Responses-to-soliciation-August21.docx

August 21, 2008

Prospective Offerors, A number of questions and comments have been sent to me since posting the solicitation on August 11. Each comment/question with the corresponding United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) response is listed below. As a result, amendment 1 (version 2) of the solicitation will be posted on FedBizOpps today.

1) C.5, Security and Privacy – Although USDA indicates that “preparation of the deliverables in this contact will primarily be completed at a [unclassified but sensitive] level”, a top-secret facility clearance is required. [….] However, as the USDA is aware, a facility clearance request has to follow specific guidelines prescribed by the DSS. As such, we request that the USDA modify the TS facility clearance requirement “at-submission” currently set forth in the solicitation and allow […] enough time to get the facility clearance post-award. The limited amount of top-secret work required can be performed by our subcontractor until we obtain a top-secret facility clearance. Please confirm this is acceptable.

USDA Response:

The top-secret facility requirement in solicitation Section C.11, “Corporate Qualifications” shall be replaced by the following:

“Offeror shall hold a top-secret (TS) facility clearance at time of award. In lieu of a currently-held, permanent clearance, the Offeror shall make available at time of award a subcontractor who has TS facility clearance. Offeror shall provide a letter of commitment from the intended subcontractor, including subcontractor’s certification that they have clearance. The USDA will sponsor the contractor’s application for clearance. The contractor must obtain temporary clearance within three months from time of award and must obtain permanent clearance within one year from award. Not attaining TS facility clearance within 12 months of award is grounds for termination by default in accordance with FAR 52.249-8”.

Solicitation Section M.5.1.2(c) will be changed to “Whether the Offeror has permanent top-secret (TS) facility clearance (exceptional rating), or will use a subcontractor and require USDA sponsorship to gain TS facility clearance (acceptable rating)”.

2) M.5.1.2, Corporate Qualifications – USDA is providing a higher rating if the prime contractor has necessary certifications, and a lower rating if the subcontractor has the certifications. As long as the work is provided in a competent fashion by the Offeror team, it seems unduly restrictive […..], [….]. As the RFP requirements have […] limited the number of potential respondents, this additional restriction appears to unduly restrict strong teams that can supply the same, if not a greater number of team certifications and experience. We ask that USDA remove this preferential evaluation for the prime contractor.

USDA response:

Section C.12 “Personnel”, 3rd paragraph will be changed to read - “On some task/delivery orders, the contractor, either directly or via subcontractor, shall supply approximately 12 Lenel Certified technicians, …”

Corresponding to this change, Section M.5.1.2 shall be changed to read - “b. Whether the Offeror, either directly or via subcontractors, has the following necessary certifications:”

3) M.5.1.3.b, Personnel Qualifications – USDA defines six systems that the Offeror must have subject matter expertise in. For each key person description, experience should include “at least 2 years with the systems already deployed related to the SOW tasks. Again, only the incumbent will have this detailed level of knowledge. We ask that this application-level SME criteria be removed, and that the incumbent contractor be required to provide transition services to ensure proper migration to a new contractor.

In Section C.12, “Personnel”, for every job description which requires two years of experience, it will be replaced by “…shall have experience with systems already deployed related to the SOW tasks”.

4) Transition Services - We are assuming that the incumbent contractor will be obligated, in the event that they do not retain this contract, to provide transition services to the incoming contractor. Is this correct?

Transition services are not currently provided in the incumbent’s contract. Modification will be made if necessary after award.

5) IDIQ Multiple-Award Contract – Many Federal agencies make multiple awards on these types of broad-scope IDIQ contracts to ensure this very broad set of services are provided, and cost competitiveness is maintained through limited competition on each Task Order. We would appreciate it if USDA would consider making this a multiple-award contract.

Our acquisition strategy is based upon single-award. Each task order proposal is negotiated which helps control costs. Also, a single award minimizes administrative expenses. Thus, the contract will remain single award.

6) There are five labor categories to be priced; however, there are six labor categories designated as key in the RFP text. Can you confirm that the Enterprise Engineer, designated as key in Section M.5.1.3.d.5, is not to be priced?

Enterprise Engineer is a key position. Section B Labor Rates table is in error. Enterprise Engineer will be added to the Section B table.

7) May an Offeror propose prices and estimated quantities for additional features/equipment or services currently not stated in the solicitation’s Labor Rates table (page 3), which the Offeror believes will be needed to meet the government’s requirements as stated in the RFP?

An Offeror must provide labor rates for all of the categories listed in the Labor Rate table in Section B of the solicitation. Additional labor categories will not be considered in the basic proposal. In the sample-task-order proposal, the Offeror may propose different labor categories. Also, when task orders are issued under the awarded IDIQ contract, different labor categories may be used.

8) Page 1 of the Solicitation states that “…Sealed offers in one (1) original and four (4) copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if hand carried, in the depository located in ________________________________ until 1300 ET local time on 09/08/2008.” The transmittal letter and Section L of the Solicitation states that the due date is September 10, 2008. Please clarify.

Page 1 is in error. The due date is September 10.

If you have any question or comments, please direct them to the undersigned.

Thank you for your interest.

Earl Friedman, Contracting Officer United States Department of Agriculture 300 7th Street, SW, Rm. 383 Washington, DC 20024

(202) 720-2538