IndustryDayQA 24Jan11.docx

Infrastructure, Development, and Engineering (IDE) Contract Industry Day Questions An Industry Day was held on 11 December 2010. The two presentations that were briefed were posted to FedBizOpps on 13 Dec 10. In addition, the questions which resulted from Industry Day have been summarized and grouped into the following categories for ease of reference: Draft RFP/Contract, CLIN/Funding, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI), Key Positions/Security Requirements, Statement of Work (SOW), and Small Business questions.

A. Draft RFP/Contract Related:

Q1: What are the plans, strategy, and requirements to have small business set-asides, work share, goals for the IDE contract? For example, percent overall small business goals, percent small disadvantaged business, percent of small disadvantaged veteran owned small business, percent women owned, HUB Zone, etc.

A1: Large businesses will be required to meet those small business program goals as specified at http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/goals.htm.

Q2: What is considered compliant subcontracting plan?

A2: Subcontracting plan must comply with the percentages established at http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/goals.htm and DFARs Subpart 19.

Q3: Will a list of the attending vendors be made available?

A3: The list was made available to all attendees upon conclusion of Industry Day.

Q4: Will an “As built” inventory be provided with the final RFP?

A4: Yes, a current inventory will be part of the final RFP. A complete list of Government Furnished Property will be an Attachment to the Infrastructure Task Order.

Q5: Who are the Prime contractors on the ATEC, TSC and Security contracts?

A5: The Prime contractor for ATECs is L-3 Communications Global Security and Engineering Solutions (L-3 GS&ES). The Prime contractor for the TSC is Modern Technology Solutions, Inc (MTSI). The Security contract is held by ManTech.

Q6: The number of citations and the number of pages per citation in the Past Performance Volume is unclear. In section L.2.2, Table 2-2 states 3 citations, 5 pages per citation. In L.5.3.4, it states 3 pages per citation. Which correct? What number of pages is allowed for citations for subcontractors as described in L.5.3?

A6: It will be a limitation of 5 pages for each citation. Paragraph 5.3.4 is updated accordingly. Subcontractor past performance citations have the same page limitations.

Q7: Will the incumbent TACCSF O&M contractor’s Phase-out Plan be made available to all offerors?

A7: The Government does not intend to post the phase-out plan to the public.

Q8: Will one-on-one meetings be scheduled with offerors after Industry Day, and if so, when?

A8: In order to maintain the integrity of the source selection process, the Government will not conduct one-on-ones.

Q9: Throughout the draft RFP, the Government states that cost data and most probable cost are based on the initial task orders “plus sample task orders.” Does the Government expect to add sample task orders in the final version of the RFP, or can the Government confirm that costs are currently expected to be submitted for only Task Orders 0001 through 0005?

A9: The reference to “sample task orders” has been removed from the cost section. The offeror will be required to submit a technical solution to a sample scenario as stated in Section L Paragraph 4.2.3.2, but costing will not be required for the scenario. Cost information will only be required for Task Orders 0001 through 0005. Each Task Order shall be priced separately and broken out by CLIN.

Q10: Can the Government confirm that costs for the task orders does not include any costs for the separate effort indentified under Section L4.2.3.2 for the Environment Generator Development scenario?

A10: The scenario shall not be priced out. The scenario was created for technical evaluation only. It is to affirm that the offeror is prepared to handle certain customer needs as required.

Q11: For purposes of costing Task Orders 0001 through 0005, please confirm that under the requirements of Section L Attachment 4 paragraph 2(a) Direct Labor, the offeror should propose fully burdened hourly rates per Table 3, Labor Rate Schedule and per Section H, Clause H103 LABOR RATE SCHEDULE FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE, DEVELOPMENT, AND ENGINEERING CONTRACT (vice forward pricing rates for task order costing)?

A11: Offerors are required to do Section L Attachment 4 for task order pricing purposes.

Q12: Several of the Task Order SOWs provide estimated levels of support hours required. Are these hours being provided as guidance or does the Government expect offerors to bid those quantities of hours against the SOW effort?

A12: These Task Orders are established by a Level of Effort. We cannot predict set requirements at this time. The hours provided are based on historical estimates.

Q13: Task Order 0002 Infrastructure refers to the Government Equipment List of 3,805 items that will be issued to the offeror upon award of the task order. Would the Government consider making the list available now in order to assist/allow offerors to develop credible estimates for the levels of support required under the Infrastructure Task Order?

A13: The equipment list will be provided with the final RFP within the Infrastructure Task Order.

Q14: SOW Ref. Para 3.1.8.4: Are weekends and over eight hours per day considered an Overtime Premium Pay category?

A14: Professional labor categories are not entitled to overtime per 29 CFR 541. A typical labor man-year is 1880. Our office uses a1920 man hour estimate to allow for travel and unforeseen circumstances, that is 40 hours of perceived “overtime.” When proposing, the labor category rates shall remain the same for all hours proposed.

Q15: Section L, Table 2.2 specifies five pages per past performance citation while Section L Para 5.3.4 appears to specify three pages. Is it the Government’s intent that an entire single citation including the past performance information sheets total no more than five pages?

A15: The past performance citation is 5 pages. Section L has been updated.

Q16: Section L, Para 4.2.3.1 appears to limit the Technical Approach to addressing Draft TOs and the Development Scenario, while, Section M Para 1.1 states the evaluation will be based on the basic SOW and TOs. Does Para 4.2.3.1 and sub-sections restrict the proposal to addressing only the TO SOWs plus the Development Scenario or is it the intent of the Government that the Technical Approach include also addressing the Basic SOW?

A16: The intent of the Government is that the technical approach address the basic contract SOW, all task orders, and the development scenario. Section L has been updated.

Q17: Clause G019 - "Contractors are not to invoice until service is received and work verified (via monthly status report) by Government." Offeror requests deletion of this requirement since it adds administrative cost by introducing manual billing procedures.

A17: The Government has modified the G019 clause within the final RFP to clarify the invoicing process.

Q18: Transition: Offeror requests that Section B of the Schedule be amended to include pricing of transition In and Out Costs since transition costs are non-recurring and not a part of the DMOC-IDE on-going effort.

A18: The Program Management and Administration task order (reference TO 0001) has been modified to include all activities associated with the transition plan.

Q19: Section L: The TO SOWS identified in L 4.2.3.1.1 and L.4.2.3.1.2 are the VF, WFE, and S&A SOWs. It is assumed that the TO SOW for Infrastructure should be addressed in the proposal in response to L4.2.3.1, although it is not called out with the other TO SOWs in the lower-level subparagraphs. Please advise if this interpretation is correct.

A19: Paragraph 4.2.3.1 instructs the offeror to address the basic contract SOW, the five draft TO SOWs, plus the development scenario defined in paragraph 4.2.3.2. Paragraph 4.2.3.1.1 describes the requirement that the Offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, demonstrate an understanding of the requirements listed in the basic contract SOW and in the Infrastructure, VF, and WFE TO SOWs.

Q20: Section L: However, the higher-level guidance (from L4.2.3.1) says to (only) “address the draft TO SOWs plus the development scenario.” Much of the Base Contract SOW aligns with TO SOWs (e.g., Infrastructure = SOW 3.2, VF and WFE = SOW 3.4, and S&A = SOW 3.5). However, SOW 3.3 (Development) does have a counterpart TO SOW. Does the Government desire offerors to explicitly address the SOW 3.3 requirements? If so, the topical outline instructions under L4.2.3 should be adjusted accordingly.

A20: Paragraph 4.2.3.1 states that the offeror’s proposal shall address the basic contract SOW, the five draft TO SOWS, and the development scenario.

B. CLIN/Funding Questions:

Q21: Section H, Clause H047 Travel (FEB 2003), paragraph (a) states: “Billable travel costs are air fare, ground transportation, and per diem costs, not labor hours.” Would government consider removal of the portion of the subject clause above that excludes labor hours as billable costs for travel for those contractors who consider travel time (labor) as an allowable cost and in accordance with a contractor’s disclosed and approved disclosure statements and/or accounting systems?

A21: The offeror will bill all applicable labor to the established labor CLINs, not the Travel (Other Direct Cost) CLINs. If travel is necessary the offeror should expect to put additional hours into their labor mix rather than bill the ODC. The ODC CLINs for this contract are non-fee bearing.

Q22: To meet requirements of Section H, Clause H103 LABOR RATE SCHEDULE FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE, DEVELOPMENT, AND ENGINEERING CONTRACT for fully burdened hourly rates being provided per the Table 3, does the Government want rates for the 60 month period of performance or the 66 months assuming the option period is exercised?

A22: The Government wishes to only cover the 60 month period of performance within the rate table. Upon possible exercise of FAR Clause 52.217-08, the clause itself stipulates the rates that will be applied upon exercise of the option.

Q23: Task Order 0005 includes CLIN 0003 for Labor (Procurement). The guidance under this CLIN states:”…(in order to determine an effort as RDT&E or O&M reference Para 3.0 of the Basic IDIQ SOW. In order to determine an effort as Procurement, the Contracting Officer’s Representative will alert the contractor)”, but neither the Basic SOW Para 3.3 nor Task Order 0005’s SOW identify Procurement. Is it a valid assumption that CLIN 0003 would be priced as $0?

A23: Yes, procurement money is generally customer provided and will be billed through additional task orders. CLIN 0003 will be modified as necessary.

C. Organizational Conflict of Interest:

Q24: Is an OCI created if a company supports participants in DMOC exercises as a SETA A&AS contractor?

A24: It may depend on the content of your contract as a SETA/A&AS support contractor. If you find there to be a possible OCI issue, in accordance with H102 Clause, AFNWC Organizational Conflict of Interest, an offeror shall submit a mitigation plan with their proposal submission. Based on the OCI clauses within the RFP, the contractor shall inform the Contracting Officer of any potential conflicts of interest, including those involving contracts with other Government organizations or commercial enterprises, before preparing their proposal to determine whether the Government will require mitigation of those conflicts. If the successful contractor was aware, or should have been aware, of an organizational conflict of interest before award of this contract and did not fully disclose that conflict to the Contracting Officer, the Government may terminate the contract for default.

Q25: Will the incumbent contractors on the current DMOC ATECS and TSC contracts be permitted to bid on DMOC-IDE acquisition as either prime or sub?

A25: Offerors must state within their proposal if there is or is not an OCI issue. If there is a potential conflict of interest, including those involving contracts with other Government organizations or commercial enterprises, the offeror shall submit an OCI mitigation plan. An OCI mitigation plan is required for all offerors who hold a prime or subcontract within the TSC and ATECS contracts. The TSC and ATECS contractors must take into consideration the OCI clauses within their individual contracts when submitting information in support of this requirement.

Q26: In Section I, Clause 5352.209-9002 Organizational Conflict of Interest, Para (a)(2) it states that a contractor “not have overall contractual responsibility for the system's development, integration, assembly and checkout, or production” , but SOW Para 3.3.1.2, 3.3.2, requires the contractor to design, develop, integrate and test the system?

A26: The language is to be interpreted that while the contractor will be required to perform development, integration, assembly and checkout, or production, they will not have overall contractual responsibility of it since there are other steps and interactions with other contractors that will limit the IDE contractor from full responsibility of all of the efforts.

Q27: The OCI restrictions for ATECS and TSC contracts may be excessively restrictive. It is reasonable to restrict ATECS as the organization who identifies a need or requirement and TSC as the organization that specifies the requirements and evaluates for compliance, but the restriction for an organization that may “develop, design, engineer and integrate” the requirement may not be necessary. Is there a better alternative that would meet the intent of the OCI while still giving the IDE contractor the flexibility to develop, design, engineer and integrate?

A27: Offerors must state within their proposal if there is or is not an OCI issue. If there is a potential conflict of interest, including those involving contracts with other Government organizations or commercial enterprises, the offeror shall submit an OCI mitigation plan. An OCI mitigation plan is required for all offerors who hold a prime or subcontract within the TSC and ATECS contracts. The TSC and ATECS contractors must take into consideration the OCI clauses within their individual contracts when submitting information in support of this requirement.

Q28: During the December 11th Industry Day, the Contracting Officer presented a slide that indicated OCI mitigation is required for contractors or sub-contractors with more than 20% of the effort. Also during the Industry Day the CO stated that the 20% was an error and it should have been 25%. Please clarify the meaning and intent of the 20 versus 25%. For instance, does an entity with less than the percentage stated have to follow the OCI and submit an OCI mitigation plan?

A28: In accordance with RFP Section L Para 5.3.4, for past performance purposes, a significant subcontractor is defined as subcontractors who are performing 25% or more of the work effort. However, OCI is applicable to the prime and any subcontractor regardless of percentage of work performed. Please disregard the information on slide 5 of the Contracting Office’s presentation from Industry Day.

D. Key Positions/Security Requirements:

Q29: Will interim TS clearances be accepted while TS clearances are being acquired?

A29: Contractors will need to be TS eligible upon award so clearance can be granted upon contract award. Interim security clearances are not accepted for critical/key positions

Q30: SOW Ref. Para 3.1.6.5: Can the Government confirm that the only critical/key positions at this time incorporated in the SOW are Program Manager and Division/Group Leads?

A30: Yes.

E. Statement of Work:

Q31: You mentioned increased activity expected with Space and Cyber. Do you have any Space and/or Cyber systems to maintain at the DMOC?

A31: The DMOC does not currently maintain any space/cyber program of records. The IDE contractor may be responsible for integration of space/cyber systems.

Q32: A follow-on question to question 30 arose regarding supporting proprietary systems in the battlespace.

A32: The vast majority of systems/tools in the battlespace are owned by the 705 CTS and maintained by Lockheed Martin Corporation. The IDE awardee will inherent the maintenance of all such systems/tools. The official systems/tool list is considered FOUO and cannot be released.

Q33: At the briefing for industry, it was mentioned the follow-on IDE estimate is 150,000 man hours. Is this estimate for each year (150,000 hours per year) over the 60 month period of performance; or is this estimate for the entire period of performance (which would be 30,000 man hours per year)?

A33: A workload summary based on historical averages has been attached to SOW within the final RFP. It is a 150,000 hour per year estimate.

Q34: In SOW Para 3.3.2.1 should “GFE or GOTS products shall be considered before other options” also include COTS as the previous sentence in this paragraph also includes COTS?

A34: COTS is included as “other options”. The intent of the statement is to reduce cost by utilizing existing government owned solutions when applicable.

F. Small Business Requirements (duplicates of above):

Q35: What are the plans, strategy, and requirements to have small business set-asides, work share, goals for the IDE contract? For example, percent overall small business goals, percent small disadvantaged business, percent of small disadvantaged veteran owned small business, percent women owned, HUBZone, etc.

A35: Large businesses will be required to meet those small business program goals as specified at http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/goals.htm.

Q36: What is type of competition? Full and open? SBA set aside? Etc.

A36: This will be full and open competition.

Q37: Although there are statements in the Draft Proposal i.e. “If the offeror is other than a small business,” there is no clear statement by the government that this is a Full and Open competition. Will the Government please clarify its acquisition strategy?

A37: This acquisition will be competed full and open.