Draft RFP QandA Combined (1).xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted Oct 15, 2022

Attached to: Innovation, Integration, and Information Support (3IS) III Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: FA2518-22-R-0023
Issued by: Department of the Air Force Space Command

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Innovation, Integration, and Information Support (3IS) III, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
DRAFT_3IS III_Atch 15_Section L_v1.0.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Atch 16_Section M_v1.0.docx	DOCX document	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Attch 11_ Staffing Matrix_v1.0.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Atch 10_ SBMW PWS_v1.0.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Atch 9_392 CTS PWS_v1.0.docx	DOCX document	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Atch 8_Wargaming PWS_v1.0.docx	DOCX document	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Atch 8_Wargaming PWS_v1.0.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Atch2_DD Fm 254 v3.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Atch 10_ SBMW PWS_v1.0.docx	DOCX document	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Atch 16_Section M_v1.0.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Atch1_PWS_v2_0.docx	DOCX document	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Atch 9_392 CTS PWS_v1.0.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Atch 7_IT PWS_v1.0.pdf	PDF	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Attch 12_Cost Price Workbook_v1.0.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Oct 15, 2022
DRAFT_3IS III_Atch 7_IT PWS_v1.0.docx	DOCX document	Oct 15, 2022

Show all 15

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

	Question #	DRFP Document / Section	Page	Reference	Question/Comment	Government Response
	1	General			QUESTION: Will the Government accept the offeror’s proposal with all documents digitally signed?	Yes
	2	B - Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs	Page 3 of 118	L.5.D.3.c Total Evaluated Price (TEP) states: “Phase-in shall be proposed in Section B for a 30-day period of performance”	QUESTION: Will the 30-day Phase-In be priced in a separate CLIN in Section B? If so, could the Government please add the CLIN?	Phase in will be its own separate task order.
	3	G - Contract Administration Data	Page 12 of 118	G.f: “DUNS Number:”	QUESTION: As of April 4, 2022, the authoritative identifier is the Unique Entity ID from SAM.gov. Should “DUNS Number” be changed to: “Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)”?	Changed to UEI
	4	L.5.B PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS	Page 90 of 118	L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions	QUESTION: Due to potential impacts of a COVID-19 resurgence, would the Government consider requiring a fully digital submission in lieu of bound hard copies and CD-ROMs?	Solicitation revised to ask for only electronic copy of the proposal
	5	L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions	Page 91 of 118	L.5.B.2.a.iv, Page Size and Format: “Use Times New Roman, with a font no smaller than 12-point with normal proportional spacing.”	QUESTION: Would the Government allow smaller but readable font size to be used in headers and footers?	Headers and footers font size will remain 12 point Times New Roman
	6	L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions	Page 91 of 118	L.5.B.2.a.iv, Page Size and Format: “Use Times New Roman, with a font no smaller than 12-point with normal proportional spacing.”	QUESTION: Please confirm a cover letter is excluded from page count.	There is a cover sheet identified in the RFP but no cover letter.
	7	L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions	Page 91 of 118	L.5.B.2.a.v, Charts and Tables: “Charts, text in graphics, tables, headers and footers shall be in black or blue Times New Roman font (no variations), and shall not be smaller than Microsoft Word 12 point font, normal proportional spacing.”	QUESTION: Would the Government allow a smaller but readable font size to be used in charts, graphics, tables, including figure/table titles and captions?	This will stay 12 point font
	8	L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions	Page 91 of 118	L.5.B.2.a.v, Charts and Tables: “Charts, text in graphics, tables, headers and footers shall be in black or blue Times New Roman font (no variations), and shall not be smaller than Microsoft Word 12 point font, normal proportional spacing.”	QUESTION: Would the Government please confirm that screenshots/photographs are excluded from font requirements, as these are typically used to reference an example/sample and not intended to be read/legible?	Any thing not legible/readable will not be considered. Screenshots are not exempt from the 12 font requirement
	9	L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions	Page 91 of 118	L.5.B.2.a.v, Charts and Tables: “Charts, text in graphics, tables, headers and footers shall be in black or blue Times New Roman font (no variations), and shall not be smaller than Microsoft Word 12 point font, normal proportional spacing.”	QUESTION: Would the Government please confirm that callout boxes and focus boxes may follow the same font size instructions as those for tables and figures?	Yes, confirmed
	10	L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions	Page 91 of 118	L.5.B.2.a.v, Charts and Tables: “Charts, text in graphics, tables, headers and footers shall be in black or blue Times New Roman font (no variations), and shall not be smaller than Microsoft Word 12 point font, normal proportional spacing.”	QUESTION: Would the Government please consider removing Header and Footer specs from paragraph L.5.B.2.a.v, Charts and Tables?	12 font will be used for header/footer
	11	L.5.B.2.a Proposal Preparation and Format Instructions	Page 91 of 118	L.5.B.2.a.i, Binding and Labeling: “A cover sheet shall be bound in each book, clearly marked with the offeror’s name, volume number and title, solicitation identification (e.g., RFP number and title), and the copy number (e.g., copy 2 of 5) (e.g., Company A, Vol I, Technical Proposal, RFP FA251822XXXX, 3IS III, copy 2 of 5)”	QUESTION: Could the Government please confirm the required cover sheet is excluded from font requirements?	Yes it is excluded
	12	DRAFT SECTION L TABLES	Page 3 of 4	Table 3: Total Cost/Price Summary by Cost/Price Element/Year each Task Order 002 to 006 – Subcontractors	COMMENT: Column 8 is mislabeled as OPTION PERIOD “FY27” and should be Should be “FY29”.	need to correct
	13	M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION	Page 114 of 118	Section 2, Volume 2 - Present/Past Performance (Factor 2)	RATIONALE: The vision and guidance from USSF leadership (i.e., Gen. Saltzman, Gen. Thompson) is for STARCOM to develop a more collaborative and sustainable architecture for a more realistic simulated environment. The technical merit of the 3IS III contractor is significantly important. The technical evaluation of 3IS III being Acceptable/Unacceptable restricts the Government’s ability to leverage a team’s technical capability and contradicts the USSF leadership vision and guidance.
QUESTION: Will the Government consider the Best Value Trade-off be between Technical Approach and Cost/Price with Past Performance rated as Acceptable/Unacceptable where an offeror has achieved a Satisfactory Confidence rating. We recommend that Technical Factor 1 be evaluated using an adjectival approach identifying Significant Strengths, Strengths, and Weaknesses to arrive at an aggregate score ranging from Outstanding to Unsatisfactory.	No
	14	M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION	Page 114 of 118	Section 2, Volume 2 - Present/Past Performance (Factor 2)	RATIONALE: The 3IS III Evaluation Criteria does not clearly state whether a company teammate’s past performance relevancy will be a single rating determined by the aggregate of citations submitted by that company for a mission focus area.
QUESTION: Will the Government clarify how past performance relevancy is aggregated across all citations within a mission focus area submitted by a bidder?	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated
	15	M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION	Page 114 of 118	Section 2. Volume 2 - Present/Past Performance (Factor 2)	RATIONALE: The 3IS III Evaluation Criteria does not clearly state how the Government develops a team’s confidence rating with respect to relevancy.
QUESTION: Specifically, does a team with 3 Highly Relevant references rather than one Highly Relevant reference in one focus area earn a higher confidence rating? Conversely, if a team has 2 Highly Relevant references and 1 Somewhat Relevant references, does that team have a lower confidence rating than a team with 2 or 3 Highly Relevant references?	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	16	M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION	Page 114 of 118	Section 2. Volume 2 - Present/Past Performance (Factor 2; b. Relevancy Assessment)	RATIONALE: Section states: “In determining relevancy for individual submissions, consideration will only be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror or subcontractor, teammate and/or joint venture partner if identified to perform that effort in the relevancy matrix.” One would assume that if an offeror proposes staff in IT, but only one area, that they would not be assessed against all the relevancy criteria set forth in Section M Tables, i.e., if a company proposes staff to support Information Assurance (#3 Information Technology), then that company’s past performance should only be assessed for Information Assurance and not the other 4 evaluation requirements for a Highly Relevant evaluation.
QUESTION: Please clarify and confirm an offer’s Past Performance will only be evaluated for the staff they propose, i.e., if a company proposes staff to support Information Assurance under the Information Technology focus area, then that Past Performance should only be assessed for (3) Information Assurance requirements and not the other four evaluation requirements and can still achieve a Very Relevant rating.	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	17	M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION	Page 114 of 118	Section 2. Volume 2 - Present/Past Performance: Table 10 Relevancy T&E	RATIONALE: The 3IS III past performance relevancy requirements in Table 10 may unduly restrict competition. We have assessed multiple test programs and discussed T&E programs with numerous experienced individuals specific to the “Test Director” requirement. We have concluded that the Test Director is almost always a government position, and may be rather unique as a contractor position on 3IS II, and as such, this requirement may only be achievable by the incumbent.
COMMENT: Please remove program-specific position titles the requirements within the Section M Evaluation Criteria.	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	18	M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION	Page 114 of 118	Section 2. Volume 2 - Present/Past Performance: Table 10 Relevancy T&E	RATIONALE: Table 10 T&E: Very Relevant item (3) Used statistical software tools such as MATLAB JMP, Design Expert, etc. The use of words like “such as” and “etc.” introduces risk to a non-incumbent bidder as we may use a similar test tool; however, we don’t know how the Government will evaluate the relevance of our similar tools. This requirement unduly restricts competition as only the incumbent can avoid this risk concern as they use these exact tools today on the current contract.
COMMENT: Recommend the Government moves away from listing stringent numbered past performance criteria which favors incumbent past performance that restricts competition and uses a common practical approach. For example: to be considered Very Relevant, a contractor must have a reference that supports OT&E and DT&E test activities for space systems, planning, executing and leading test events, developing and executing test plans, using common industry accepted test tools.	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	19	M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION; DRAFT SECTION M TABLES	Page 5 of 8	Table 10: Relevancy - STARCOM Wargaming (See Section M Table 10 attachment)	RATIONALE: Relevancy Table 10 Wargaming relevancy criteria item (6) supporting space, cyber, and/or Intel operational, policy, red, or other wargaming frameworks is unclear.
QUESTION: For relevancy criteria item (6), please confirm that the evaluation criteria elements (i.e., space, cyber, Intel operational, policy, red wargaming frameworks) are independent elements and are not evaluated collectively.	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	20	M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION; DRAFT SECTION M TABLES	Page 5 of 8	Table 10: Relevancy - STARCOM Wargaming (See Section M Table 10 attachment)	RATIONALE: It is understandable that 3IS III and STARCOM now differentiates an Exercise and Wargame with the USSF organization and mission requirements. However, the evaluation criteria in Section M for Wargaming and DMO are nearly identical, but now a non-incumbent is even further challenged to produce past performance references that cover both independently. Seeing as how past performance is really the only rated factor and to avoid an incumbent competitive advantage, we believe it is reasonable for the Government to accept past performance that covers the areas of “(1) planning, designing, and executing wargames and associated planning events; (2) supporting constructive/virtual wargame planning and execution; (3) operating multiple systems across a wide area network (distributed operations); (4) operating within a classified environment; (5) operating within a multi-domain and international-partner framework for wargaming; (6) supporting Space, Cyber, and/or Intel operational, policy, Red, or other wargaming frameworks.” when described as an “exercise” from other past performance references.
COMMENT: Because the functions of planning, executing, and integrating an exercise and wargame are very similar, will the Government confirm that contracts cited prior to the differentiation between Wargaming and Exercises would be considered highly relevant?	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	21	Q&A January 2022 / M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION	Section M Evaluation Criteria		RATIONALE: In the Industry Day Q&A released on June 27, 2022, question number 2, the Government states: “subsidiaries will be weighted for the areas they are proposed to work.” The DRFP does not include any information on weighted evaluation criteria. It is important for bidders to clearly understand how past performance is weighted (formula) to determine our citations fully meet requirements.
COMMENT: Please provide the past performance evaluation weighted formula/analysis model mentioned in the Industry Day Q&A.	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	22	DRAFT SECTION M TABLES	Page 6 of 8	Table 10: Relevancy - Test and Evaluation	COMMENT: Table 10 is numbered incorrectly. It should be numbered as Table 11, and then renumber the remaining tables.	Changes made
	23	3IS III Draft PWS_22 Jun 22 and Draft CDRLs (6/27/22)			COMMENT: There are numerous inconsistencies between PWS and CDRL references (e.g., some CDRLs are not referenced in the PWS; some CDRL forms include incorrect paragraph references).	PWS and CDRLs were reviewed and discrepancies corrected.
	24	Section L Table 1	1		Due to the continuing COVID situation will the government consider an electronic submittal instead of a hard copy?	See response to question 4
	25	Draft RFP Section L-5
B.2.a.iv)	91		The draft RFP specifies that the page size is 8.5 x 11 inches (letter format) paper. For spreadsheets that must be submitted, this format will not facilitate review. Can required spreadsheets be formatted and printed on an 11 x 17 inch (tabloid format) single side paper?	11 x 17 inch paper is allowable. One side of 11 x 17 inch paper equates to two pages of 8.5 x 11 inch pages. Only one side of 11 x 17 inch paper shall be used.
	26	Draft RFP Section L-5
1.4.3	91		Will the government provide workload estimates for PWS 1.4.3.	Workload data is provided at the task order/scenario level. See historical workload data in bidder's library
	27	Draft RFP Section L-5
1.4.5.1.1.11	19		The AFIs listed have been superseded, what are the correct Instructions and Manuals?	Need to review and update as needed, every functional area needs to rescrub their area and check the bidders library
	28	Section L
L.D.1.d	93/118		Will draft of the 5 Senarios (Attachment L-1) be released prior to the Final RFP?	No. The scenarios will be released with the final RFP
	29	Section L
L.D.2	93/118		This section states "Past Performance is approximately equal to Cost/Price factor. This portion of the evaluation will consider the offeror's performance and that of its subcontractors, at or above $2 million, teammates and/or joint venture partners.
Is Past Performance required for all teammates or only those teammates that have over $2 million dollars worth of labor on the proposed/priced task order where the teammate/subcontractor will be performing?	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	30	Section L
6.a.	100/118		This seems to be an old requirement and it should be removed—SBA no longer pre-approves JVAs for competitive 8(a) awards.	Corrected Section L to remove this language. Need to update RFP, per SBA website SBA no longer approves joint venture agreements formed to pursue competitive 8(a) contracts.
	31	Section L
7.b	100/118		When do we need to have a UEI by? Proposal submital or Contract Award? What if we started the registration process and a help ticket is open and we don't have a UEI by proposal submittal?	On 4 Apr 22 the UEIs were mandated for use per SAM.gov. UEIs are required for proposal submission and award. The proposal will be considered non-responsive if it is not submitted with the proposal.
	32	Draft RFP
F, Line 0001	9		Line 0001 Delivery Schedule Period of Performance From date ends on 30 Jun 2028. All other Line Items (0002 - 0003) POPs end on 30 Jun 2027. Is 30 June 2028 a typo?	Periods of performance and delivery schedule periods of performances corrected in solicitation to reflect correct dates.
	33	Draft RFP and Draft PWS
L, L-1, D, Clause 252.237-7024 and PWS section 1.5.18.1	RFP pg 87 and PWS page 34		The Draft RFP references continuation of essential contractor service and mission essential functions. Offerors shall provide a plan on how it will continue to perform essential contractor services listed in Attachment 1 PWS, and provisions for acquisition of essential personnel and resources, if necessary, for continuity of operations for up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed. The Draft PWS identifies performance of these services as non-mission essential. Question 1 - Where in our proposal (Volume? etc.) does the government require Bidders to provide their essential contractor services plan?

Question 2 - How does the government intend to evaluate Bidder's essential contractor services plan?

Question 3 - Where in Attachment 1 PWS does the government comprehensively establish what specific services are considered essential contractor services? Question 1: The mission essential plan will provided for each task order as needed. Need to update CDRL to reflect initial submission 15 days after task order award.

Question 2: The mission essential plan will not be evaluated as it will be required within 15 days after task order award as needed.

Question 3: Mission essential status is determined at the task order level if needed.

Need to add/update mission essential language to PWS, update CDRL

	34	Draft RFP
3 (Volume III), 2,c (Joint Ventures)	97		Language references populated Joint Ventures. Will the government confirm this is antiquated language and make changes to reflect that populated JVs are no longer allowed?	Changes made per Subsection 121.103(h)
	35	Draft RFP
4,a. Compensation Plan	99		The Draft RFP states, "Proposals that provide compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same or similar work will be evaluated on the potential of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees." Question - Will the government provide historical labor compensation levels for this work?	No we cannot provide the incumbent's compensation
	36	Draft RFP
Tab 6, Other Representations	100		The Draft RFP states, "Additionally, (bidders will) submit a copy of any teaming arrangements." Question - Does the government mean all bidders must submit all 3IS III Teaming Agreements with Exhibit A's? We recommend this be a requirement of all Bidders as this information directly supports government stated intentions for verification and evaluation as detailed in Draft RFP section Tab 7, 8.g (Financial Documents) where the government establishes that "...team partners performing 10% or more of the proposed contract effort shall provide the last three years of financial statements, and year-to date financial information through the last quarter available to the CO." As well, Draft RFP Section D, 2 (Past Performance (Factor 2)) states, "This portion of the evaluation will consider the offeror's performance and that of its subcontractors at or above $2 million, teammates and/or joint venture partners." As well, this Draft RFP section states, "Offerors (including subcontractors, at or above $2 million, teammates, and/or joint venture partners) shall only submit past performance in the areas they are proposed to perform IAW the Relevancy Matrix."

Evaluation of Teaming Agreements with Exhibit A's will detail team workshare agreements and designated areas of teammate/partner Scope performance to aid government analysis and will allow government scrutiny necessary to meet stated government intentions and requirements detailed in Draft RFP section L, D, 2 (Volume II Present/Past Performance (Factor 2)) and 3 (Volume III - Cost/Price (Factor 3)) and section M, M-3, 2 (Present/Past Performance (Factor2) and M-3, 3 (Volume 3 - Cost/Price (Factor 3)).

	37	Draft A002 Developmental Design Drawings	1		PWS para 1.4.3.2.3 referenced in block 5 does not exist in PWS. Please provide correct PWS reference.	It is 1.4.3 as referenced in Appendix E. CDRL was updated to reflect correct reference
	38	L
ii. Tab 2:Labor Tables	96		This paragraph states "The labor categories identified in the Labor Categories and Descriptions (Attachment L-9) are anticipated to be all inclusive of the labor categories expected to be used throughout the life of the contract. All labor categories identified for the prime and/or teaming partners shall not exceed the fully burdened labor rates. These rates may be proposed by the prime, teaming partner(s), or a blend." What Fully Burdened Labor Rates is the Government referring to? Are these the fully-burdened rates proposed in the Attachment L-7 for FFP task orders?
	39	SF33 FA251822R0023, Page 87, Section L Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters, L-2 Offeror Eligibility		Participation in this acquisition is limited to small business 8 (a) offeror under NAICS code 541712, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology) with a 1000 employee size standard IAW FAR Part 19	Will the Government please verify NAICS code 541712 is no longer valid and replaced by NAICS code 541715?	The correct NAICS is 541715. Corrected
	40	Draft Solicitation Section M		Section M states "Cost/Price. The Government will rank all offerors by Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Cost/Price evaluation

assesses each offeror's proposed cost/price for all five scenarios (TO 002 to 006), and evaluates each offeror's

proposal for reasonableness, cost realism, and affordability."	Will the Government please provide draft pricing worksheets and templates to be used in the determination of the TEP for industry comment?	Infomation will be provided with solicitation.
	41	Draft Section L Tables Volume II Past Performance	No more than 5 Present/Past Performance Information Submittals per
focus area (includes Prime and Subcontractors).	Please confirm that the one Past Performance citation may be used for multiple focus areas.	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	42	Section M		Recommended Adjustment: Allow comparable citations of similar size and complexity from other major space enterprises (European Space Agency, NASA) to meet the Very Relevant criteria for the Section M, Table 10 Relevancy – Test and Evaluation.
Rationale – There are several capable partners providing very similar Test and Evaluation support to Space related systems that are strong complements to Prime Offeror teams. This expansion can enable stronger competition for the customer from the projected vendor sources.	NASA and NOAA are US government and non-DOD space orgrnaizations and they are already covered. Non-US/non-DoD test experience not relevant. No change.
	43	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Standard Form 33; Page 1 of 118		Block 9: Has the Government considered the length of time bidders will have to prepare and submit proposals following final RFP release?
Given the complexity of the proposal response, inclusive of five sample Task Order proposals, a period of not less than 45 days is anticipated.	Yes. Proposal due date is anticipated to be 30 days from final RFP posting
	44	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023

Section B; Page 3 of 118

			What is meant by the term “IDC CONTRAINT”? Is this a typo?	Yes it is a typo. It should read IDC CONSTRAINT. Section B corrected and acronym IDC is spelled out indefinite delivery contract (IDC)	(Millan) Spell out IDC
	45	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023
Section F; Page 9 of 118			Stated Delivery Period is, “From 01 Jul 2023 to 30 Jun 2027”

Stated Period of Performance is “From 01 Jul 2023 To 30 Jun 2028”.

For consistency with other CLINs, should the Stated Period of Performance be “From 01 Jul 2023 To 30 Jun 2027” instead?	All delivery periods and periods of performance were corrected as needed. See solicitation for updated information.
	46	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-2; Page 87 of 118;
Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Item B.1.g; Page 90 of 118			L-2 states that participation in this acquisition is limited to small business 8(a) offerors under NAICS code 541712. L-5, Item B.1.g states, “This acquisition is a small business 8(a) set aside under NAICS code 541715...”

The 3IS III Notice in SAM.gov states that the NAICS code is 541715 - Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology).

Please clarify applicable NAICS code for the solicitation.	The correct NAICS is 541715. Corrected
	47	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Item A.5; Page 88 of 118	The Technical Bidder’s Library will include “Workload Data”. Will the “Workload Data” be comprehensive and sufficient to support development of the full manpower table, including labor categories and skills-mix, required in each sample TO/Scenario?	The workload data will be provided for each scenario/task order.

Check Q&A to make sure it doesn't say this 48 Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Item A.5.a; Page 88 of 118 It is understood that the Technical Bidder’s Library Bidders' Library documents may include Export Controlled, Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), and other sensitive document and that an Explicit Access Request will have to be submitted to the PCOs via email.

Will an Explicit Access Request Form template be provided?

If so, when will the form be made available?

What is the anticipated turn time for Explicit Access Request Approval?

Since time is always of the essence in proposal development, can the Explicit Access Request Approval process begin prior to final RFP release?	Update RFP with actual procedures being used
	49	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Item A.7; Page 89 of 118			If a competitive range determination is necessary, the Government intends to limit the number of contract proposals to only the most highly rated proposals for purposes of efficiency in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2). Can the Government provide specific parameters on the competitive range?	specific parameters will be established during evaluation of proposals received
	50	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Item B.1.g; Page 90 of 118			This section states, “Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale in Volumes III of the proposal. Exceptions included in Volume III Price/Contract Documents may lead to the offeror being deemed ineligible for award.”
Volume III is the Cost/Price Volume. Please clarify the appropriate Proposal Volume in which to identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale, if applicable.	Assumptions/exceptions identified in Volume that they pertain, address in executive summary, no count toward page limit,
	51	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Item B.2.a.v; Page 91 of 118			Would the Government consider changing the minimum font for charts, text in graphics, tables, headers, and footers from 12 pt. Times New Roman font to 10 pt. Times New Roman or Calibri font?	No
	52	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Item B.2.a.x and Item B.2.a.xii; Page 92 of 118			The draft RFP states that, “The content and page size of electronic copies shall be identical to the hard copies. If there is a variance, the printed document will take precedence.”
It further states (L-5 Item B.2.a.xii) that “Total page count will be based on the PDF proposal submission.” Please clarify this statement as PDF files indicate a total file page numbering, including those pages that are not part of the page count (e.g., table of contents, index, and glossary) per the draft RFP.	See response to Item 4
	53	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Item D.1.d; Page 93 of 118; Section M-3; Item 1; Page 114 of 118
Questions and Answers from Industry Day and One-on-Ones; Question No. 1			The RFP states that offerors shall provide a sound technical approach to include staffing and skill mix for each scenario. The Industry Day Q&A No. 1 indicates that workload estimates will be provided at the task order level. Will the Government provide workload estimates for the scenarios? If not, how will this be measured for soundness and compliance in accordance with Section M? Offerors could have very large labor hour differentials based on their approaches. As long as assumptions are reasonable and labor hours are supported by these assumptions, will the approach to the scenarios be deemed acceptable?	(Millan) What we call "Scenarios" are in fact "Task Orders"
	54	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Item D.2; Page 94 of 118;			This section states, “This portion of the evaluation will consider the offeror’s performance and that of its subcontractors, at or above $2M.…” Does this refer to teammates that are estimated to receive $2M over the life of the IDIQ contract or $2M of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP)?	$2M of ceiling amount
	55	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Item D.2.b.iii; Page 94 of 118;
Questions and Answers from Industry Day and One-on-Ones; Question No. 2			Please confirm that, as a Native American-owned Corporation, our family of companies are exempt from affiliation under 13 CFR 121.103 (b) and may, as a result of our common shared services and infrastructure / resources, use as applicable past performance the portfolio of contracts, key personnel, and other key resources that will be brought to bear on the performance of the 3IS III contract FA2518-22-R-0023.”
	56	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Item D.2.b.iii; Page 94 of 118			Can a relevant Present/Past Performance citation be submitted for more than one Focus Area?	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	57	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Items D.3.c and D.3.e.ii; Page 96 of 118			Section L-5 Item D.3.e.ii indicates that the Government will provide labor categories that are anticipated to be all inclusive of the labor categories that will be used throughout the life of the contract. Section L-5; Items D.3.c also indicates that the TEP will be the summation of the notational TOs 002 through 006. What would prevent an offeror from using only a portion of the labor categories in the pricing of TOs 002 through 006 and pricing the unused labor categories at a relatively higher rate since those labor categories won’t be evaluated as part of the TEP?
	58	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Items D.3.e.iii; Page 97 of 118; Section M-1; Page 113 of 118			Section L-5; Items D.3.e.iii states that one FFP TO and four CPFF TOs will be provided with the RFP and that the FFP TO will be issued upon award of the basic contract. These TOs are the notational TOs 002-006, so presumably TO 002 would be awarded. Section M-1 states that one TO, TO 0001 (Pre-Performance Conference), for $10K will be awarded at the time of basic IDIQ award. Please confirm that two TOs will be awarded at the time of basic IDIQ award.	Need to update M1 to change Pre-Performance Conference to Phase In/Transition. The CDRL and RFP will need to match and require the phase in transition plan be submitted with proposal as that will be the first task order 001.

One TO will be awarded at time of basic award to meet minimum requirement and the other TO will be awarded shortly thereafter

	59	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section L-5; Item D.4.a.iii; Page 100 of 118		OCI Mitigation Plan - Does the Government require OCI statements from prospective subcontractors in addition to the Prime Offeror? Or is this requirement only for the Prime Offeror?	Yes. the Prime Offeror and any subcontractors or partners shall submit a plan if needed/required
	60	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section M-3; Item 1; Page 114 of 118
Questions and Answers from Industry Day and One-on-Ones; Question No. 21			Section M-3, Item 1 states, ““Each offeror's written proposal will be evaluated, based on the Subfactor below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS...The offeror's proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is Acceptable or Unacceptable....” In the answer to Industry Day Question No. 21, the Government states that “...offerors are encouraged to look for innovation opportunities in the requirements outlined in the PWS.”

Question - Given the pass/fail nature of the evaluation criteria for this factor (and subfactors), how will the Government evaluate innovative solutions proposed by Offerors?

Recommend the Government consider using an adjectival scoring methodology for the Technical Factor response, including Subfactor 2, Scenarios, to address innovative approaches, which can measurably improve program cost, schedule, and/or risk.

	61	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section M-3; Item 1, Table 6; Page 114 of 118; Draft Section M Tables	There are two Subfactors under Technical Factor 1 but Table 6 only addresses Subfactor 1 - Security. Should Table 6 also address Subfactor 2 - Scenarios?	will need to review and correct as needed
	62	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section M-3; Items 2 and 2.b; Pages 114-115 of 118	How will relevancy be determined if five Past Performance citations are provided from different members of a team? Will each citation be evaluated separately with a separate Relevancy Rating and then these combined for one overall rating? Or will the totality of the citations receive one relevancy rating?	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	63	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section M-3; Item 2, Tables 7-10; Page 115 of 118; Draft Section M Tables	Offerors can provide up to five citations for each Focus Area. If the mix of the five citations encompass all items in the description for “Very Relevant”, will the offeror be rated as “Very Relevant” for that focus area? In other words, will the citations be scored individually or collectively to reach the rating?
There are two Table 10s. Assume Relevancy - Test and Evaluation should be Table 11.	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	64	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section M-3; Item 2, Tables 7-10; Page 115 of 118; Draft Section M Table 7	The Relevancy Rating descriptions read, “…a prime contract cost-type contract and management of a single contract with a value of at least…” Are these two separate requirements? In other words, can an offeror provide a Past Performance citation that is a cost-type contract and another that is $15M per year to be Very Relevant (VR), or does the offeror need to provide a single citation for a contract that is both a cost-type contract and at least $15M per year to be VR? Same question for Relevant (R) and Somewhat Relevant (SR) ratings.	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	65	Draft Solicitation FA251822R0023 Section M-3; Item 2, Tables 7-10; Page 115 of 118; Draft Section M Table 10 (Relevancy – Test and Evaluation)	The “Very Relevant (VR)” and “Relevant (R)” Relevancy Rating descriptions, indicate that the offeror, along with its subcontractors, teammates and/or joint venture partners, together can provide citations involving all of the items listed. Is this true for all Relevancy Ratings in all Focus Areas, or is it only applicable for these two specific ratings?	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.
	66	Draft CDRLs (All)	In Block E, the CONTRACT/PR NO. indicated is FA251823DXXXX as opposed to the 3IS III solicitation number FA251822R0023.	Corrected
	67	Draft CDRL A010	In Block F, the Contractor is specified as Mission Essential Services.	Corrected
	68	Draft CDRL A001	Block 5. Contract Reference should state PWS Para. 1.4.2.1.1	Corrected
	69	Draft CDRL A002	Block 5. Contract Reference should state PWS Para. 1.4.3	Corrected
	70	Draft CDRL A003	Block 5. Contract Reference should state PWS Para. 1.4.2.1.1	Corrected
	71	Draft CDRL A004	Block 5. Contract Reference should state PWS Para. 1.4.2.1.1	Corrected
	72	Draft CDRL A005	Block 5. Contract Reference should state PWS Para. 1.4.2.1.1	Corrected
	73	Draft CDRL A006	While PWS Appendix E assigns CDRL A006 to PWS Para. 1.4.3.18, in agreement with CDRL A006 Block 5, there is no reference to CDRL A006 in PWS Para. 1.4.3.18	Needs to be corrected. PWS para does not identify this CDRL and the only place CDRL mention is in Appendix E CDRLs
	74	Draft CDRL A007	While PWS Appendix E assigns CDRL A007 to PWS Para. 1.4.3.18, in agreement with CDRL A007 Block 5, there is no reference to CDRL A007 in PWS Para. 1.4.3.18	Needs to be corrected. PWS para does not identify this CDRL and the only place CDRL mention is in Appendix E CDRLs
	75	Draft CDRL A009	While PWS Appendix E assigns CDRL A009 to PWS Paras. 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5, and 1.4.6, in agreement with CDRL A009 Block 5, CDRL A009 is referenced in PWS Para. 1.4.5.1.1	Corrected. CDRL mentioned in 1.4.3, 1.4.4.1 and 1.4.5.1.1
	76	Draft CDRL A010	While PWS Appendix E assigns CDRL A010 to PWS Para. 1.4.2.1, in agreement with CDRL A010 Block 5, there is no reference to CDRL A010 in PWS Para. 1.4.2.1	Need to update PWS para 1.5.18.1 or add mission essential para language to PWS so it can be a reference for the CDRL
	77	Draft CDRLS A011 – A017	While PWS Appendix E assigns CDRLs A010 through A017 to PWS Para. 1.4.4, in agreement with CDRLs A010 through A017 Block 5, there is no reference to CDRLs A010 through A017 in PWS Para. 1.4.4	Need to add CDRL info to PWS for applicable paragraphs, update Appendix E and the CDRLS
	78	Draft PWS; Section 1.4.1.1; Page 9 of 51	The Section states that “At a minimum, ninety percent (90%) of contractor employees are required to obtain and maintain TS/SCI clearances”.
Question: Will the Labor Categories provided by the Government identify which positions require TS/SCI clearances and/or all other clearance requirements to include TS, SECRET, and no clearance required?	At IDIQ level address span of clearance requirements, task order level identifies level needed based on work identified
	79	Draft PWS; Section 1.4.2.1.3.2; Page 10 of 51	The Section describes a process to identify “leads” under the Program Management task in support of “the individual tasks/units supported on this contract”.
Question: Will the Government please provide representative samples of what the previous contractor-derived leads included and the format for which they were provided to the Government?	No
	80	Draft PWS; Section 1.4.2.1.3.2; Page 11 of 51	Can the Government provide the transition period, e.g., number of days (30, 45, 60)? Both the PWS and CDRL A008 do not specify the transition period.	30 days. Need to update PWS and CDRLs to reflect info
	81	Draft PWS; Sections 1.4.4.1.8 and 1.4.4.1.9; Page 16 of 51	What software security standard is required for compliance/ATO?
Does not call out any specific requirements to ensure software is compliant. No mention on how software developed or modified will be reviewed by assessors.	Government will rely on DoD's standard for implementing the risk management framework
	82	Draft PWS; Section 1.4.5.1.1.8; Page 18 of 51	The Section requires that a contractor “Coordinate with internal and external agencies (i.e., third-party vendors, host base, and program management offices)…”
Question: Will the Government please provide the historic third-party vendors, host base, and program management offices that the incumbent has coordinated with on the current contract?	Historical information made available to the contractor post award.
	83	Draft PWS Section 1.4.5.1.4.1; Page 16 of 51	What and how should the software developed or modified be reviewed for compliance/ATO? Is this the contractor’s role to validate and assess for use?
The PWS should include the requirement that all software developed and/or modified meet NIST RMF requirements for ATO. The PWS should provide guidance on who has responsibility for software assessment and reporting.	See Line 82
	84	Draft PWS Section 1.5.6.1; Page 27 of 51	The Section requires that the contractor “…may be required to purchase open market materials in support of contract efforts.”
Question: Will the Government please provide the complete list of contractor-purchased materials from the current contract?	review IT PWS for general requirements for work for purchasing, estimated and varies by year based on work needed, performance based, not give what previous contractor did, need baseline Edgard/Clyde
	85	General	During the last procurement, the 8(a) Prime Awardee was able to claim all past performance and capability from their subcontractor as their own, after having set-up a new Joint Venture that entered a mentor/protégé relationship with a large, non-8(a) company. This approach heavily favored the incumbent performer and disadvantaged other competitors, though we do not believe this was the Government’s intent. What is the Government’s position on such JVs and affiliate past performance for this 3IS III competition?	Acquisition strategy has changed. Past Performance will no longer be evaluated.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Feb 7, 2023.