline to include the requisite completion of security forms?

Yes, see line 5 above

9 SOW 4.0 36 The SOW states "… The maximum level of classification is Top Secret/SCI. The details will be specified in a Department of Defense (DD) Form 254." Will this form be re-iterated in the RFP. Is it the government's intent to make and communicate such minimum baseline to include the requisite completion of security forms?

Yes, see line 5 above

10 Draft RFP Factor 1:

Small Business Subcontrac ting Goal

41 Please confirm that for Factor 1, Small Business Subcontracting Goals, that the CO does not want a task order small business subcontracting plan but rather an overview of the offeror’s small business subcontracting program that will be used to achieve a 40% goal to SB of subcontracted dollars? Actual subcontracting reporting will be reported against the offeror’s OASIS Pool 1 small business subcontracting plan, but filterable by this contract.

The offeror shall provide a one page certified statement that the contractractor will sub contract 20% of the total proposed value of this Task Order to small business. This will be evaluated on a "pass" or "fail" basis. No evalutations will be completed without this certification. The awardees biannual report will include progress against the Task Order small business goal of at least 20%.

The RFP has been revised to provide these clarifications.

11 Draft RFP Fill-ins for Other Direct Costs under FAR 52.212-4 Alt I

44 Can the government please revise the pricing spreadsheet to account for the inclusion and evaluation of the indirect rates on CLINS X0002, as per this statement on page 44: In order to evaluate the impact of the Offeror’s proposed indirect rate on their total evaluated price, the rate will be applied to the not-to- exceed (NTE) amount already provided by the Government?

X002 of the pricing matrix has been revised to include a fill-in for the offeror to submit their indirect rate which will then be applied to the NTE amount for evaluation purposes only in accordance with Section 5.3 of the RFP.

12 Draft RFP Fill-ins for Other Direct Costs under FAR 52.212-4 Alt I

44 Please confirm that despite including the G&A on the NTE value in the bid, only the NTE value will be awarded.

Yes, only the NTE value will be awarded

13 Draft RFP HSAR 3052.209- Limitation of Future Contracting

(JUN 2006).

26 Can the government please refine the prohibition to “not compete as either a prime or subcontractor to fulfill ANY future requirements for technologies/systems or product operations related support to DHS programs and initiatives, including but not limited to…” to specifically be applicable to technologies/systems or product operations that the contractor will work on for this TO, which create a biased ground rule or impaired objectivity OCI?

See Line 2

14 VII 3 42 Would the government please confirm there will be a 60 day transistion period after contract award?

Yes, there will be a 60d transition period built into the award.

15 1/4/1900 “Suitability, SECRET and TOP SECRET security clearance. A DD Form 254 will be incorporated into the task order to authorize access and generation of classified information up to and including Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information . . . “. Please define specific security clearances by position?

Security Clearance column has been added to the Pricing Matrix so the security clearance required is now provided for each position.

16 1/5/1900 “. . . comprehensive list of all terms and acronyms used in the SOW, including applicable definitions.” Please confirm that the acronym list will be excluded from the Volume I Technical section 25 page limit?

These term and acronyms are part of the SOW; if the offeror provides such a list, it will be subject to the page limitations, though the page limit has been increased to a 30 page limit on the revised

RFP.

17 2.0 - Evaluation Factors

N/A 59 Recommend the final RFP define the adjectival ratings and/or color ratings for the factors that will be rated in the evalution criteria.

Adjectival Ratings will not be included in the RFP

18 4.2 - Period of Performance

N/A 36 The SOW states the period of performance is a 1-year base period with (5) one-year option periods and a 6 month extension. However, only (4) one-year option periods are listed. Can you please confirm the POP?

The POP has been revised and the SOW and RFP will be revised accordingly. The POP will be a 7 month base period with 5 one-year options.

19 Tabs 001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001

Please confirm offerors are required to bid the exact hours and labor mix provided in Attachment 2 - Pricing Table.

Correct, offerors are required to bid the exact hours and labor mix in the Pricing Matrix.

Operations Support Directorate (OSD) Questions & Answers

20 HSAR

3052.209-72 Organization al Conflict of Interest (JUN 2006)

Bullet One 43 Will the Contractor be able to submit proposals as a Prime Contractor, and compete on both (OSD,PPA) RFP's within DHS-CWMD?

See Line 2

21 HSAR

3052.209-72 Organization al Conflict of Interest (JUN 2006)

Bullet One 43 If the Contractor competes as a Prime or Subcontractor for both (OSD,PPA) RFP's within DHS- CWMD and provides an appropriate and substantial OCI Mitigation Plan, will the Government consider the Contractor's Plan in good faith?

See Line 2

22 HSAR

3052.209-72 Organization al Conflict of Interest (JUN 2006)

Bullet One 43 Will the Government allow the Contractor to be able to team, and compete as a Sub contractor on both (OSD,PPA) RFP's within DHS-CWMD if an appropriate and substantial OCI Mitigation Plan is provided?

See Line 2

23 HSAR

3052.209-72 Organization al Conflict of Interest (JUN 2006)

Bullet One 43 Will the Government allow Contractor to be able to compete as a Prime on one and as a teaming Subcontractors on another (OSD,PPA) RFP's within DHS-CWMD?

See Line 2

24 HSAR

3052.209-72 Organization al Conflict of Interest (JUN 2006)

Bullet One 43 If Contractors compete on multiple (OSD,PPA,SSD) RFP's, and Government determines ineligibility, and is disqualified for Contract Award due to Organizational Conflict of Interest, will the Contractor be able to continue to compete for other ongoing A&AS contracts in DHS-CWMD?

See Line 2

25 HSAR

3052.209-72 Organization al Conflict of Interest (JUN 2006)

43 If Contractor, as a Prime or Subcontractor, competes on multiple (OSD,PPA,SSD) RFP's, at what point in Source Selection will they be informed of disqualification from competition due OCI?

See Line 2

26 HSAR

3052.209-72 Organization al Conflict of Interest (JUN 2006)

43 If Disqualified, from one competition, will the Contractor be able to continue to compete for the other A&AS contracts in DHS-CWMD?

See Line 2

27 HSAR

3052.209-73 Limitation of Future Contracting

(JUN 2006).

C 44 Request Clarification on Bullet 1. • The contractor agrees in principle and in fact to not compete as either a prime or subcontractor to fulfill ANY future requirements for technologies/systems or product operations related support to DHS programs and initiatives, including but not limited to:

Question: Does the Contract Office plan on excluding contractors (Prime or Sub) from being able to compete for contracts within the entirety of the Department of Homeland Security or just the DHS CWMD Office?

See Line 2

28 Section VI

HSAR

3052.209-72 Organization al Conflict of Interest (JUN 2006)

Second paragraph

43 Request clarification: "Any subcontractor, contractor teaming partner, or consultant who has provided services or supplies relating to programs associated with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could have an actual or potential conflict of interest in the anticipated acquisition....activities:' Question: Does this paragraph apply to DHS in it's entirety, or is it only inclusive DHS CWMD

See Line 2

29 Attach 1 Draft SOW

3.4 Project

Manager

35 States that "the Project Manager shall be one of the senior level employees provided by the Contractor for this work effort." All senior level employees are full time according to the pricing matrix provided with the draft RFP. Given that this is a 88-FTE effort (not including surge support), would the government please adjust the attachment to include hours for Project Management?

There will be no provision for a dedicated project manager position across the whole effort; each area will have a designated task lead, as indicated in the Key Personnel section of the SOW, who will perform those functions for the associated task area. If the offeror assigns a senior person to coordinate and manage across whole effort, that will be abosorbed in the company overhead that is assumed in the fully burdened labor rates.

30 Attach 1 Draft SOW

4.11, (Subcontra cting Reporting);

in the OSD Instruction s: Tab C (Factor 1:

Small Business Subcontrac ting Goals)

40 in the

SOW, 41

in the instructio ns

These two paras provide different guidance regarding small business goals. The SOW reference states a 20% requirement for small businesses and the Instructions reference states a 40% requirement for small businesses. Please update the SOW and Instructions accordingly to ensure the two sections sync.

This is fixed; there will be a single 20% small business goal. See the response to line 10, above.

31 Attach 1 Draft SOW

2.1.3 7 (OSD) 5-

7 (SSD)

SOW requirements related to CWMD System Engineering support in section 2.1.3 of the draft OSD RFP are redundant to SOW requirements listed in the SSD Draft SOW (2.1.4 and 2.1.6 for example). Can the government clarify which procurement will support the systems engineering requirements?

The systems engineering requirements stated in the OSD SOW relate to OSD support requested in the SOW, and are not redundant with others that may be reuqested under other SOWs.

32 Attach 1 Draft SOW

3.1 Qualified Personnel

19 Attachment 2- Pricing Matrix includes 1920 hours for a “Program Coordinator (Analyst Junior)” labor category under the AF Mobile Detection Deployment Labor task. The Contractor did not find a labor category description and qualifications for that position in the Draft SOW. Would the Government please provide the desired qualifications for the Program Coordinator?

The position has been deleted from the final SOW.

33 Section 5.2 Specific Instructions for Voume 1 - Technical Proposal

FACTOR 3:

Manageme nt Approach & Staffing Plan

41 Considering the size of the procurement and necessary personnel, would the Government please exclude the Staffing Plan table from the 25 page limitation for Tab C?

The staffing plan requirements have been revised to eliminate redundancy with information already provided in the Pricing Matrix and SOW. The requirements of the staffing plan as now revised in the RFP should not require a Staffing Plan table and should be easily described in a narrative that will fit within the overall 25 page limit.

34 Section 5.2 Specific Instructions for Voume 1 - Technical Proposal

Past Performan ce, paragraph

43 As currently written, it is stated that "The Offeror should submit up to 3 past performance examples for the prime and 3 past performance examples from each of its major subcontractors." Would the government please confirm this requirement should instead read, "...and up to 3 past performance examples from each of its major subcontractors."

The RFP will be revised to add, "…and up to 3 past performance examples from each of its major subcontractors.", as suggested in the comment.

35 Pricing Matrix General The pricing template requests OASIS LCATS. Is the government's intent that the OASIS mapping also include OASIS levels (eg. Junior, Journeyman, Senior, and SME)

OASIS LCATS have been removed from the Pricing Matrix

36 Pricing Matrix Line 57 The price matrix includes a Program Coordinator (Analyst-Junior); however, the LCAT is not listed in SOW 3.0. Would the government please reconcile?

The position has been deleted from the final SOW.

37 Pricing Matrix Surge CLINS Would the government please provide a basis for what the NTE surge values for each year are based on?

Projected need, but may be higher or lower, depending on operational need to support an emergent requirement

38 Pricing Matrix Surge CLINS CLIN Labor Tabs

The pricing template requests that offerors provide OASIS rates and discounts to OASIS rates.

OASIS price lists are only applicable when the provision FAR 52.216-30,Time-and-Materials/Labor- Hour Proposal Requirements—Non Commercial Item Acquisitions Without Adequate Price Competition is selected or; FAR 52.216-31, Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Proposal Requirements—Commercial Item Acquisition is selected and there is an exception to fair opportunity.

Does the government anticipate an exception to fair opportunity for this acquisition? If not, will the government please remove the requirement to provide OASIS rates and discounts to OASIS rates in the pricing template since the OASIS price lists are no longer applicable if fair opportunity is anticipated?

"OASIS Rates" and "Discounts to Rates" removed from the Pricing Matrix.

39 RFP I 1.2 1 The NAICS code is 541330. Is the Government using $16.5M or the exception of $41.6M? $16.5M 40 RFP VI 3.0, HSAR 3044 In the draft solicitation for the Systems Support Directorate (dRFQ Number:

70RWMD19R00000013 for CWMD SSD A&AS) in the Section titled "HSAR 3052.209-73 Limitation of Future Contracting" there is an additional clause on page 34 regarding potential Conflicts of Interest between the A&AS support to SSD and the Operational Support Directorate. This language is not included in the OSD draft SOW. Would the government please reconcile the clause?

See Line 2

41 RFP VII 5.1 39 According to the SOW, Section 4.8 Project Plan and 9.0 Deliverables, Offerors are to include a draft plan with their proposal submission; however, instructions to Offerors on how to provide their Draft Project Plan with the proposal submission are not specified within the instructions of the draft solicitation document (OSD-Draft RFP 70RWMD19R000000XX OSD.docx). Can the Government please provide the proposal instructions on how Offerors are to provide their Project Plan and whether it counts towards page count?

The SOW has been revised to state that the Draft Project Management Plan will be due at the kick off meeting with the final being due within 15 days after award. The Draft Project Management Plan will not be a part of proposal submission.

42 RFP VII 5.2 41 The section notes a SB goal of 40%; however, SOW 4.11 notes the SB goal of 20%. Which is correct?

20% small business goal is correct, and has been revised in the RFP.

43 RFP VII 5.2 40-43 Similar to above, Section 5.2, pages 40 – 43 does not include reference to how the draft Program Management Plan would be evaluated. If a draft management plan is required, can the government specify how it will be evaluated.

See Line 41 above.

44 RFP VII 5.3 58 Given that this is a best value procurement, does the vendor have the opportunity to propose an alternate labor mix or hours from the government provided pricing template? The restrictive nature of the LCATS as currently identified may restrict competition as does not allow substitution of equivalent/reasonable experience or flexibility in staffing approach.

An alternate labor mix and/or hours is not being allowed. Offerors are not to make any changes to the Pricing Matrix where information is already provided.

45 RFP VII 5.2, Factor 141 Can the government please clarify whether the goal for Small Business contracting is 40% of total contract dollars or of total subcontracted dollars? If total dollars, would the government please specify whether the 40% is of contract value or workshare?

The Small Business Subcontracting Goal is 20% of the total proposed value of the Task Order. The RFP has been revised to clarify.

46 RFP VII 5.2, Factor 342 When does the government anticipate identifying the Key Personnel for this effort? Key personnel section specified in final SOW 47 RFP VII 5.2, Factor 443 The RFP states, "The Offeror should submit up to 3 past performance examples for the prime and

3 past performance examples from each of its major subcontractors. At least one of the examples shall be from the prime." The first sentence notes 3 examples from the prime while the last states at least one example from the prime. For the last sentence, do you mean at least one of the subcontractor examples should be as a prime (vice as a subcontractor to another?)

See line 34 above

48 RFP VII 5.2, Factor 443 Would the government please clarify the definition of a "major subcontractor" with regards to the Past Performance requirement?

"Major subcontractor" will be revised to "First Tier Subcontract" in the RFP with a definition provided.

49 RFP VII 5.2, Factor 443 Would the government please provide additional guidance regarding the "validated reference" required for each past performance example? Is there a specific template the government would prefer? Will an email from the client suffice as a "signed letter or statement from the client"?

The "validated reference" has been replaced with a "Past Performance Questionnaire" which is a template that will be filled out and submitted by the Program Manager for that particular effort identified by the offeror. Further information and instructions are provided in the revised RFP.

50 RFP VIII 2.0, Factor 145 The RFP states, any offeror not meeting or exceeding the 40.0% Small Business subcontracting goal will not be further evaluated. This states if you exceed the 40% you are no longer evaluated, which is not the intent. Recommend removing “or exceeding”

No, this states that the offeror will not be further evaluated if they don't meet or exceed the goal, not that they won't be evaluated if they exceed the goal.

51 RFP VIII 2.0, Factor 246 The RFP states,…