RFP FBO QA 1.docx

Infrastructure, Development, and Engineering (IDE) Contract Request for Proposal Q&A

All required RFP updates generated based on the below Q&A have been incorporated within Amendment 1 to the RFP.

A. Previous Q&A

Q1: Industry Day Questions and Answers (Q/A) distributed by the Government prior to release of the RFP included this Q/A: “Q2: Based on this table the Small Business goal for FY11 is 31.7%, is 31.7% the minimum percentage requirement for a proposal to be considered acceptable? A2: Yes, 31.7% is the minimum requirement.” Small Business goals were omitted from the final RFP released. Can the Government please clarify Small Business goals for this solicitation?

A1: All offerors will be required to follow the small business goals as outlined at Section L, Para 4.2.4.1.3 and Section M, Para 1.2.3 per the following website: http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/goals.htm

Q2: Questions and Answers were previously provided for the draft RFP and not furnished as part of the final RFP package. Only the Industry Day Q&As were provided. Are the draft RFP Q&As still valid and should they be considered in our proposal response?

A2: The answers to the draft RFP questions were posted to FedBizOpps on 1 March 2011. All answers that resulted in changes to the RFP have been included within the Final RFP document. The formal RFP shall be used for proposal development.

B. Overall RFP Questions Q3: Does Test and Evaluation remain an enhanced mission area as was briefed during the DMOC IDE Industry Day? If so, are there other more definitive requirements beyond what is stated in the RFP?

A3: Test and Evaluation requirements will be handled on a case by case basis. Smaller T&E activities may be handled as part of a Studies and Analysis, VF, WFE, or development effort, while larger T&E activities may be handled as individual SOW Task Orders.

Q4: The final RFP does not reflect a requirement for inclusion, nor evaluation, of a Small Business Plan. Can the Government please clarify if a Small Business Plan is required for this proposal and if so, how it will be evaluated?

A4: Small business plan requirements are covered in RFP Section I FAR Clause 52.219-09, DFARS Clause 252.219-7003 & 7004, Section L Para 4.2.4.1.3, and Section M Para 1.2.3.

Q5: It is the Offeror's interpretation of the RFP requirements, that we are to submit pricing for Task Orders 0001 through 0005 for the initial 12 months of the program on Table 1 and complete the labor rates on Table 3 for the entire period of performance. Therefore, there is no requirement to bid any Task Order effort beyond the initial 12 months. Can the Govt confirm our interpretation or provide additional clarification?

A5: The contractor is to price out the five task orders provided within Section J, Attachments 6-10. All five task orders have a 12 month period of performance. The contractor is also required by Clause H103 to fill in the labor rate schedule for the life of the contract.

Q6: Will the Government please provide an estimated start date for pricing purposes?

A6: The tentative start date for pricing purposes will be a 1 Feb 12 performance start date for a 30-day transition period.

C. Statement of Work Q7: In the SOW Acronym List, IAO is defined as "Interim Authority to Operate" which is usually IATO. IAO is used in two places (3.1.3.6.2, 3.3.1.5) that we think should mean "Information Assurance Officer".

A7: IAO should be Information Assurance Officer. The acronym list has been updated accordingly.

Q8: SOW 3.3.1.5 states "the contractor shall comply with applicable STIGs, as specified by the 705 CTS IAO." We believe the correct 705 CTS office to specify STIG applicability would be the IAM - "Information Assurance Manager". Please clarify.

A8: Paragraph 3.3.1.5 has been updated accordingly. Both the IAO or IAM can direct compliance with applicable STIGS.

Q9: The SOW Section 3.0 lists subsections 3.1 through 3.2.3. These same subheadings are also used again in the main Sections 3.1 and 3.2. This is confusing in areas where these subheadings are referenced from the L-criteria. Should the subheadings in Section 3 be numbered as 3.0.1 through 3.0.2.3?

A9: The SOW has been updated to limit confusion.

Q10: Section 3.2.2.4.1 of SOW states "The contractor shall make all documentation control changes in both hard copy and on digital media." We interpret this to mean that the same change control process must be applied to documentation regardless of whether it is hardcopy or softcopy, i.e., both formats need to be controlled. This does not mean that documentation is required to always be submitted for control in both formats. Is that a correct interpretation?

A10: Para 3.2.2.4.1 has been revised to read “The contractor shall make all documentation control changes to applicable hard and/or electronic copies/digital media.”

Q11: Section L, Attachment 4, section 1c. states, “…offerors are required to provide a pricing sheet for Development efforts using the workload analysis provided within the Basic Contract SOW.” Could the Government please clarify what “workload analysis in the Basic Contract SOW” this statement is referring to?

A11: The Workload Analysis has been included within the SOW as Annex 1.

Section B

Q12: Section B, Supplies or Services and Price/Cost: ITEMs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0007, and 0008 all state that “Total Cost: (TBD within Task Order)”. Since there are no cost/price instructions except for the five Task Orders, these ITEMs appear to be the roll-up of their respective ITEMs from the sample Task Orders. Is this the correct interpretation?

A12: No, the CLINs on the basic contract are there to simply serve as a template format for the Task Orders. Dollar values for the CLINs shall not be stated at the basic contract level.

D. Section I

Q13: Section I - FAR 52.217-08 "Option to Extend Services (NOV 1999)". Please clarify that the "prevailing rates" which would be subject to this clause would be the contractor's forward pricing rates at the time of the negotiation.

A13: Prevailing rates are to be those rates agreed upon and provided within Section J, Attachment 3 Labor Rates for OFY5. Those are the rates to be applied for the possible additional 6 months if FAR Clause 52.217-08 is exercised.

Q14: Section I, Clause 5352.209-9000 "Organizational Conflict of Interest and ALT I, II, III, IV and VI (OCT 2010)” Section (a) (2) (iv). Please clarify the use of the term "system” as it relates to a preclusion from award of any supply or service contract or subcontract or its major components.

A14: Per the clause 5352.209-9000, a “system” means the system that is the subject of this contract. In this case, the DMOC battlespace is the system.

Q15: Section I, Clause 5352.209-9000 "Organizational Conflict of Interest and ALT I, II, III, IV and VI (OCT 2010)” Section (a) (2) (iv). Please clarify the "Shall" statement with regard to the evaluation of other contractors’ proposals and products. Is it the Government's intent for the IDE prime contractor to provide systems engineering and technical direction for a system but not have overall responsibility for its development, integration, assembly, checkout or its production? If yes, this would imply the entire contractor team may need to be firewalled.

A15: If the clause, as stated, provides the need for mitigation, it is the offeror’s responsibility to analyze the situation and determine the appropriate mitigation plan given their particular circumstance for the Government’s review and evaluation.

Q16: Section I, Clause 5352.209-9000 "Organizational Conflict of Interest and ALT I, II, III, IV and VI (OCT 2010)” Section (a) (2) (iv). Please clarify the "Shall" statement with regard to the evaluation of other contractors’ proposals and products. Would the evaluation of commercial or Non-Development items for use at the DMOC not result in preclusion?

A16: The Government does not have insight into the specific situations for each offeror. It is up to the offeror to refer to the FAR and its supplements regarding OCI issues, analyze any possible OCI situations, and respond with plans to mitigate where necessary.

E. Section J Q17: SF-33 Block 9 refers to Past Performance related to Section J, Attachment 4. Section J has six (6) attachments – two of these are identified as Attachment 3 (the 3rd and the last). None of these attachments appear to have applicability to Past Performance. Can the Government clarify if this is a misprint or direct us to the applicable attachments?

A17: Section J has 10 Attachments and 2 Exhibits listed. Section J can be located on page 33 of the RFP. Attachment 4 refers to Section L. Section L, Para 2.4 and 5.2 provide direct reference to Past Performance requirements.

Task Orders

Q18: Section J, Attachment 8, Delivery Order 0003: This Task Order, 0003, lists ITEMs for both RDT&E funding and O&M funding however there is no instructions provided how to divide estimated cost between these two types of funds. Please provide instructions as to how to divide our proposed cost between RDT&E funds and O&M funds.

A18: Para 3.0.2.1 through 3.0.2.3 captures those typical work efforts that should be coded for the different funding types. The offeror should make a best effort in determining which ITEMS apply to the different types of funding.

Q19: Section J, Attachment 8, Task Order for Virtual Flag Exercises and Section J, Attachment 9, Task Order for Warfighter Focused Events (WFE) each reference Consolidated Products Matrix Attachments, 2 and 3 respectively. Can the Government confirm that the Products Matrices that are included in each Task Order should be labeled as the missing Attachments 2 and 3?

A19: Within each task order attachment, all documents that apply to that particular effort are included within the file. They can be located as follows: Section J, Attachment 8, page16 and Section J, Attachment 9, page 10

Q20: Section J, Attachment 9, Delivery Order 0004: This Task Order, 0004, lists ITEMs for both RDT&E funding and O&M funding however there is no instructions provided how to divide estimated cost between these two types of funds. Please provide instructions as to how to divide our proposed cost between RDT&E funds and O&M funds.

A20: Para 3.0.2.1 through 3.0.2.3 captures those typical work efforts that should be coded for the different funding types. The offeror should make a best effort in determining which ITEMS apply to the different types of funding.

Q21: Section J, Attachment 10, Delivery Order 0005: This Task Order, 0005, lists ITEMs for RDT&E, O&M and Procurement funding however there are no instructions provided how to divide estimated cost between these three types of funds. Please provide instructions as to how to divide our proposed cost between RDT&E, O&M and Procurement funds.

A21: Para 3.0.2.1 through 3.0.2.3 captures those typical work efforts that should be coded for the different funding types. The offeror should make a best effort in determining which ITEMS apply to the different types of funding.

Q22: Could the Government please clarify where PM and Administration costs should be priced? The PM and Administration TO says “The contractor shall bill this TO only when work cannot be directly charged to another project.” All four of the other TOs say, “…allocated to this task order are to be billed against this task order.” These TO instructions refer to billing, but not to pricing. Are bidders to price all PM and Administration efforts under TO 00001 (Program Management and Administration FY12) or is it the Government’s intention that PM & Admin be priced under each of the TOs?

A22: It is the Government’s intention that PM and Admin costs associated with each task order be proposed and billed under each TO. All the other duties required for PM and Admin that do not fall within another TO mission shall be proposed within TO 0001.

Q23: Section J, Attachment 9, Task Order for Warfighter Focused Events (WFE), FY12 states “The contractor shall provide approximately 1,000 hours to perform” this task order. Further into the same paragraph it states that each WFE “may be as low as 50 or as high as 2,000 hours”. Can the Government clarify the discrepancy between a single WFE of 2,000 hours, yet the annual total is only 1,000 hours?

A23: Since the number and size of WFEs are unpredictable, but the mission needs to be covered upon contract award, 1,000 hours is the best average to allow for consistent proposal submissions from industry.

F. Section L

Q24: Multiple questions were asked regarding the deliverable contents of Table 2.2, therefore a revised Table 2.2 has been provided.

A24:

Table 2.2 - Proposal Organization

Inter-Contractor Cooperation 4.2.4.1.2(d), 4.2.4.1.3, 4.2.5

5 pages per citation; no more than 3 citations

(TO 0001-0005)

Q25: The DMOC hardware is included in the RFP in Task Order 002 Attachment 1, but a list of DMOC software was not included. Will this list be provided?

A25: An current software list can be viewed in the technical library. An updated GFP list will be provided when a final inventory is conducted upon current contract expiration. This will be part of the transition process.

Q26: Section L 4.2.3.1.2 (b) states that "…as well as templates for CDRLs B003-B011." Section L 4.2.4.1.1 (a) states that "…as well as templates for CDRLs A001." Given the page limitation in L 2.2, please clarify what type of templates are required.

A26: Each offeror must propose an example template to meet CDRLs B003-B011 as part of their proposal. The offeror’s proposed template will be evaluated as part of Mission Capability Volume II. The templates are not included within the page limit. A note has been added to Section L, Table 2.2.

Q27: Section L paragraph 5.3.3 Past Performance Questionnaire. Please confirm that the questionnaires are due on the same date as the past performance volume (paragraph 5.3), which is 15 days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals to the government.

A27: All past performance information is urged to be submitted 15 days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals. This includes both the questionnaires and the volume.

Q28: Section L 4.2.4.1.3 requires the offeror to provide its “Small Business Subcontracting Plan… or Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan submitted (IAW) DFARS 219.702”. Company Comprehensive Subcontracting Plans can exceed 50 pages. We request this be excluded from the page limitations. Alternatively, is it acceptable to simply reference the existing Comprehensive Plan and provide its signed cover page within the Mission Capability Volume?

A28: The Subcontracting Plan is to be submitted within Volume IIh of the offerors proposal. Volume IIh has an unlimited page count.

Q29: Page limit for Vol II Proposal Risk addressed in Section L.4.2.1 and L.4.2.2 is not addressed. Can the Government confirm that the page count for this material is unlimited or provide a page limit?

A29: The inherent risk needs to be addressed within the given page count for each volume.

Q30: Section L, Paragraph 2.2 states “offerors may place Volume I and II together in a single binder”. Table 2.2 instructs offerors to submit only 1 original Vol I, whereas copies are required for Vol II material. If Vol I and Vol II are combined into a single binder, is it the Governments intention that only the original binder will include the Vol I Executive Summary and the copies will not?

A30: If an offeror chooses to combine Vol I with Vol II, an Executive Summary would be required with each Vol II submission for standardization purposes.

Q31: Section L Paragraph 5.3 states for past performance “In addition, include information on no more than three (3) recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors”. Number of citations and page count listed in Table 2.2 appears to be for prime offeror only. Would the Government clarify if the citation/pages in Table 2.2 are for each company (prime and teaming partners/significant subcontractor) required to summit past performance information? In other words, if the Prime has one significant subcontractor, can six past performance citations be provided (three for the prime and three for the significant subcontractor)?

A31: Significant teaming partners and subcontractors are each limited to the same page count. For example, if the Prime has one significant subcontractor, six past performance citations should be provided (three for the prime and three for the significant subcontractor).

Q32: Section 2.2.5 states “Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used”. Can the Government clarify if this pertains to Volumes IV – Price, Vol V – Contract Documentation, and Vol I – Executive Summary?

A32: If abbreviations and acronyms are used within those sections, a glossary is required.

Q33: In Part IV, section L (A) lists FAR 52.222-46 "Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (FEB 1993)". Please confirm that a Corporate Compensation Plan for professional employees is an acceptable response to this requirement. If yes, what documentation will be required to submit along with the proposal response. Please advise which volume the data is to be delivered in and if there is a page limitation for this submittal.

A33: Significant detail must be provided on compensation information to clearly demonstrate how employees will be compensated. Compensation information shall be included within Volume IV Cost/Price, with no limitation on page count.

Q34: The instructions provided in Section L for the Mission Capability Volume, L.4.2.3 and L.4.2.4, are divided into multiple Elements. Each Element requires a full technical proposal demonstrating how bidder's intend to meet all the requirements of the individual TO SOW and the basic contract SOW. The instructions also asks for the Offeror to address "key discriminating criteria" within each Element.

The desired order of response under each Element is unclear. Could the government clarify the order and structure of response in responding to the requirements of the Basic SOW, TO SOW, and the key discriminating factors. Example: Should the structure of the Offeror Response be as follows within each element: 1) key discriminating criteria, 2) basic SOW, 3)TO SOW?

A34: The offeror must address all the requirements of the TO SOW and the basic contract SOW (addressed together, not separately for each mission requirement), while the key discriminators will be used to evaluate the offeror’s proposals.

Q35: Section L.5.3.4 – Past Performance, Volume Contents includes a requirement for Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor relating to the offerors authorization for release of adverse past performance information. Can the Government confirm that there is a requirement for Consent Letters when subcontractor’s past performance is not used in Vol III of the proposal?

A35: Yes a consent letter is required.

Q36: Section L.4.2.4.1.2.e states “resumes must be provided for the key personnel identified in SOW section 3.1.6. Key Positions are identified in SOW Section 3.1.6.5 for the transition phase. Can the Government confirm that the key positions identified in SOW 3.1.6.5 for the transition phase are also the Key Positions for the term of the contract? If not, would the Government identify the additional key personnel positions that will require resumes to be included in the proposal?

A36: Para 3.1.6.5 has been updated to include the entire life of the contract for key personnel.

Q37: Section L, 7.1.6. Section I, states “All companies submitting a proposal at $10 million or greater, in accordance with FAR Clause 52.222-24, are required to comply with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs registry at http://www.dol-esa.gov/preaward/pa_reg.html. Should the awardee not be located within the registry there will be a delay in contract award until there is compliance within the registry.” In that a federal contractor has no authority to request a compliance evaluation, please confirm that any award will be subject to a preaward compliance evaluation by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) unless; within the preceding 24 months, OFCCP has conducted an evaluation and found the prospective Contractor and subcontractors to be in compliance with Executive Order 11246.

A37: Yes, there will be a preaward compliance evaluation by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) for offerors not currently in the system.

Q38: In previous Q&A, the Government stated that no pricing for the Development scenario was required. Section L, Attachment 4, section 1c of the final RFP states, “…offerors are required to proved a pricing sheet for Development efforts using the workload analysis provided within the Basic Contract SOW.” Section M, d (1) of the RFP states, “Price fair and reasonableness will be determined by using the offeror’s prices…..as well as the development effort for all OFYs.” Could the Government clarify if pricing, to include tables 1 and 2, is now required for the Development scenario given in Section L 4.2.3.1.2 Element 2?

A38: Pricing for the development scenario is not required, Section L has been updated accordingly.

Q39: Section L, Attachment 4, section 1c. states, “To develop overall contract prices and ceilings for the basic contract it is advised that sheets be provided for each OFY over the life of the contract.” Does the government want pricing tables 1 and 2 for all five years of the contract?

A39: The offeror must price the 5 initial task orders, for a 12-month period, in accordance with Tables 1 and 2 outlined within Section L of the RFP. Please ensure the labor rate schedule is filled out as required by clause H103 for 5 years.

G. Section M Q40: Section M, paragraph e. Determination of Non-responsiveness states, "(4) Address Scenario (Section L Para 4.2.3.2)." Section L Para 4.2.3.2 appears to be a carryover from the draft RFP. Please confirm this is now Para 4.2.3.1.2?

A40: Section M was updated to include key discriminators of Section L Paragraphs 4.2.3 and 4.2.4.

H. Sections L&M

Q41: Page 33 of 33 of the RFP lists and includes Sections L and M as Attachments 4 and 5 of Section J. Additional Section L and M requirements are also included later in the RFP following Section K. Whereas these are the instructions to the offerors and evaluation criteria for selection, would the Government consider providing a consolidated section L and M or identify which elements of the two parts are the applicable sections of the RFP?

A41: Due to limitation of the contract writing system, portions of L&M are posted under Section J. All Section L and M documents are applicable.