D15PS00125_Solicitation_Questions_and_Responses.docx

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Microsystems Technology Office (MTO) Advisory and Assistance Service (AA&S)/ Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) Support Services Solicitation D15PS00125 Amendment

RFP QUESTIONS and RESPONSES

1. Reference: Section B.4, p. 6 of 88, Instructions Comment: The RFP advises offerors to submit a price proposal in accordance with the instructions found in section L.8.

Question: As there is no section L. 8 in the solicitation, please confirm that offerors are to refer to section L.3, Volume III (p. 73 of 88) for instructions.

Response: This is a typographical error. Please reference section L.3.

2. Reference: Section L.2.7, p. 69 of 88, Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards Statute.

Comment: The application of the Statue as it relates to the MTO solicitation was not included. The phrase included in this section was a repeat of what is states in Section L.2.6.

Question: Will the Government please provide guidance as to the appropriate application of the statute for this solicitation?

Response: Application of this statue is detailed in FAR 22.1006. As exemptions cannot be determined at this time, the Service Contract Labor Standards is applicable to this requirement. The most current and applicable Wage Rate Determinations will be applied annually to this acquisition. All Non-Exempt employees will fall under this statue.

3. Reference: Section L.3 p. 70 of 88, Volume I-GENERAL states "d. Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangements. Each Offeror shall provide, if applicable, a summary describing the Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangement established for this RFP and a document establishing the legally binding nature among the joint venture/teaming parties."

Question: as teaming agreements are typically lengthy documents, will these count against the page limit for Volume I?

Response: No. As this is a required document individual in nature to the Joint Venture/teaming arrangements and Organizations involved, the total number of pages cannot be set. These documents shall not count against the page limits for Volume I.

4. Reference: Section L.3, page 70 of 88, VOLUME II – TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS states; Offerors shall submit two (2) separate versions of the Volume II – TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL. Both proposals will be identical in nature and detailed in accordance with the requirements of this section. One shall be fully redacted for all contractor, subcontractor, or suppliers’ names, logos, or any other identifying markings.

Question: Does this requirement to redact apply to resumes?

Response: No. The history, background, experience, and education of the individual must be detailed as required. However, the Offeror shall not add any additional company/organization identifying or markings to the individual resumes. Labels or annotations with proposal numbers and solicitation number are acceptable to account for the resumes as part of the overall proposal package.

5. Reference: Section L.3, p. 71 of 88, INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS, VOLUME II - TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL, Section A - TECHNICAL APPROACH & STAFF PROPOSED TO PERFORM THE SAMPLE TASKS Question 1: Does the government intend to award the Sample Tasks?

Response: No. The Government does not intend to award the sample task orders.

Reference: : Section L.3, p. 74 of 88, PART 2: SAMPLE TASK ORDERS (ATTACHMENT 6): “ A. The sample task orders proposed prices will be analyzed to determine whether they are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the Offeror's Technical Proposal. Additionally, all offers will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will perform a cost analysis on all acceptable proposals received as a result of the Sample Task Orders evaluation..."

Question 2: In light of the cost analysis for acceptable proposals, does the Government intend to award the sample tasks as proposed?

Response: No. The Government does not intend to award the sample task orders.

6. Reference: Section L.3, p.72 of 88, INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS, VOLUME II – TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL, Section C - ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE states, specifically, address experience with the following areas:

(1) Experience in technical support tasks as defined in the PWS.

(2) Experience in programmatic, financial, and administrative support tasks as defined in the PWS.

(3) Experience in contract administrative and management support tasks as defined in the PWS.

(4) Experience in human use/animal use research support tasks as defined in the PWS

(5) Experience in meeting/conference support tasks as defined in the PWS Comment: It is our understanding that MTO does not engage in human or animal research. Question: Please clarify whether item 4 in the list above should be removed?

Response: This information was not intended to be part of the solicitation. Amendment 2 removed it from Section M.2 but not L.3

7. Reference: Section L.3, p.72 of 88, INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS, VOLUME II – TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL, Section C - ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE states, specifically, address experience with the following areas:

(1) Experience in technical support tasks as defined in the PWS.

(2) Experience in programmatic, financial, and administrative support tasks as defined in the PWS.

(3) Experience in contract administrative and management support tasks as defined in the PWS.

(4) Experience in human use/animal use research support tasks as defined in the PWS

(5) Experience in meeting/conference support tasks as defined in the PWS Comment: Section C.1 – Description and Specifications does not provide any detail requirements as listed in areas 1-5 Question: Should the Offeror assume that the Section L.3, Section C - ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE references to the PWS areas should reference all the Performance Objectives and Support Tasks described in Section C.2.0 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND SUPPORT TASKS as follows:

2.1 MTO Program Manager Support

2.1.1 Strategic Planning, Program Formulation, and Technical Analysis

2.1.2 Program Planning and Financial Processing

2.1.3 Conference/Meeting Planning

2.1.4 Program Documentation

2.1.5 Document Management Control

2.2 MTO OFFICE-WIDE SUPPORT

2.2.1 Procurement/Solicitation Support

2.2.2 World Wide Web (WWW) Support

2.2.3 Office-wide Administrative Program Support

2.2.4 Strategic Planning Support

2.2.5 Executive Briefing Support

Response: Yes.

8. Reference: L.3 p. 73 of 88 Volume III-COST PROPOSAL RFP states: "For both Time & Materials and Cost Plus Fixed Fee Task orders, subcontract costs shall be treated as Other Direct Costs and shall be reimbursed at actual costs only (excluding indirect costs and profit)."

Question: In accordance with FAR 52.216-7(b)(1)(ii)(F), indirect costs are allowable and reimbursable. Please clarify the discrepancy between the RFP and the FAR regarding a Prime’s ability to recoup its indirect costs on ODCs under Cost Plus Fixed Fee Task Orders.

Response: This is a typographical error.

This should read “…subcontract costs shall be treated as Direct Cost and….”

Rather than stating “…subcontract costs shall be treated as Other Direct Costs and….”

9. Reference: L.3 p. 73 of 88 Volume III-COST PROPOSAL RFP states: "For both Time & Materials and Cost Plus Fixed Fee Task orders, subcontract costs shall be treated as Other Direct Costs and shall be reimbursed at actual costs only (excluding indirect costs and profit)."

Question: In accordance with FAR 52.232-7, prime contractors and subcontractors invoice at the same negotiated labor rates per labor category and that the rates shall include "wages, indirect costs, general and administrative expense, and profit." Please clarify the discrepancy between the RFP and the FAR regarding the requirement to invoice subcontractor labor as ODCs under Time & Materials Task Orders.

Response: This is incorrect. Paragraph will be revised in the following amendment stated as follows:

“Subcontract costs: For Cost Plus Fixed Fee Task orders, subcontract costs shall be treated as Direct Costs. For Time and Materials Task orders, 52-232-7 applies to T&M and has specific requirements under this clause must be followed. The Offeror shall describe all efforts to be subcontracted, to include the source (i.e. company), labor category, personnel proposed, the estimated cost, and the basis for this estimate. Subcontract labor shall be accounted to the detail required for any prime contract labor. A cost proposal as detailed as the Offeror's cost proposal will be required to be submitted by the subcontractor. The subcontractor's cost proposal can be provided in a sealed envelope with the Offeror's cost proposal.”

10. Reference: Section L3, p 74 of 88, Volume III – COST PROPOSAL states “Subcontract costs… subcontract costs shall be treated as Other Direct Costs and shall be reimbursed at actual costs only (excluding indirect costs and profit)…” Comment: In accordance with FAR 52.216-7(b)(1)(ii)(F), indirect costs are allowable and reimbursable.

Question: Please clarify the discrepancy between the RFP and the FAR regarding a Prime’s ability to recoup its indirect costs and profit on subcontract labor.

Response: Will be corrected to read “…subcontract costs shall be treated as Direct Cost and….”

Rather than stating “…subcontract costs shall be treated as Other Direct Costs and….”

11. Reference: L.3 p. 75 of 88 Volume III-COST PROPOSAL "Sample Task Cost Proposal Format: (1) Offerors are to submit cost proposals as required to perform the Sample Tasks found in Attachment Six (6) along with a narrative supporting the costs. Proposals shall be submitted with, at a minimum, the information listed below. Offerors shall provide separate proposals for a Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, and Time and Materials (using on-site rates and off-site rates) for each sample Task Order."

Question: Travel costs are significant risk items for FFP cost proposals. Will the government allow travel to be a separate cost-reimbursable CLIN for the FFP task order pricing?

Response: The sample task orders are being evaluated on the ability to accurately and fairly propose under different pricing arrangements. In this case, the Government is looking to evaluate all offerors on their ability to propose an each element under different pricing arrangements regardless of the risk perceived with associated with a task requirement. Under actual task orders, the travel needs will dictate the negotiated pricing arrangements and CLIN structure.

12. Reference: SECTION L3, p. 75 of 88, Sample Task Cost Proposal Format Comment: The format provided for the cost proposal for the sample tasks does not provide a Period of Performance.

Question 1: Will the Government please provide the Period of Performance to be priced for each sample task?

Reference: Section L.3 Volume III-COST PROPOSAL p. 75 of 88, SAMPLE TASK COST PROPOSAL- The format provided for the cost proposal for the sample task does not provide a Period of Performance.

Question 2: Should offerors assume a one year Period of Performance to price the Sample Tasks?

Response: Yes, only Price for one year POP

13. Reference: Section L.3, p. 78 of 88, INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS, VOLUME V- SUBCONTRACTING GOALS/SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION provides, for information purposes, the DoD FY2015 subcontracting goals (Small Business 36.7% HUBZone Small Business 3%, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 3%, Small Disadvantaged Business 5% and Women-Owned Small Business 5%). Also included in that section is the following “Note: The above small business participation targets represent the Government’s assessment of appropriate minimums expressed as a percentage of total contract value.”

Comment: It is our understanding that DOD subcontracting participation targets represented are based on total subcontracted dollars rather than total contract value.

Question: Please clarify, are the DoD subcontracting participation targets to be based on a percentage of total subcontracted dollars or total contract value?

Response: Yes, the DOD subcontracting goals are based on the overall subcontracted dollars.

14. Reference: L.3 Volume III-COST PROPOSAL Question: Will the Government provide a pricing model (Excel spreadsheet) to ensure consistency in Offeror submissions?

Response: No.

15. Reference: Section L.5, p. 79 of 88, REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, advises offerors that amendments to the solicitation will be posted on the FedBizOps website as the official site of record.

Comment: To date, neither amendments 1 or 2 are posted in FedBizOps.

Question: Does the Government intend to use FedBizOps as the official reference point for all solicitation documents? When will documents be posted to the site?

Response: Due to system issues the amendments are only being posted to FedConnect and currently working to correct the issue. In order to be FAR compliant, all future amendments will be posted to FBO with exception of amendment on FedConnect informing that all information will be found on FBO. Amendments can be requested through email by contacting Chiketta.Wilson@ibc.doi.gov.

16. Reference: Section M.2, Page 83 of 88, SUBFACTOR 1 states; The Government will consider the following factors when evaluating availability of personnel: (c) Whether an individual is currently employed by the contractor/subcontractor versus whether the individual's service is conditional or under a letter of intent.

Comment: To meet the requirement that the Offeror shall submit resumes for all individuals proposed as part of the task order the Offeror may extend contingent hire offers based on contract award Question: Will the government require the Offeror to provide proof of such offers by submitting a copy of the letter of intent for all contingent proposed staff?

Response: Yes

17. Reference: Attachment 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION SUMMARY SECTION 2 – PERFORMANCE (2) states; For each of the applicable sub-factors under the Technical and Management Factor in Section L, illustrate how your experience on this contract applies to that sub-factor Comment: There are no “subfactors” in the Technical and Management Factor in Section L;

Question: Should this reference reflect the relevant experience as described in Section L.3, VOLUME II, Section C – ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE?

Response: Relevant and Recent PP will be evaluated. It is up to the offeror to determine which Past Performance they wish to be evaluated under the solicitation. This holds true with Organizational Experience. This may or may not be the same as the Past Performance information. Again, this is up to the Contractor to determine. No, the Past Performance information does not fall under Volume II, section C – Organizational Experience.

18. Reference: Attachment 6 - Sample Task Order #1, 7.2 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE states; The contractor shall perform the required support from contractor facilities located in Arlington, Virginia and from other contractor locations as appropriate. Access to DARPA will be required on a regular basis.

Comment: Historically office-wide support is provided on government site with minimal contractor site direct support.

Question: Should the Offeror assume that the actual place of performance for this task order will be primarily performed on government site at DARPA?

Response: The primary place of performance will be at the Government’s facility – DARPA.

19. Reference: Attachment 6 - Sample Task Order #1 Office Wide SETA Support Comment: An estimated LOE for similar programs is informative for the Offerors and can help to ensure that the proposals are in a similar competitive range.

Question: Attachment 7 - Sample Task Order #2 includes a labor effort estimate. Does the government intent to provide the same estimate for Sample Task #1 (Attachment 6)?

Response: Every Program Manager has different requirements and not every Task Order PWS will look the same, or will be provided with an estimate.