D15PS00167_Response_to_Questions.docx

D15PS00167 Questions & Answers The following questions and answers, pertaining to the above-referenced solicitation, are provided for your information. Offerors are cautioned that the answers below do not alter the solicitation. Only an amendment to the Solicitation will change the requirements or any other content of the RFP. In the event of an inconsistency between statements contained in any amendment of the solicitation and this document, the amendment shall take precedence.

1. Question: Are there incumbents currently providing these services? If so, could you please provide the contract numbers?

Response: Contract #: D11PC20051 Contractor: Strategic Analysis

Contract #: D11PC20063 Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton

Contract #: D11PC20064 Contractor: System Planning Corporation

2. Question: Section L3, page 87, SAMPLE TASK COST PROPOSAL – The format provided for the cost proposal for the sample task does not provide a Period of Performance. Should we assume a one year Period of Performance?

Response: Yes, the Sample Task Order proposals shall be a one year base period of performance. Section L.3, Volume III Cost Proposal, Sample Task Cost Proposal Format has been revised to reflect this change.

3. Question: SECTION L3, page 82, SECTION A states “The Government reserves the right to make award from eligible sample task order proposals.” Should the government award a sample task order, does the government anticipate making a single or multiple award?

Response: Should the Government award a sample task order, the Government anticipates making a single award, however the Government reserves the right to make multiple awards from a single PWS.

4. Question: Section L3, page 86, Subparagraph 3 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)…” 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.

Response – Subcontract Labor costs should be proposed as an Other Direct Cost and not be rolled up into the Prime’s Labor costs. The Prime can include the applicable indirect costs and profit associated with subcontracts as applicable. As per FAR 52.216-7(b)(1)(ii)(F), properly allocable and allowable indirect costs shall be reimbursed at actual costs. Section L.3, Volume III – Cost Proposal, (3) Subcontract costs has been revised to clarify.

5. Question: Are contractors to assume that by “subcontract costs” the Government is referring to subcontracted other direct costs, such as travel, and not Labor. Please clarify this instruction.

Response – The subcontract costs include all costs not associated with the prime contractor. This includes subcontractor travel, supplies, labor, consultants, etc.

6. Question: G. 10 provides a TO Proposal Format, however Section L, Volume II Section A (page 82) provides a different format for providing the Sample TOs in the proposal. We are assuming that for compliant submission of the BTO proposal, you would like Offerors to provide the Sample Task Order information as indicated in Section L.

Response: Yes, offerors should follow the instructions in Section L for the Task Order proposals.

7. Question: Volume I General states “The volume should include the following: PROPOSAL TRANSMITTAL LETTER. A letter formally transmitting the proposal to include the following:…” then it lists items a-g to include in Volume I. Does the government want a separate proposal transmittal letter, or is the intent that items a-g are the content of the Proposal Transmittal Letter?

Response: The proposal transmittal letter should include the statements indicated in a-f. Statement g indicates the solicitation documents that should be included in Volume I. Section L.3, Volume I, has been revised to clarify the Volume I make-up.

8. Question:

a. Volume I General d. Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangements 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.” Our team consists of multiple subcontractors. If we provide a legally binding teaming document for all subcontractors we will far exceed the 10 page limit. Can the government either remove the page constraint so that we can provide the documents, or remove this requirement?

b. As teaming agreements are typically lengthy documents, what constitutes sufficient documentation for establishing the legally binding nature among the joint venture/teaming parties? If copies of the teaming agreements are required, will that count against the page limit for Volume I?

Response: The documents providing evidence of Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangements do not count towards the page limits. Section L.3, Volume I, d. Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangements has been revised to include this information.

9. Question: Volume IV Past Performance Consent Letter states “Past performance information concerning subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor's or teaming partner's consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor/teaming partner past performance information to the prime during exchanges. The consent letter must be completed by major subcontractors/teaming partners identified in the proposal.” Is major subcontractors defined as those providing past performance information?

Response: The offeror must make the decision which subcontractor(s) is considered a major subcontractor. Past Performance information is required on the Prime Offeror, subcontractors, consultants, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform aspects of the effort the Offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. The subcontractors that are critical to the success of the performance should complete the consent letter.

10. Question: Volume IV Past Performance Organization Structure Change History states “Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company.” Does the Government want Offerors and subcontractors to provide ALL reorganizations the company has undergone, or only those within the three year relevancy window?

Response: The Government is requesting reorganization information within the three year relevancy.

11. Question: L.4.2.c Proposal Volume Break Out (page 92) states that Volumes I and II can be provided in PDF format. The Electronic Offers paragraph on page 93 lists acceptable file formats, but does not mention PDF. Is it acceptable to submit Volumes I and II in PDF format?

Response: Yes, PDF is acceptable for Volumes I and II. Section L.4.2 c, Electronic Offers has been revised to include Adobe Acrobat.

Questions:

a. L.4.2.c Proposal Volume Break Out (page 92) states that the cost proposal file format to submit is XLS, however there are elements which would be better presented in a word or PDF format such as the cost realism narrative and the DCAA approval document. Can the Government please consider changing this requirement and allowing Offerors to provide content in a word or PDF format in addition to the XLS information.

b. If so, what naming protocol would the Government like used?

Response: Narratives and DCAA documents can be in PDF or Word format. D0167-III -Company Name- Cost. XLS(x) or .Doc(x). or PDF. Section L.4.2, c Proposal Volume Break Out has been revised to reflect this change.

12. Question: Are Attachments B and C suggestions, or would the Government like Offerors to provide their Past Performance information utilizing Attachment B and their Small Business Subcontracting Plan utilizing Attachment C?

Response: The Offerors shall provide their Past Performance information utilizing Attachment B and their Small Business Subcontracting Plan utilizing Attachment C.

13. Question: Section L.4.2.c Text states “Text type should be Times New Roman or Arial, no smaller than 12-point…” however the font size in Attachment B is 11 point. Do you want Offerors to increase the size of the text when completing the Attachment B information for proposal submission?

Response: The Attachment B font size can remain 11 point.

14. Question: Volume II – Technical Approach…Section C - ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE states “The Offeror shall provide a description of the SETA support services that the company has performed within the past five years…” Does the Government want this matrix to include information for the prime contractor only?

Response: The matrix should reflect the experience of the Offeror’s team.

15. Question: Volume II – Technical Approach…Section A TECHNICAL APPROACH & STAFF… states “For each sample task, the Offeror shall provide a summary list (MS Excel format preferred) of ALL personnel proposed for each sample task.” Is this summary list included in the page count?

Response: Yes, the summary list of ALL personnel is included in the page count.

16. Question: Volume II – Technical Approach…Section A TECHNICAL APPROACH & STAFF… states “For each sample task, the Offeror shall provide a summary list (MS Excel format preferred) of ALL personnel proposed for each sample task.” L.4.2.c Proposal Volume Break Out (page 92) states that Volumes I can be provided in PDF or XLS format, but it does not mention XLS format. Would you like a separate xls file submitted with Volume II and if so what naming protocol would the Government like used?

Response: Excel is acceptable format for Volume II, with the following naming convention: D0167-II -Company Name- Tech.DOC(x) or .PDF or .XLS(x). Section L.4.2, c Proposal Volume Break Out has been revised to reflect this change.

17. Question: L.3. INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS, Volume V – Small Business Subcontracting Plan lists the DoD small business goals as 36.7%. According to the DoD Office of Small Business Programs, the Small Business Subcontracting goals for FY 2015 are 36%, not 36.7% (those were the goals for FY 2014), Do you want Offerors to use the 2015 DoD goal of 36% or the 2014 DoD goal of 36.7%?

Response: The Offerors should use the DoD Small Business Program Goals for Subcontracting FY 2015 goal of 36%. Section L.3, Volume V – Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Attachment C Small Business Subcontracting Plan have been revised to reflect this change.

18. Question: Section C.1.1, Paragraph 1 (Pg. 9): The RFP states "Descriptions of current BTO programs may be found at www.darpa.mil/BTO.” This web page does not exist. Please clarify the location of current BTO program descriptions.

Response: Website should read: www.darpa.mil/our_work/BTO. Section C.1 Performance Work Statement has been revised to reflect this change.

19. Question: Section L.4.2, Section L.3, Table C. Proposal Volume Breakout (Pg. 92): The maximum page limit for Volume IV Past Performance is listed as 4 per referenced contract. Volume IV Past Performance, Paragraph 6 (Pg. 88): This paragraph lists the requirements for the Past Performance volume that include a table of contents, summary page, etc. Please clarify the page limit for the past performance Volume to include the items from pg. 88.

Response: The page limit for Volume IV - Past Performance is increased to 5 pages, in which the consent letters and Present/Past Performance Information do not count towards the page limit. Sections L.3, Volume IV Past Performance and L.4.2, c Proposal Volume Break Out have been revised to reflect this change.

20. Question: Section L.4.2.b (Pg. 91): “Microsoft Office products shall be used to create the “.XLS” and “.DOC” files” but on Section L.4.2.c, Paragraph 7 (Pg. 93): This paragraph states that we should be using MS 2010 (Word, Excel and Power point) which produce “.xlsx” and “.docx” files. Please clarify.

Response: The documents can be submitted in either xls, doc or .xlsx, docx format. L.4.2, c Proposal Volume Break Out has been revised.