TASS IDIQ Pre-Solicitation Questions and Answers_02.07.23.pdf

Question Draft RFP Document

Page Section Paragraph Text or Observation Question or Recommended Change Rationale Answer (to be completed by Government)

Attachment 1A_1.11.23 1 2 1

Key Personnel are considered essential to the work being performed.

Prior to substituting, removing, replacing, or otherwise diverting the activity of any of the key individuals, the contractor shall notify the DARPA Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) in writing at least 15 calendar days in advance, unless compelling circumstances exist otherwise, and include information supporting the need for change. The proposed substitution of personnel must meet or exceed the minimum labor category qualifications as approved by the COR or Contracting Officer.

Question: Can the Government please specify the required Key Personnel Labor Categories under this IDIQ.

IDIQ-level Key Personnel are specified in Section L.10.a. The Offeror shall propose an overall IDIQ-level Contract Program

Manager and any other members required to successfully manage an ID/IQ of this size and complexity (e.g., office leads, functional leads, etc.) as they see fit. The "minimum labor category qualifications" noted in Attachment 1A is reserved for future task orders in which the Task Order Key Personnel will be derived from Attachment 3 labor categories.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L and M_1.11.23 2 L.6 3

The proposal shall be formatted into a transmittal letter and five separate electronic folders by volume number and title as follows:

Volume I - Transmittal Letter Volume II - Administrative Volume III - Technical Experience Volume IV - Management Approach Volume V - Past Performance;

Volume VI - Small Business Participation Volume VII - Price

Question: The RFP notes that "The proposal shall be formatted into a transmittal letter and five separate electronic folders…" then it goes on to list seven (7) total files inclusive of a transmittal letter and six (6) additional files. Please confirm the reference of a transmittal letter plus five (5) is a typo and it should say a transmittal letter plus six (6).

Section L will be updated to correct this error.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L and M_1.11.23 3 L.8 L.8.1

"The Offeror shall provide, if applicable, a summary describing the Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangement established for this solicitation and a document establishing the legally binding nature among the joint venture/teaming parties."

Question: Is the Offeror required to submit copies of the executed Teaming Agreements with its proposal?

Yes. See Question 31.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L and M_1.11.23 4 L.8 L.8.3

"Therefore, all Offerors, as well as proposed subcontractors and consultants, must affirm whether they (its organizations and individual team members) are acting as a research and development performer at DARPA through an active contract or subcontract. All affirmations must identify the prime contract number (s). Affirmations shall be furnished at the time of propsal submission."

Question: Is the Offeror required to submit affirmations for each of its subcontractors? Or can the Offeror just describe the affirmations in its proposal?

The Offeror shall submit affirmations on behalf of themselves and all proposed subcontractors/consultants. Section L will be updated to clarify.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L and M_1.11.23 5 L.8.4 1

The Offeror shall complete blocks 12 through 19 of the Standard Form (SF) 33. If any amendments to this solicitation are issued, the Offeror shall acknowledge each amendment number and date in block 14 of the SF 33. The Offeror’s legal name and address in block 15A must match the information for the Offeror in System for Award Management (SAM) (http://www.sam.gov), including the corresponding Commercial and Government Agency (CAGE) Code number and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. The name, title, signature, and date identified in blocks 16, 17, and 18, must be an authorized representative with the authority to commit the Offeror to contractual obligations.

Recommended Change: The RFP states that the offeror shall include the DUNS number on the SF33. Since DUNS have recently been replaced by Unique Entity Identifiers (UEI) would the Governemnt please remove the reference to DUNS.

Section L will be updated to correct this error.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L and M_1.11.23 23 M.3.4 M.3.4.c

"Extent of participation of small business by small business type (e.g.

service-disabled veteran-owned, HUBZone, small disadvantaged, and women-owned small businesses) in terms of a percentage of the total value of the acquisition. DARPA's minimum small business subcontracting goal is 24%, with the desired goal of 30%, of the total value of the acquisition."

Question: Are the small business subcontracting goals to be established for the total ceiling value of the DARPA IDIQ or for the total anticipated value of the Offeror's proposal?

Small business subcontracting goals shall be established for the total ceiling value of the DARPA IDIQ. There is no total value expected for the proposal. It is expected that the proposals will demonstrate how much and what type of work will be allocated to small businesses within the Offeror’s plan meet the total requirements of the PWS.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Solicitation Attachment 1 - PWS 16 13 13.2

Travel cost payment responsibilities to DARPA Headquarters by off-site or hybrid telework personnel will be determined at the task order level.

Recommended Change: Responsibilities of payment of costs for off-site or hybrid telework personnel to travel to DARPA will be determined at the task order level.

PWS will be updated.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Solicitation_1.11.23 10 G.5 G-5.2

"The percentage of the proposal total price for the TO that will go to small businesses. Small businesses shall be defined by the applicable size standard associated with the NAICS code 541990."

Question: For the IDIQ small business plan, is the Offeror required to qualify all proposed small businesses under NAICS code 541990? Or is the Offeror permitted to select a NAICS code appropriate for the type of work the small business subcontractor may perform?

No, an Offeror is not required to qualify all proposed small businesses under NAICS code 541990. The Offeror is permitted to select a NAICS code appropriate for the type of work the small business subcontractor may perform. However, if the small business is not qualified under NAICS code 541990, the Offeror may not count them toward the small business subcontracting goal.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L and M

2 L.6 3 "The proposal shall be formatted into a Transmittal Letter and five separate electronic folders by Volume and Title as follows:"

Should this say “(…) and six separate electronic folders..."? See Question 2.

Draft RFP Questions

TASS IDIQ Pre-Solicitation Questions & Answers

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Solicitation_1.11.23;

Attachment 1 -

PWS_1.11.23

L and M page 6;

PWS page

L.8.7; PWS

7.9.3

L.8.7 states, "The Offeror shall provide either proof of existing facilities or proof of a contingency offer within the proposal that can be executed upon ID/IQ contract award to meet meeting requirements outlined in

PWS paragraph 7.9.3."

PWS section 7.9.3 states, "The contractor’s conference room capability shall be within one mile distance of DARPA, currently at 675 N.

Randolph, Arlington, and shall hold up to 75 attendees. The contractor’s conference room shall provide adequate security for up to Secret level classified discussions."

This requirement would appear to give an advantage to companies who already have Secret-level conference space near DARPA. It is likely that only current

DARPA contractors would qualify without significant investment.

This requirement may limit competition to current DARPA contractors.

The requirement will remain unchanged. The Government requires IDIQ holders maintain conference room capabilities as

DARPA has limited on-site conference space; IDIQ holders' facilities will be used to host and support technical office meeting requirements, such as Principal Investigator, Program kick-off, Proposers days and other technical office meetings

(classified and unclassified), that cannot otherwise be accommodated on-site at DARPA's conference space.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Solicitation_1.11.23;

Attachment 1 -

PWS_1.11.23

L and M page 6;

PWS page

L.8.7; PWS

7.9.3

L.8.7 states, "The Offeror shall provide either proof of existing facilities or proof of a contingency offer within the proposal that can be executed upon ID/IQ contract award to meet meeting requirements outlined in

PWS paragraph 7.9.3."

Can the Government clarify/confirm that a subcontractor's space can meet this requirement?

Please clarify.

Yes, subcontractor's space can meet this requirement as long as its facility meets the Government's requirements

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Solicitation_1.11.23;

Attachment 1 -

PWS_1.11.23

L and M page 6;

PWS page

L.8.7; PWS

7.9.3

L.8.7 states, "The Offeror shall provide either proof of existing facilities or proof of a contingency offer within the proposal that can be executed upon ID/IQ contract award to meet meeting requirements outlined in

PWS paragraph 7.9.3."

Please clarify what manner of contingency offer would suffice? For example, can offerors provide evidence of an agreement to use a third party's existing cleared space on an ad hoc, as-needed basis?

Please clarify. The example provided would be acceptable.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Solicitation_1.11.23 page 8 L.10.B L.10.b. states, "Offeror shall include the historical average time(s) to execute services subcontracts (i.e., not commodity purchases) for all contracts described in Technical Experience via Attachment 4."

How the Government would like us to measure historical average time to execute services subcontracts. Please confirm that we should provide the time between the award of a contract (or task order) and the effective date of the subcontract.

Request clarification on how to measure time to execute.

The Government would like to understand an Offeror's internal subcontracting processes, specifically related to how quickly an offeror can onboard new subcontractors in response to a newly identified government need/requirement for in scope work during the performance of a task order; historical average time(s) should measure the time between Government identification of a new requirement and the date of the subcontract award issued to meet this requirement.

DRAFT Sections

L&M 2 of 27 L.6 3

The proposal shall be formatted into a transmittal letter and five separate electronic folders by volume number and title

There are a total of 7 Volumes. Which volume numbers will be combined within a folder in order to submit all 7 volumes in 5 electronic folders?

Compliance with submission requirement See Question 2.

DRAFT Sections

L&M 2 of 27 L.6 5

If page limitations are exceeded, where page limits are expressed, the excess pages will not be evaluated.

Are cover sheets to a volume counted as a page? Compliance with page count requirements Yes. Cover sheets are not required.

DRAFT Sections

L&M 2 of 27 L.6 5

If page limitations are exceeded, where page limits are expressed, the excess pages will not be evaluated.

Is a cover sheet that is meant to introduce a volume a requirement? Compliance with page count requirements No.

DRAFT Sections

L&M 2 of 27 L.6 5

If page limitations are exceeded, where page limits are expressed, the excess pages will not be evaluated.

Do Tables of Content for each Volume counted against the page count limitations? Compliance with page count requirements No. See Section L.14.4.

DRAFT Sections

L&M

L.8.1 and L.8.2

L.8.1 and L.8.2, a.

The Offeror shall provide, as part of this proposal Volume, a copy of its letter from the Defense Security Service, Facility Clearance Branch, or equivalent accreditation agency, that grants its facility and security clearance level at the Top Secret level proving it was granted by time of proposal submission.*

Will the FCL(s) for the Joint Venture partners suffice or is the Joint Venture expected to have a FCL?

Compliance with Security Clearance requirements

Yes, the Joint Venture partner(s)' FCLs will suffice.

DRAFT Sections

L&M 5 of 27 L.8.5 L.8.5

The Offeror shall provide proof of a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)-approved accounting system or must fill out the Accounting System Checklist in Attachment 6 and include it within this Volume submission.

Will a DCAA approved accounting system for a Joint Venture partner suffice or is the Joint Venture expected to have its own?

Compliance with Accounting System requirements

A Joint Venture without a DCAA-approved accounting system shall fill out the Accounting System Checklist in Attachment 6.

DRAFT Sections

L&M 7 of 27 L.9

Factor 1, paragraphs 2 and

Any technical experience referenced must not have ended prior to January 1, 2018, and must have a contract/order value over $15 million.

An ID/IQ contract must have individual task orders exceeding $5,000,000. All contract values shall be representative of obligation amounts; when submitting for an ID/IQ contract, the obligation amount shall represent the combined obligation of all awarded task orders.

Given the value, complexity, and nature of this procurement, all past or current contract performance referenced as technical experience shall be performance as a prime contractor.

Can a Subcontractor's past performance as a Prime Contractor be used for the purposes of citing technical experience?

Demonstrating full capability of meeting the requirements specified

Yes.

DRAFT Sections

L&M 7 of 27 L.9

Factor 1, paragraph 2

An ID/IQ contract must have individual task orders exceeding $5,000,000.

Does each task order have to exceed $5,000,000 or is it the combined sum total of all task orders that must exceed $5,000,000.

Compliance with specified requirement At least one ID/IQ task order must exceed $5,000,000.00.

Section L and M will be updated.

DRAFT Sections

L&M 11 of 27 L.11.c final

In evaluating Past Performance, DARPA may "use a variety of sources…not limited to…evaluator's personal knowledge…"

Given that individual opinions can vary widely and be influenced by single or unique circumstances, how will a fair and reasonable evaluation occur?

Recommend clear evaluation metrics be identified.

Subjectivity across evaluation methods and evaluators leads to inconsistent evaluations.

Past Performance evaluations are inherently subjective. DoD Source Selection Procedures (dated August 20, 2022) state:

"When developing source selection criteria, consider hybrid approaches, using a mix of both objective and subjective criteria as appropriate to evaluate elements of the proposal."

DRAFT Sections

L&M 11 of 27 L.11.d 1

For Past Performance submissions, contractors must "submit ALL CPARS...(since January 1, 2018.)"

Recent CPARS reflect the contractor's most current performance. How are past CPARS relevant and objective resources as they may influence perceptions -positively or negatively - during evaluation? Recommend requiring only most current CPAR.

Subjectivity across evaluation methods and evaluators leads to inconsistent evaluations.

Performance and trends within the past five years are relevant.

Attachment 1, DRAFT

Sections L&M 22 of 27 M.3.3. 1 This section indicates Past Performance evaluation "will be subjective".

How will a fair and reasonable determination be made if evaluations are subjective?

How will consistency or review occur between reviewers? Recommend clear evaluation metrics be identified.

Subjectivity across evaluation methods and evaluators leads to inconsistent evaluations.

See Question 22.

Attachment 1, DRAFT

Sections L&M 3 of 16 3 3.1.5

It is expected that all contractor personnel are fully trained and have readily available on-site backup to ensure continued quick response during peak period surges or short-term or long-term employee absence.

Is the government expecting the contractor to have a bench of personnel for the "quick response"?

Compliance with specified requirement

The Offeror shall determine appropriate solutions to fulfill this requirement whether it be a corporate bench, cross-training between positions within the task order, or other method considered acceptable by the Government.

Attachment 1, DRAFT

Sections L&M 3 of 16 3 3.1.5

It is expected that all contractor personnel are fully trained and have readily available on-site backup to ensure continued quick response during peak period surges or short-term or long-term employee absence.

Can the government define the parameters for "quick response"? Can the government instead specify a timeframe that meets the response time?

Compliance with specified requirement

This will be determined at the task order level based on specific performance requirements. The expectation is that contractor staff for a given task order will be cross-trained or have bench staff available so that they can execute the full requirements of the task order even during employee absences, gaps in support due to vacancies, etc.

Attachment 1, DRAFT

Sections L&M 13 of 16 7 7.9.3

Meeting Capability. The contractor’s conference room capability shall be within one mile distance of DARPA, currently at 675 N. Randolph, Arlington, and shall hold up to 75 attendees.

Is the one mile distance requirement determined by a radius that originates at the center-point of 675 N. Randolph, Arlington, or is it based on driving/road distance?

Compliance with specified requirement The one mile distance requirement is based on driving/road distance. PWS Section 7.9.3 will be updated.

Attachment 1, DRAFT

Sections L&M 13 of 16 7 7.9.3

Meeting Capability. The contractor’s conference room capability shall be within one mile distance of DARPA, currently at 675 N. Randolph, Arlington, and shall hold up to 75 attendees.

Would customer consider accepting a conference space further than the one mile distance of DARPA (up to 8 miles)?

Provide fairness and greater latitude to prospective Offerors by not limiting the pool to only those who already have existing facilities within one mile.

No.

Attachment 1, DRAFT

Sections L&M 13 of 16 8 *Note

*Note: For tasks involving projects and studies off-site, a task order may require that facilities and/or information technology (IT) must be contractor provided.

Does the government expect the contractor to have access to classified facilities other than the conference room? Is the level of classification for projects and studies off-site expected to exceed SECRET at any point in time during the life of the contract?

Compliance with specified requirement for facilities and IT

1. No.

2. No.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M 1 11

1.6 Proposal

Submission

Requirements

"The proposal shall be formatted into a transmittal letter and five separate electronic folders by volume number and title as follows:

Volume I - Transmittal Letter Volume II - Administrative Volume III - Technical Experience Volume IV - Management Approach Volume V -

Past Performance Volume VI - Small Business Participation Volume VII - Price"

Instructions require Transmittal Letter and five (5) folders. As listed, paragraph indicates Volumes I through VII which is composed of the Transmittal Letter plus six (6) volumes. Does the Government have a preference on which two Volumes be combined into a single folder in order to combine six Volumes into five folders?

As described, seeking clarification from the Government regarding alignment of folders with Volumes.

See Question 2.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M

1.11.23

L.8.1. Joint Venture/Teami ng Arrangements

"The Offeror shall provide, if applicable, a summary describing the Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangement established for this solicitation and a document establishing the legally binding nature among the joint venture/teaming parties."

Will the government accept submission of the first page of a TA which includes the name of both parties and the purpose of the agreement and evidence of full execution as sufficient for providing "a document" establishing the legally binding nature among the teaming partners?

Teaming Agreements (TA) are typically lengthy documents and submitting full agreements for each teaming partner may result in a very large file.

Yes.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M 1 11

L.10 Volume IV, b.

Recruitment and Retention

"In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, the Offeror shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for all personnel who will work under the contract."

Is only the Prime contractor required to provide this information or should each of the Teaming Partners submit as well?

Most small businesses do not have total compensation plans and a solicitation like this with large composite teams would include many subcontractors, including small businesses. For simplicity, it's recommended to only require inclusion of the prime's total compensation plan.

The prime is responsible for submitting a total compensation plan for the entire meaningful number of professional employees included in its proposal.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M 1 11

L.11 Volume V - Evaluation Factor 3: Past Performance

c. vii.

Provide a brief description of the effort performed as a prime (do not claim past performance/experience performed by contract’s subcontractors).

Requesting the description be inclusive of all corporate experience and work conducted on a contract. This is consistent with the previous TASS RFP, and reflects the role of Prime contractor, responsible for delivery of the entire team with the expectation to perform as a cohesive team.

Past performance will be graded--either via CPARs or PPQ--based on all work conducted under this contract and not separated by Prime and subcontract. Because we execute as one team the Government may not be able to parse the contributions of the individual team members, in a situation where a PPQ is requested nor are CPARS assessments parsed by Prime vs. Subcontractor contributions.

Additionally, because the Prime is responsible for all delivery under a contract, the Prime will have a detailed understanding of the complexity of the work and the expertise required. The combined performance is therefore the best indicator to the Government of the proposer's ability to perform the proposed work, either themselves or in partnership with their proposed teammates.

The previous TASS RFP stated: "As a prime contractor do not claim past performance/experience performed by subcontractors."

CPARS Guidance states: "The evaluation is designed to assess prime contractor performance. In those evaluation areas where subcontractor actions have significantly influenced the prime contractor's performance in a negative or positive way, record the subcontractor actions in the Assessing Official Comments."

and includes a section for "Key Subcontractors and Effort

Performed."

However, for purposes of this requirement in which total team performance is valued, the sentence will be updated to "Provide a brief description of the effort performed as a prime and any significant portions of the effort performed by key subcontractors."

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M 1 11

L.11 Volume V, d. CPARS and/or Past Performance

Questionnaires

1 and 2

"For each Past Performance Information Submission, Offerors shall submit ALL Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS) evaluations that were completed for the relevant time period (since January 1, 2018)."

"If CPARS evaluations are not available, Offerors (or subcontractors) shall request that their Government customer submit past performance information on the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) found at Attachment 5."

PPQ is typically used to rate the contractor for the entire period of performance.

Given that Offerors have been instructed to submit ALL CPARSs for the relevant time period for a given contract--and therefore have an evaluation for the work performed throughout each period covered by a CPAR--should Offerors specify in the PPQ request that the Government complete only for the sections not covered by a CPAR?

CPARS may not have been issued for all contract years.

Yes, but if the Government POC provides an assessment of the entire PoP in the PPQ, then DARPA reserves the right to utilize it.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M_1.11.23

L.9 Volume

III -

Evaluation Factor 1:

Technical Experience

"Any technical experience referenced must not have ended prior to

January 1, 2018, and must have a contract/order value over $15 million."

Will the government please clarify if "experience referenced" in the observed text is related to the particular services rendered and highlighted as the Offerors technical experience or, is "experienced referenced" related to the POP of the contract/task order that is discussed?

Experience does not have a defined end date like a POP end. Will the government confirm that Offerors may site technical experience references from the entire POP of a contract so long as the POP of the referenced contract does not expire prior to Jan. 1, 2018?

Yes (to the question posed in the Rationale section).

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M_1.11.23

L.11 Volume V - Evaluation Factor 3: Past Performance

"Demonstrate how the Offeror’s or proposed Subcontractor(s)’ performance is relevant (in scope, magnitude, and complexity) to the PWS requirements."

Is the government requesting a list of subcontractors that performed on the referenced past performance contracts?

In a past performance there are not proposed subcontractors as we have formalized agreements with teammates and the work has been completed.

No. Since half of the Past Performance Information Submissions can be from the Offeror's proposed

Subcontractors, this statement is referencing the performance of the PPIS's Prime (which may be the TASS IDIQ Offeror's proposal Subcontractor).

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L and M_1.11.23

5-Apr L.8.7 1 Absence of a requirement clarifying date of facility availability.

Per the solicitation requirements for proof of existing facilities or proof of a contingency offer within the proposal that can be executed upon ID/IQ contract award to meet meeting requirements outlined in PWS paragraph 7.9.3, is there a time requirement/limit for facility readiness for occupancy after the date of award?

If yes, please provide clarification on how many days after award the facility must be available for occupancy with full functionality.

Readiness and availability of the facility for task order performance is not clear.

Section L will be updated to state "by the ID/IQ Period of Performance start date."

Attachment 1 -

PWS_1.11.23

13 7.9.3 1

7.9.3. Meeting Capability. The contractor’s conference room capability shall be within one mile distance of DARPA, currently at 675 N.

Randolph, Arlington, and shall hold up to 75 attendees. The contractor’s conference room shall provide adequate security for up to Secret level classified discussions. The conference room/area shall be equipped, at a minimum, with (a) writing boards, electronic overhead projection screens; (b) phone lines suitable for conference calls; (c) data lines suitable for high speed computer data transmission; and (d) equipment capable of presenting unclassified and classified presentations.

Expound on contractor's facilities needs beyond a facility within 1 mile of DARPA HQ with a conference room to accommodate 75 attendees, rated at the Secret level.

Please include any other expectations (number of total conference rooms, number of desk seats (if any), anany y parking needs, other features/amenities/technology/equipment so we can better project facility size, needs and expectation of time frame needed to have a facility completely stood-up, Understanding this will help us to better target the appropriate square footage needed to accommodate the requirements and the scope of work involved to outline a construction budget and time frame needed to achieve substantial completion

All minimal requirements are already specified in the PWS.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L and M_1.11.23

3 L.8.1 1 With respect to Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangements, this section strongly encourages non-exclusive teaming.

It is recommended that exclusive teaming at the IDIQ level be encouraged by the Government to maximize the uniqueness of relationships and teaming affiliations that can provide synergistic and innovative depth of experience applicable to future task orders.

Non-exclusive teaming at the time of submission of the initial proposal for the IDIQ contract vehicle limits the ability of offerors to demonstrate differentiation and value of unique offerings and relationships, potentially forcing DARPA to focus more on the price/cost component of the offer than on the uniqueness and value, and thereby limiting the intent of acquiring "Best Value" offerings.

This would not preclude the Government from driving non-exclusive teaming for individual task orders during contract execution.

This statement will not be revised.

Attachment 1 -

PWS_1.11.23

13 7 7.9.1 Event Assistance. The contractor shall assist in preparation and execution of successful DARPA and/or office meetings, events, and/or challenges.

Specifically for events, does the Government have an estimated schedule, size, duration, location, and scope of logistical requirements for execution? Does the Government anticipate Key Personnel dedicated to event planning?

The scope of event support and planning is not defined. It is difficult to propose an approach and team as written.

These details will be specified at the task order level.

Attachment 1 -

PWS_1.11.23

8-9 7.2 7.2.1-7.2.6

Program Financial Formulation, Program Financial Execution, Program Financial Tracking, Office Budget Support, Research and Development Descriptive Summaries (RDDS) Support, Program and Portfolio Tracking

The roles outlined in the PWS are generally aligned with the Government's current financial system and Program Management administration construct. Is the Government primarily asking for personnel and systems to augment and assist within the confines of existing practices? Alternatively, is the Government interested in new programmatic capabilities which combine and make projects and portfolios more efficient and transparent?

Solutions and personnel will be dramatically different if the intent is to focus on augmenting existing systems and capabilities.

1. Yes for personnel. Please note that no systems are being requested at this time.

2. The Offeror shall outline technical experience as it relates to the Government's performance-based requirement as written.

42 RFP Document 9 G-40 1 USE OF NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS

Is it advisory or providing documents that Tech data and pricing reviewed by Non Government Advisors? In response to the question's referenced section, this will be determined at the task order level. However, it is noted that this language is also included in Section L.17.

43 Attachment 3 N/A N/A N/A Attachment 3 does not have Government's site and Contractor's site Rate section

Could you provide the Section for Govt and Contractor site rates?

Offerors shall propose one maximum rate for each labor category each year regardless of Government-site, contractor-site, and hybrid work location.

44 Attachment 1 PWS 4 5 1 Place of performance - Primarily at DARPA office in Arlington VA.

Telework may not be available at task order level

Does Govt allow the contractor's performance at contractor's site also or all government's site? Contractor performance at the contractor's site may be permitted at the task order level.

Atch 3 LH LCATS Pricing Spreadsheet

Columns F-O Max Rates?

Please provide more definition to make fair comparisons. Fully burdened, etc..

Section L.13 states the rates shall be "inclusive of loading factors (i.e., vacation, sick leave, holidays, overhead, General and Administrative rates (G&A), fee, etc.)."

Atch 3 LH LCATS Pricing Spreadsheet

Column P IDIQ Avg Rates Please provide more definition to make fair comparisons. Fully burdened, etc..

This is solely included for proposal review purposes to be automatically calculated with the Government-entered formula.

Atch 4 Technical

Expertise Referenced Contracts

Column J Historical Average Time to Execute Services Subcontracts Please provide more definition to make fair comparisons. From what specific points in time? Authority to proceed, services provided, signed subcontract, ??

See Question 13.

48 Atch 1A 1 2 Key Personnel Are there any requested Key Personnel such as Contractor Program Manager and please provide the resume format?

"The Program Management Team is defined, at a minimum, as the overall Contract Program Manager and any other members required to successfully manage an ID/IQ of this size and complexity (e.g., office leads, functional leads, etc.)." See

Question 1.

49 Section L 6 of 27 L.8.8

The Offeror shall complete representations, certifications, acknowledgments, and statements via the System for Award Management (SAM) (http://www.sam.gov). A completed copy from SAM and any additional Section K information required by this solicitation shall be included in this Volume

Will subcontractors be required to complete a full reps and certs same as the Prime? No.

50 Section L 8 of 27 L.10 b

In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, the Offeror shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for all personnel who will work under the contract.

Does this requirement apply to Subcontractors? See Question 32.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M

7 /

L.9/L.11c p 7: 2 &3 p 9: bullet c/last paragraph p 10: bullet iii

Any technical experience referenced must not have ended prior to January 1, 2018, and must have a contract/order value over $15 million.

An ID/IQ contract must have individual task orders exceeding $5,000,000. All contract values shall be representative of obligation amounts; when submitting for an ID/IQ contract, the obligation amount shall represent the combined obligation of all awarded task orders.

a. ) For purposes of appropriately identifying contract references to support Technical Experience and Past Performance, would the Government please confirm that the base and value of all options (exercised or not yet exercised) is considered the contract/order value and that for IDIQs, the combined total of all awarded task orders should exceed $5M in order to qualify?

b.) With regard to the language regarding obligation amounts, please confirm the intent is that Offerors should represent both the contract value, as well as the current obligated amount (base and awarded options), in accordance with L.11 c, iii where the total contract value and obligated amount are separately listed? Using the data points in L.11 c, iii , if a contractor has 3 awarded task orders on an ID/IQ with a combined value of $5M, the past performance information provided for the first referenced task order would include: Current Obligation Amount (total value of the base and option periods awarded to date); Total Contract Value: (total value of the base and all potential option periods); Potential Ceiling (combined value of the 3 awarded TOs, which in this example equals $5M)

Total contract value of an existing contract with a base and option periods could be signficantly different than the total contract value depending on how far the current work is in overall period of performance.

a) Confirmed that value includes base and all options (exercised or not yet exercised), but Section L will be updated to state "An ID/IQ must have at least one task order exceeding

$5 million."

b) Confirmed that the current obligation dollar amount and total contract value shall be listed separately. See answer to (a) above for new language clarifying relevant ID/IQ amounts.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M

8 /

L.10/L.13.3 p8: fourth bullet

p. 14: para 3, 6th bullet

Reference L.10 b which states the Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees will be evaluated as part of Factor 2:

Management Approach but that information should be included in Volume VI. Volume VI is Factor 4: Subcontract Management. L.13.3 for the Volume VII Price addressed inclusion of a Total Compensation Plan.

Please confirm where the Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees should be included in an Offeror's proposal.

Clarification of instruction.

The Total Compensation Plan shall be submitted under Volume VII (with Factor 4 information), but it will be evaluated under Factor 2.

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M

L.13/M.1, M3.5 p 13: para 2 p 19: para 1

p. 23: para 3

Cost Realism L.13 & M.1, M.3.5: L.13 states that Offeror's proposed prices for maximum labor hour rates will be evaluated to determine fair and reasonableness and that both fair and reasonableness, as well as realism, will be evaluated at the task order level. Similiarly, M.1 states, "Consistent with FAR 15.101, for the ID/IQ level contracts awarded under this Solicitation, the Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Fair and Reasonable Price will determine the best value basis for contract awards. DARPA will select several (approximately seven (7)) highest rated Offerors as evaluated on the non-price factors that have a fair and reasonable price."

Recommend the Government include a price realism evaluation at the ID/IQ master contract level to make a realistic determination on whether proposed prices accurately reflect current market conditions and historical data on DARPA labor requirements and rates. In the absense of a realism assessment, Offeror's may propose maximum rates, that while evaluated as fair and reasonable against Department of Labor statistics, may not be sufficient or realistic in terms of the technical complexities and historical data associated with the type and level of support required. This could result in a pool of awarded Offerors who are unable to realistically provide personnel capable of staffing future requirements and unintentionally limit competition for task orders. Similarly, evaluating realism of proposed labor rates at the ID/IQ level will ensure that Offerors provide balanced pricing across all labor categories. As stated in FAR 15.404-1, "unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated..." Without the cost realism analysis of the ID/IQ rates, Offerors may include unrealistically low rates for individual labor categories for evaluation purposes that are drastically lower than other labor categories with similar education and experience requirements creating an unbalanced pricing approach. This could result in risk of higher prices being paid at the Task Order level because the unrealistically low labor rates are never used.

A price realism evaluation at the ID/IQ master contract level mitigates risk of unbalanced pricing.

Price/cost realism will be evaluated at the task order level.

Attachment 1 -

PWS_1.11.23

13 7.9 7.9.3

Meeting Capability. The contractor’s conference room capability shall be within one mile distance of DARPA, currently at 675 N. Randolph, Arlington, and shall hold up to 75 attendees. The contractor’s conference room shall provide adequate security for up to Secret level classified discussions. The conference room/area shall be equipped, at a minimum, with (a) writing boards, electronic overhead projection screens; (b) phone lines suitable for conference calls; (c) data lines suitable for high speed computer data transmission; and (d) equipment capable of presenting unclassified and classified presentations.

Would the Government please confirm that the required distance is within a 1-mile radius of DARPA? Would the Government please confirm that it will use Google Maps to determine distance? Would the Government provide a map of the allowable area for the conference facility?

Distance "as the crow flies" may be different from traveling distance and could generate ambiguity.

See Question 27.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M

21 M.3.2 b Plan to incentivize on-site, off-site, and hybrid employees with varying levels of telework available per task order and position.

Would the Government please confirm that it will provide all contract personnel with IT equipment to work on the DARPA Network?

Given this directive, there is a cost for what becomes included in the rate build up.

Confirmed for rate build-up purposes, with possible exception listed in PWS Section 8: "*Note: For tasks involving projects and studies off-site, a task order may require that facilities and/or information technology (IT) must be contractor provided."

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M

22 M3.2 d Ensure that provided collaboration tools are available and maximally leveraged to integrate hybrid personnel.

Would the Government please provide a list of "provided collaboration tools" and any associated metrics for "maximally leveraged" to clarify the requirement?

There is ambiguity in the listing and who is responsible for providing these tools…are they GFE? What is the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure that GFE is provided to support personnel?

Sections L and M will be updated to specify "(especially those listed in PWS Section 7.3.5)."

Attachment 3 - LH

LCAT Pricing Spreadsheet

7 Line 60 Col D Program Manager Clearance Requirement SECRET

Would the Government please provide clarification on the clearance requirement for the Contract PM?

Attachment 3 requires the Contract PM to have a SECRET Clearance, and Section 9.2 of the PWS requires the PM to have a Final TS with ability to obtain

SCI/SAP.

Answer provides clarification of clearance requirement for personnel

The Contract Program Manager shall possess a Final Top Secret clearance and shall be able to obtain and maintain SCI and SAP clearance eligibility. The PWS and Attachment 3 will be updated.

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M

20 M.3.1 1

The Government will evaluate how well the Offerors’ technical experience in exemplar PWS Sections 7.1.2., 7.2.2, and 7.9.1 (listed in order of importance) demonstrates the ability to accomplish all requirements of the PWS

What does DARPA consider to be the "technical aspects" of PWS Section 7.2.2 and 7.9.1?

Answer helps provide a level playing field for non-incumbents

The entirety of Section 7.2.2 would be considered the "technical" aspects to be addressed.

Examples of technical aspects of Section 7.9.1 may include, but are not limited to: Identifying venues, communicating with venue representatives, leading/assisting with planning meetings, preparing cost estimates (especially rental/space costs), developing space utilization plans, developing schedules, general logistics (venue size, shipping, and travel concerns), planning/assisting with promotions, tracking attendees/attendance, understanding and communicating technical production capabilities (lighting, audio/visual, streaming), working with customers and vendors to support venue specific/DoD/security requirements.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M

20 M.3.1 1

The Government will evaluate how well the Offerors’ technical experience in exemplar PWS Sections 7.1.2., 7.2.2, and 7.9.1 (listed in order of importance) demonstrates the ability to accomplish all requirements of the PWS

7.2.2 refers to "assist with monitoring DARPA’s financial systems" and 7.9.1 refers to ". . . execution of successful DARPA and/or office meetings, events, and/or challenges. Events may include DARPA-sponsored technical conferences. .

.". Will the Government please describe the DARPA-unique aspects of the financial systems, meetings, events and Challenges?

Answer helps promote competition

For Section 7.2.2, no further DARPA-specific information should be required beyond what is outlined in the PWS.

For Section 7.9.1, more information about previous DARPA events, such as the examples found in the subject section, can be found on publicly accessible websites.

DRAFT

HR001123R0001

Sections L & M and

PWS

All Content

Other than the shift to off-site and hybrid work, the draft solicitation and PWS are nearly identical to the DARPA TASS solicitation from 5 years ago. Would the Government consider addressing at industry day the ways in which DARPA needs have evolved in SETA support over the last 5 years? Answer helps promote competition Addressed at Industry Day.

Will you consider small businesses who do not have prior expereinecs with Federal government.

Offerors for whom no recent/relevant performance information is available or the Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful performance confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. Although the Evaluation Team will not rate an Offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Source Selection Authority may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in the best value trade-off.

62 Will there be a subcontracting plan involved with this contract? Yes, see Section L.8.6.

63 To enable teaming, will the Government share the Industry Day attendee list? Yes, it is posted on SAM.gov.

Can you please elaborate on the requirement for past performances: "An ID/IQ contract must have individual task orders exceeding $5,000,000." Does this include competitivley procured, Single Award ID/IQs? And is the $5M over 5 years? Will the government consider eliminating this requirement for Single Award ID/IQs that are managed as one contract delivering continuous services?

See Question 51. The $5 million is total value (base and options).

Post award of the contract to the Primes. Will it be possible to add new team members with needed expertise?

Yes, prime contractors are encouraged to continually consider new subcontracting opportunities to meet the dynamic

Government requirements while complying with FAR 52.244- 2 Subcontracts.

Can you clarify the salaries of professional emplyees -- will you use ERI or a similiar tool to evaluate?

The Government reserves the right to use any tools available to evaluate.

Industry Day Questions

Can you repeat the number of Task Orders awarded under the existing ID/IQ?

There have been 17 task orders awarded with full performance requirements. Seven (7) task orders were also awarded immediately after IDIQ awards for various tasks at the minimum guarantee amount.

will the government identify the different meeting locations currently used and historically used - that are within the 1-mile requirement?

No.

With the increase in ceiling allowed, is there a particular program area within DARPA that will need additional or new support?

No.

How do you plan to acheieve the 30% goal for small business participation ?

Can the small business submit a proposal for a specific skill instead of the whole proposal ?

1. It will be incumbent on the IDIQ awardees to achieve the small business goals proposed in their Small Business

Participation Plan by utilizing small business teaming partners in task order performance.

2. No, a small business is encouraged to reach out to potential teaming partners if they do not intend to submit a full proposal.

71 Management of an IDIQ of this size, scope and complexity takes an experinced PM leading a large team. Is the TASS PM expected to be a full time LOE? Will this be a direct chargable position upon award?

1. The Offeror should determine the level of effort required of the Contract Program Manager.

2. No, no funding is guaranteed for IDIQ awardees beyond the minimum guarantee amount.

72 will the government share the list of attending vendors so that additional teaming arrangements can be made / considered prior to the final RFP?

See Question 63.

Will the government clarify how attrition and the goal of 30% SB sub will be calculated? Does the attrition calculation include only Prime contractor staff?

1. Attrition should be calculated by the IDIQ contract holders by [number of departed personnel]/[total positions]. Small business subcontracting goals will be calculated by [total dollar amount performed by small business]/[total obligated dollar amount].

2. No, attrition should be calculated for all personnel supporting the contract or task order.

Does DARPA co-sponsor any of the meeting locations that are within the 1-mile requirement? No.

Will affiliate past performances from wholly-owned subsidiaries within a parent organization be treated as prime or subcontract past performances if the parent is identified as the offeror? What if the affiliate is identified as the offeror?

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

76 Can you clarify if the only ID/IQ KP directed by DARPA is the Program Manager? Confirmed.

77 You have highlighted several times the onsite, offsite and hybrid work locations.

Are you expecting a rate catgory for each location, for each LCAT?

See Question 43.

78 Would DARPA provide the size of the current contract PMO? No.

With the hybrid work environment, is the intent that Offeror's should assume GFE is provided for remote personnel when factoring maximum hourly rates? The draft RFP mentions there are instances where contractor -provided equipment may be defined at the TO level. In those instances, will the contractor provided equipment be included as an ODC (priced outside of the maximum hourly rates) in the TO?

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

Is the published schedule still the most up to date or will there be an adjustment with the forthcoming RFP? Yes, it is still up-to-date.