Draft Solicitation Questions and Answers - AFI SA IDIQ.pdf

No.

Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Page # Question/Comment/Clarification Government Response

Section L:

Instructions to

Offerors; Proposal Submission

Requirements

1-2

FAR Subpart 6.1 - Full and Open Competition prescribes the policy and procedures that are to be used to promote and provide for full and open competition. Additionally, Section L of the draft L&M (page 1) states: "The Offeror shall present the information in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria.”

Will the Government clarify that Offerors are required to respond to all PWS tasks and subtasks, and the 14 scenarios described in Volume 2 - Factor 1 – Technical, Section 1 – Technical Approach?

The Government understands that some/a majority of the PWS tasks will be addressed in the offerors submission of the technical approaches in section L (A-N). Offerors shall use the Proposal Compliance Spreadsheet attachment in section J to indicate where all PWS tasks are documented in their proposal. If a PWS task is not covered in the technical approaches A-N, the offeror shall address remaining tasks in a seperate section of their proposal.

Section L - Instructions to

Offerors; Volume 2 - Factor 1 - Technical

7-8

FAR Subpart 6.1 - Full and Open Competition prescribes the policy and procedures that are to be used to promote and provide for full and open competition. Will the Government provide a crosswalk of PWS Task Areas to the 14 "issues" that Offerors are asked to "demonstrate a successful approach" to in our response to Factor 1 - Technical Approach, in accordance with FAR Subpart 6.1, to ensure fair, open, and equitable competition against this solicitation? The provision of such a crosswalk will promote fair competition among all Offerors and avoid granting an unfair advantage to the incumbent.

The Government has updated Section L to clarify the proposal submission requirements for Volume 2, Factor 1, Section 1 - Technical Approach. See answer to question 1.

Section L - Instructions to

Offerors; Volume 2 - Factor 1 - Technical

Section M, Evaluation

Criteria/Evaluation Approach, Factor 1 -

Technical

7-8

FAR Subpart 6.1 - Full and Open Competition prescribes the policy and procedures that are to be used to promote and provide for full and open competition. It is our understanding that Offeror’s are required to propose a response that covers all PWS tasks and subtasks, and the 14 scenarios described in Volume 2 – Factor 1 – Technical, Section 1 – Technical Approach. If that is the requirement additional page count will be needed to successfully “present the information in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria”, as cited in Section L. Will the Government grant the page limit for Volume 2 to be 75 pages?

The Government will not change the page limit for Volume 2. The Government has updated Section L to clarify the proposal submission requirements for Volume 2, Factor 1, Section 1 - Technical Approach. See answers to questions 1 and 2.

4 PWS 1.6.5 Place of Performance 3 Can the Government clarify the expectation of number of contractors expected to be in NCR? The PWS notes "The Government will only provide space for a limited number of contractor support personnel ordered within the National Capital Region (NCR)." The Government has 60 cubicles for contractor personnel in the NCR and additonal conference seating.

PWS 1.10.2

Requirements by Labor Category

Will the Government please confirm that it will allow a substitution of 2 years of relevant experience in place of a Master's Degree? The PWS notes that the Director, Program Manager, Senior Manager, and Senior Consultant I all require a Master’s degree. It is standard practice with several Federal government contracts (including OASIS) that 2 years of relevant experience can be substituted for a Master's degree.

The Government will not allow a substitution of 2 years of relevant experience in place of a Master's Degree. The Senior Consultant position has been updated to change the requirement of Master's degree to a Bachelor's degree.

Section L&M Section III - Past

Performance Questionnaire

(PPQ)

13 Can the Government confirm that the list of POCs sent a PPQ questionnaire is excluded from the page count for volume III? The draft RFP Instructions note, "The Offeror shall include a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire in the proposal."

The Government confirms the list of POCs sent a PPQ will be excluded from the page count for Volume III - Past Performance. The POC list will not count toward the 25 Page maximum.

Sections L&M Evaluation Criteria

Factor 2 - Past Performance

Government notes “There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.” Can the Government clarify how it will evaluate offerors who submit a different number of past performances? For example, if Offeror A submits only 1 past performance and Offeror B submits 3 past performances, will the Government give a higher rater to Offeror B for provide more examples (assuming all evaluation ratings are similar)?

The Government will first assess each past performance example provided by the offeror for recency and relevancy. Once a relevancy rating has been assigned to each past performance example, the Government will then assess the quality of the offeror's past performance on those efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the offeror performed on those contracts. Information from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. An overall confidence assessment rating will be assigned based on the quality of the offeror's past performance. The number of past performance examples does not warrant a higher or lower rated proposal.

Sections L&M Evaluation Criteria

Factor 1 - Technical, Factor 2 - Past Performance

20, 22

Will the Government please include a third overarching evaluation criteria: "Proven Results Delivered by Proposed Approaches," defined as supporting efforts leading to a clean audit opinion, the downgrading of material weaknesses, and/or measured ROI with process efficiencies?

For Technical - while "Adequacy of Response" and "Feasibility of Approach" are helpful criteria for the overarching evaluation approach, without an additional consideration associated with the proven results delivered by each vendor, the Government risks selecting a vendor that may possess conceptual approaches but not proven outputs/outcomes on programs of similar size/complexity in the DoD - specifically in support of FIAR objectives.

For Past Performance - without an additional Past Performance requirement/evaluation criteria associated with the proven results delivered by each vendor, the Government risks selecting a vendor that may possess only experience aligned to the PWS (which may not have been successful), lowering the chance the Army will select a vendor that can help them make progress.

The Government will not add a third overarching evaluation criteria to the solicitation. Offerors are not restricted from including this information in their proposal.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's record of past performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS. The Past Performance factor considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of past performance as it applies to fulfilling existing Audit Support and Financial Management Transformation and objectives as stated in the PWS.

9 Section L Volume 2 - Section 2 10 Will the Government please confirm that, to minimize risk to the government, transition-in activities shall occur prior to the end of the incumbent contract period of performance and shall not exceed 90 days?

The Government confirms that transition-in activities shall occur prior to the end of the incumbent contract period of performance and shall not exceed 90-days.

10 Section L Volume 3 - Section 3 11

Will the Government please confirm that major subcontractor Letters of Commitment shall be included in Volumes 1 and 3?

Will the Government please also confirm that letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors in order for their past performance to be considered?

Offerors proposing subcontractors/team members/affiliates or other organizational elements not part of the entity submitting the offer shall provide evidence of the commitment from these organizations to perform as presented in the proposal. As stated in section L, examples might include teaming agreements, subcontracts, joint venture agreements, or other similar commitments. Evidence of commitment shall be included in Volume 1 - Executive Summary.

The Government confirms letters of commitment for all major subcontractors shall be included in Volume 3 - Past Performance.

The Government confirms letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors, or that subcontractor's past performance will not be considered.

11 Section L Volume 1 | #2 6 Will the Government please confirm that Offerors proposing subcontractors/team members/affiliates or other organizational elements not part of the entity submitting the offer must provide evidence of the commitment from these organizations to perform as presented in the proposal?

The Government confirms that Offerors proposing subcontractor/team members/affiliates or other organizational elements not part of the entity submitting the offer must provide evidence of the commitment from these organizations to perform as presented in the proposal.

12 Section L Volume 5 - Factor 4 | #3 17

Will the Government please confirm the file naming convention for the 2 separate Excel files to be included in Offerors' pricing submissions per Section L ("a completed copy of Price Proposal Model Base IDIQ.XLSX and Price Proposal Model TO1.XLSX shall also be included with all offeror price proposals")?

See final solicitation for file naming convention of the 2 separate excel files to be included in the Offeror's pricing submission. Offerors shall include a completed copy of the Base IDIQ Price Model and Task Order 1 Price Model with their proposal. Price models will be provided as attachments with the final solicitation.

13 Section L Volume 5 - Factor 4 | #9 18 Will the Government please confirm that Offerors must submit 4 separate excel files and one PDF file as part of our Volume 5 - Cost/Price submission?

The Government confirms that Offerors must submit 4 separate Excel files as part of Volume 5. Each Offeror shall submit a locked read only copy and an unlocked copy of each of their workbook spreadsheets as part of their electronic cost/price proposal. A base IDIQ Price Model and Task Order 1 Price Model will be provided as attachments with the final solicitation.

Supporting narrative shall be provided in Microsoft Word 2016 and later-compatible format. PDF file is acceptable.

Sections L & M Evaluation Criteria

Factor 2 – Past Performance

22 For those contracts that do not have a CPARS at the IDIQ level, will a PPQ only be sufficient?

See Section L, Volume 3 - Factor 2 - Past Performance for submission instructions. The Government reserves the right to use alternative resources to gather past performance information. Offerors with no past performance shall so state.

Task orders awarded under IDIQ contracts may be included in the offeror's past performance proposal. Offerors should include task order numbers so associated CPARS can be located for IDIQ contracts.

15 LOE Excel Files N/A Will the Government give more information about the relationship between the two tabs in the LOE excel file?

The "Labor Hours - 3 Year" tab provides the total estimated labor hours spread out over the 3 year ordering period.

This tab does not reflect the actual labor hours anticipated per year. The "Level of Effort - Year 1" tab reflects the actual labor hours required by each program office for year 1 of the contract. This spreadsheet was provided for informational purposes for the draft solicitation. Offerors shall used the price models provided as attachments to the final solicitation as part of their Volume 5 - Cost/Price submission.

16 PWS 1.10 Key Personnel 6 Will the Army please confirm that the Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) certification is not one of the required certifications? It is not listed as an acceptable certification within the descriptions of the key personnel.

The Government has added CIA as one of the acceptable certifications for Key Personnel. This certification is in addition to the existing certifications as an additional option. PWS section 1.10.2 Requirements by Labor Category has been updated to reflect this change.

17 Sections L&M - Factor 1 Technical 20

Since there is not evaluation criteria noted in Section M for staffing/key personnel, will the government please add the following to the evaluation criteria to validate that Offerors have both the valid credentials AND the experience with successfully delivering similar requirements:

"The Staffing/Key Personnel will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s credentials and experience delivering similar requirements in an organization of similar size and complexity to the Army have resulted in notable results/outcomes."

The Government has updated Section M to include evaluation criteria for staffing/key personnel.

18 PWS 1. General 1

In order to provide a fair competition, will the Government revise the statement at the end of the paragraph to say: "This continuing effort over past decades requires a contractor with extensive financial audit and audit readiness/remediation experience within the private and public sector with complex organizations and core financial/feeder systems"?

Not only will this revision allow for fair competition, but it will allow for contractors with private-sector audit experience to bring a commercial audit lens from private organizations (with unmodified opinions) of the similar size and complexity to the Army remediation efforts.

The Government has revised this statement. See PWS 1. General for revisions.

19 PWS 1.4 Scope 2

The requirement for the contractor to have "... thorough understanding of the inter-relation between all fields of the ‘DoD/Army acquisition processes’..." largely limits competition select Army contractors only, to include the incumbent. In order to provide a fair competition, will the Government revise this requirement to: "The contractor shall have a thorough understanding of the inter-relation between all fields of the ‘DoD acquisition processes’, comprehensive knowledge of DoD financial processes, and guidance and directives, including applicable laws and regulations"?

The Government has considered this suggestion and accepts this revision. PWS 1.4 Scope has been updated to reflect this change.

AFI SA IDIQ - Draft Solicitation Questions

Section L, Vol 3, Factor 2 - Past Performance

Will the Government please adjust past performance qualifications to be 1) "Prime only;" 2) with >60% of the work (defined by cost) was completed by the prime; and 3) with at least a 6-month duration?

The intent of this volume is to enable the Government to evaluate the capabilities of the Prime contractor. In the current draft solicitation and evaluation criteria, Prime bidders are permitted to submit corporate experience qualifications from their subcontractors, and those subcontractor qualifications are – based on the current draft evaluation criteria – treated as equivalent to Prime qualifications. In addition, there is no criteria requiring a Prime to have performed the majority of work for a submitted corporate experience qualification. These features of the draft evaluation criteria expose the Government to significant performance risk.

The Government has updated Section L and M Volume 3 - Factor 2 - Past Performance to state "All past performance examples should be where the Offeror or major subcontractor performed the work as the prime contractor."

Section L, Vol 3, Factor 2 - Past Performance

Will the Government consider adjusting the "recency" definition from 5 years to 3 years? The Army and DoD FIAR program and FM Transformation strategy, priorities, and required capabilities have evolved substantially from 5 years ago. As-is this presents a risk to the Army that potential vendor capabilities and experience are misaligned to the modernized Army program to adequately support over the course of this PoP.

The Government will not adjust the "recency" definition.

22 Section M, Factor 2 - Past Performance 22

Will the Government consider adjusting the 'relevancy' definition to specifically require past performance qualifications for 1) DoD audit remediation experience for entity with budget >$100B and performing all PWS tasks, 2) Fortune 100 commercial experience), 3) Contract management relevancy with >300 FTEs across multiple geographies delivered? This mitigates the risk of a prime vendor 1) lacking understanding of requirements to achieve an unmodified audit opinion for an organization of Army's scale, 2) without an understanding of the complexities of a DoD/Federal entity, audit remediation environment, and challenges, 3) unable to provide scale and breadth of resources to manage Army FIAR program across multiple geographies

The Government will not adjust the "relevancy" definition.

23 Section L, Vol 2, Factor 1 - Technical 7

Will the Government consider including Orals as part of the Technical evaluation? This would include holding in-person or virtual oral presentations allowing Army to gain enhanced insights from offerors’ demonstrations of technical capabilities and solutions, communication and management skills, and knowledge of Army’s operating environment and engage in Q&A. This will also allow for the identification of potential weaknesses/shortfalls of the offeror’s capabilities and/or approach.

The Government will not use Orals as part of the Technical Evaluation for this procurement.

Section L, Vol 3, Factor 2 - Past Performance |

Section 1

Will the Government please remove the need for fax numbers?

Contract Description: information to be included for each description references fax number in A, B, C & D.

The Government has removed the need for fax numbers.

25 Section L - Volume 1 | #1 5

The RFP states, "if the Offeror's approach to mitigation is not deemed satisfactory by the Contracting Officer, the Contracting Officer may take other actions in accordance with FAR 9.504." Separate from the PWS, the same FAR 9.504 clause notes “[b]efore determining to withhold award based on conflict of interest considerations, the contracting officer shall notify the contractor, provide the reasons therefor, and allow the contractor a reasonable opportunity to respond"

As "other actions in accordance with FAR 9.504," we suggest the Government use a gated submission process as follows:

'- Gate 1: submission and review of the OCI Mitigation Plan. If the Mitigation Plan is rejected, provide the Offeror the opportunity to submit a revised OCI Mitigation Plan.

- Gate 2: Once Offerors are granted approval of Gate 1, the remaining proposal documents will be submitted

The Government will follow the procedures set forth in FAR 9.504.

26 PWS 1.17 Govt

NDA 8

Will the Government please provide a copy of the NDA noted in PWS 1.17 to confirm competitors are aware and comfortable of the NDA requirement prior to submitting a bid?

The Army has a Use and Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) requirement for each person supporting the Army, as prescribed by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 227.7103-7 and DFARS 252.227-7025. Contractor personnel shall complete and sign an NDA prior to commencement of contract award. This requirement extends to all subcontractors and teaming arrangements.

The NDA noted in PWS 1.17 is located in DFARS 227.7103-7. The Use and Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) is prescribed by DFARS 227.7103-7 and DFARS 252.227-7025.

27 PWS 1.12

Contractor Travel 7 All travel requires Government approval/authorization and advance written notification from the COR. Will the Government confirm the number of business days required for approval process?

The number of business days required for the travel approval process may vary due to travel location/duration/number of contractors traveling. The Government will establish this process with the awardee.

Volume 4 - Small Business.

Attachment - Small Business

Participation Commitment

Document (SBPCD)

For other than small businesses (OTSBs), the number of past contracts utilizing small business concerns on contracts covering the past 5 years may be significant. The impact of the evidence of compliance would result in potentially hundreds of pages. Would the government consider updating the requirement to request offerors submit information substantiating the offerors track record of compliance with FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns on five (5) relevant, current, or completed contracts, within the past five years?

As stated in the SBPCD, the Offeror shall submit past performance information to demonstrate that it complied with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, for relevant contracts within the past five years. This requirement pertains to contracts with performance during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of the final solicitation, which are relevant to the services and supplies required by the AFI solicitation.

29 Volume 5 - Factor 4 - Cost/Price 16

Draft RFP, Volume 5 - Factor 4 - Cost/Price states "This solicitation is for a commercial hybrid Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Time and Materials (T&M) contract for services and the necessary travel and ODC to support those services." Based on the reference to a commercial FFP and T&M, can the Government confirm this acquisition is for commercial services under FAR 12?

The Government confirms this acquisition is for commercial services. This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the ordering procedures under FAR Parts 12 and 15.

30 Volume 5 - Factor 4 - Cost/Price 17

FAR 16.601 clarifies that the fixed hourly rates for each labor category apply to labor performed by the contractor and subcontractors. It is only for acquisition of other than commercial products or services that there should be separate fixed hourly rates for the prime and subcontractors.

Given this Draft RFQ defines the services as Commercial, will the Government please confirm that the offeror shall propose a single fixed hourly rate per IDIQ labor category, applicable to the prime and all subcontractors? If confirmed, this would therefore remove the requirement for subcontractor price submissions, sealed packages, and for the prime to submit price analyses of subcontractor pricing.

Section L, Volume 5 has been revised to clarify that separate subcontractor "sealed volume" submission is only required in instances where there is a need to submit proprietary data that the subcontractor wishes not to disclose to the prime or other vendors. Subcontractor information shall be submitted as requested through the solicitation. Subcontractors may have different rates from the Prime.

31 Volume 5 - Factor 4 - Cost/Price 17

Item 5 states "Each Offeror and its subcontractor(s) shall provide whatever information is necessary to help the Government understand why the proposed prices are fair and reasonable in the Price Narrative. Each Offeror's cost/price proposal shall contain sufficient quantitative and narrative documentation to adequately support and explain the prices proposed, to include subcontractor proposed costs."

In accordance with FAR 15.402 Pricing Policy, 15.403-3(b), and 15.404-1, the government should determine fair and reasonable pricing through Price Analysis, without requiring additional information from the offeror. Please confirm and revise the RFP accordingly.

In accordance with Section L, Volume 5, the Price Proposal Narrative shall include whatever information necessary to support the offeror's proposed prices. The Government strongly encourages inclusion of supporting documentation and schedules necessary to substantiate the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed prices.

32 Volume 5 - Factor 4 - Cost/Price Please provide the estimated start date for pricing purposes. The Government anticipates contract award in February 2025. The 90 day transition-in will begin immediately after award.

Factor 4 – Cost/Price

Factor 5: Price (Base ID/IQ

Contract and TO1)

24-25 Please provide a CLIN structure for Task Order #1. This is particularly important given the hybrid nature of the IDIQ task orders. The CLIN structure for task order 1 will be provided with the final solicitation.

34 Volume 5 - Factor 4 - Cost/Price 16, 24 - 15 The price instructions and evaluation criteria make multiple references to a Price Model for the IDIQ and Task Order #1. Please confirm that the Price

Model is an additional attachment(s) that will be provided with the Final RFP.

The Government confirms a price model for the base IDIQ and task order 1 will be provided with the final RFP/solicitation.

35 PWS 5.3.6 CDRL

#6 25 Will the government consider changing the timeframe from "within five (5) calendar days after the Government provides feedback" to "within five (5) business days after the Government provides feedback." to account for weekends and holidays?

The Government has considered this suggestion and has accepted this change. PWS 5.3.6 #6 has been updated to reflect this change.

PWS 5.5.2 Risk Management and Internal Control Deliverables:

Can the government clarify the deliverable that the contractor is expected to obtain approval for and publish in CDRL #8 under 5.5.2 where it states "The contractor shall develop, coordinate, obtain the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller) approval and publish to the field by the end of the 3rd quarter of the fiscal year."?

The deliverable the contractor is expected to obtain approval for and publish under PWS 5.5.2 #8 is The Annual Statement of Assurance Guidance. PWS 5.5.2 #8 has been updated to clarify this requirement.

Section M Past Performance

Evaluation Criteria

The government indicates that it may use other methods to evaluate the contractor's performance such as interviews with those familiar with the contractor's work. Will the government instead use an approach with the transparency and objectivity necessary for a fair evaluation and look only at CPARS and PPQs? The inclusion of other open-ended factors risks bias given that any evaluation board would certainly have innate familiarity with the incumbent.

The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources. The Government may evaluate third party references provided as to each Offeror's and major subcontractor's relevant and recent efforts to verify the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort.

PRS#5 PWS 5.2.1

Coordination

Activities Updates

40 Can the government clarify whether PRS #5 aligns to the PWS item 5.3.6 and the CDRL "UoT Hosting Environment Coordination Activities Status Report" instead of the noted PWS item 5.2.1?

The Government confirms PRS #5 aligns to the PWS item 5.3.6 and the CDRL "UoT Hosting Environment Coordination Activities Status Report." PRS #5 has been updated to reflect this change.

PRS#12 PWS 5.5.1

Governance Risk & Compliance Tool

Plan of Action and Milestones

41 Can the government clarify the specific milestones referenced in the PRS #12, "The contractor shall fully implement the tool IAW the Plan of Action & Milestone (POAM) prescribed in this PWS."

The milestones/development phases referenced in PRS#12 include: Requirements Management, Design Development, Testing Releases, User Pilot Testing, End-to-End Testing, Change Management, Training, and Go- Live. PWS 5.5.1 has been updated to include clarifying language for the Plan of Action & Milstone (POAM).

1.10.2

Requirements by

LCAT

We recommend the government include "CPA or CISA or CGFM/CDFM" as the certification(s) required in the Director LCAT. Given the scope of the PWS requirements, it is imperative to successfully support the Army's audibility goals and government leaders with a variety of licensed SMEs at the Director level. For example, a CPA certification contains very general governmental accounting and has historically not included IT controls or IT audit. Though the AICPA added IT added to the CPA certification a couple of months ago, current CPAs will not be certified in IT audit/controls.

Holding a CISA or CGFM/CDFM certification fills both gaps.

The requirement for holding a CPA license has been removed for the Director and Senior Manager I positions.

Section L:

Instructions to

Offerors; Volume 5 - Factor 4 – Cost/Price

Will the Government please confirm whether non-key personnel during the transition period are T&M or FFP?

The draft L&M states: “This solicitation is for a commercial hybrid Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Time and Materials contract for services and the necessary travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) to support those services. Under the contemplated contract, Key Personnel will be priced on a FFP basis for each task order and all other labor as well as travel and ODCs will be priced on a T&M basis for each task order. A 90-day FFP transition-in period is required and shall be priced in accordance with the attached price model spreadsheet.”

The Government confirms that all transition in labor to include non-key personnel will be FFP.

Section M – BASIS

FOR AWARD,

Factor 1 – Technical

Will the government consider adding in specific evaluation criteria around a formal management plan rather than combining it as part of the overall technical approach with the focus only on staffing? Given the size and scale of this IDIQ, we believe that a critical element of success for this program lies within the program management function.

The Government has considered this suggestion and has added evaluation criteria to Section M for evaluation of Management Plans.

PWS 5.9 Enterprise Business Systems- Convergence Audit Integration Support

(CDRL A008)

We recommend the Government make the following revisions to PWS Section 5.9: (noted in separate document, language below)

5.9 Enterprise Business Systems-Convergence Audit Integration Support (CDRL A008 ): The contractor shall provide audit remediation support for the new enterprise-wide business system (EBS-C) to integrate audit requirements into the build of the new system which may include but is not limited to:

1. The contractor shall participate in EBS-C Business Process Reengineering (BPR) sprints to document audit risks/issues and proposed potential mitigating solutions.

2. The contractor shall develop and document audit-related constraints, within the EBS-C agile project management tool, currently Jira. Jira Constraining requirements, or CRs, are requirements for EBS-C that are required for the new system to adhere to audit needs. CRs can be created due to known issues that exist within the current system environments, the current business processes, or other identified audit risks. The contractor shall provide proposed solutions for those constraining requirements that would mitigate audit risks/issues for the future state EBS-C system.

3. The contractor shall perform an analysis over Key Design Decisions (KDDs) that have an impact on the auditability of the future state EBS-C system and provider recommendations regarding the proposed courses of actions for those KDDs.

date for EBS-C.

7. The contractor shall provide feedback on required internal controls within EBS-C system processes that are critical for mitigating the risk of material misstatement to the Army financial statements.

5.9.1 EBS-C Audit Integration Deliverables:

The Government will not make the suggested revisions to PWS Section 5.9. PWS Section 5.9 remains unchanged.

Section M – BASIS

FOR AWARD,

Factor 4 – Cost/Price

24-25

Will the government include a sample or actual task, such as Task Order 1, as the basis for its total evaluated price? The government should separate the LOE used to generate a ceiling value from that used to evaluate pricing. The government’s current approach makes it impossible for vendors to provide lower pricing based on their solutions or approaches and looks only at the hourly labor cost of individual team members. Best value should consider ROI, not simply incremental cost. The rate card can still be evaluated for price reasonableness and realism through several other methods.

The level of effort for the base contract establishes labor rates for the duration of the IDIQ, and is the basis for the total evaluated price. Task order 1 will set the level of effort for the first year of support. This level of effort is derived from historical levels of effort utilized by the Government.

PWS 1.10.2

1.10.2

Requirements by Labor Category

Will the government consider adding the following Key Personnel LCATS? A balanced deployment of technical subject matter specialists and professionals has proven effective to address the tasks outlined in the PWS. Through our experiences delivering similar services to the Navy and Air Force, this approach works best to appropriately fit the needs of an organization as complex as the Army. The two topical experts from the draft LCATs are insufficient to encompass the variety of market price points across the skill sets required. Deloitte recommends adding the following LCATs at minimum:

- Junior Data Analyst; Bachelor of Science degree, up to 2 years of experience in analytics or data science

- Data Analyst; Bachelor of Science degree, up to 4 years of experience in analytics or data science

- Senior Data Analyst; Bachelor of Science degree, up to 8 years of experience in analytics or data science

- Junior OCM Analyst; Bachelors degree; Up to 2 years of experience in Communications, Organizational Change, or Training

- OCM Analyst; Bachelors degree; 4 years of experience in Communications, Organizational Change, or Training

- Senior OCM Analyst; Bachelors degree; 8 years of experience in Communications, Organizational Change, or Training

- Junior Technologist; Bachelor of Science degree; Up to 2 years of experience in a relevant technology

- Technologist; Bachelor of Science degree; Up to 4 years of experience in a relevant technology

- Senior Technologist; Bachelor of Science degree; Up to 8 years of experience in relevant technology

- Junior Logistics Analyst; Bachelors degree; Up to 2 years of experience in Logistics or Supply Chain

- Logistics Analyst; Bachelors degree; 4 years of experience in Logistics or Supply Chain

- Senior Logistics Analyst; Bachelors degree; 8 years of experience in Logistics or Supply Chain

The Government has considered this suggestion and has decided not to add the suggested LCATS to Key Personnel. See PWS Section 1.10.2 Requirements by Labor Category for all Key and non-key personnel required for this contract.

Section M – BASIS

FOR AWARD,

Factor 1 – Technical

The government's current definition of risk precludes fair competition and is biased in favor of the incumbent: the risk of "disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight," would all be elevated from the status quo by necessity if changing vendors. While vendors could propose mitigations to disruptions in Army's schedule and degradation of performance, it's virtually impossible to avoid increases in cost and the need for government oversight associated with transition in/out.

DoD Source Section Procedures defines 'Technical' risk as the degree to which the offeror's proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Price associated with transition is not included in the total evaluated price.

Section M – BASIS

FOR AWARD,

Factor 1 – Technical

Transition risk must be evaluated against a vendors demonstrated ability to successful transition in/out on programs of similar size, scope, and complexity. If the evaluation considers the transition risk specific to the Army AFI program only, then their 10+ year incumbent automatically has the top score for Transition In risk. Given the Army stated intention to transition this work to a multi-award vehicle as soon as practical and statements that this is intended to be a two-year ceiling for a three year contract, demonstrated transition out capabilities are also an important consideration.

Section M has been updated to include criteria for evaluation of Transition Plans.

8.1 Technical

Exhibit A –

Performance Requirements

Summary

PRS#3 : PWS 5.2.1-

5.4.2 Training

39 The COR attendance requirement can prove infeasible given the number of in-person trainings. We recommend the Government replace the PRS #3 requirement for “COR attendance of training event” with “COR Invitation and/or documented awareness of all training events”.

The Government has considered this suggestion and accepts this revision. PRS #3 has been updated to reflect this change.

49 PWS 5.4.2 Training 26 Can the government differentiate the requirements specified in 5.4.2.7 and 5.4.2.5a PWS elements? PWS 5.4.2.5a has been revised to remove "Army Learning Management System." PWS 5.4.2.7 has been deleted.

Section L - Instructions to

Offerors; Volume 2 - Factor 1 – Technical

FAR Subpart 6.1 - Full and Open Competition prescribes the policy and procedures that are to be used to promote and provide for full and open competition. In accordance with FAR Subpart 6.1, to ensure fair, open, and equitable competition against this solicitation, will the Government please confirm that there are 12 key personnel roles, and not the 4 key personnel labor categories described in this solicitation? It is not advantageous for the Government to have labor categories (rather than specific roles) that are considered key personnel across all FTEs/levels.

See PWS 1.10.2 Requirements by Labor Category. There are three (3) Key Personnel labor categories: Program Manager, Technical Director, and Team Lead. The price models attached to the final solicitation provide the labor hours/FTEs required by each labor category.

Section L - Instructions to

Offerors; Volume 2 - Factor 1 – Technical

Section M, Evaluation

Criteria/Evaluation Approach, Factor 1 -

Technical

7-8

Will the Govt confirm that the "issues" and “weaknesses” referenced in the Factor 1 – Technical evaluation criteria below refer to the 14 items listed in Section L, Volume 2 - Factor 1 - Technical?

Reference draft RFP language: “The extent to which the proposal provides a complete understanding of the issues and how different deliverables within the PWS can be utilized to address the weakness.”

The Government confirms the "issues" and "weaknesses" referenced in Factor 1 - Technical evaluation criteria refer to the 14 items listed in Section L, Volume 2 - Factor 1 - Technical.

Section L - Instructions to

Offerors; Volume 3 - Factor 2 – Past

Performance

11-13 Will the Government please expand the page limit for Volume 3 - Factor 2 - Past Performance to 25 pages to allow Offerors the ability to address all requirements of the solicitation? The Government has revised the page limit for Volume 3 - Factor 2 - Past Performance to 25 pages.

Section M, Evaluation

Criteria/Evaluation Approach, Factor 1 -

Technical

20-21 To encourage fair competition, can the Army separate the scoring of technical solution strengths and the scoring of risk as well as separating the evaluation of transition risk from that of overall delivery risk? As written, any non-incumbent vendor could have an elevated risk rating due to transition risk and thus could plausibly be excluded from the top adjectival rating.

Per Section M, The Government will not assign a separate "risk rating" as risk is incorporated into the Combined Technical/Risk Rating definitions.

Section L & M Factor 1 -Technical - Table 1: Combined

Technical/Risk Rating Method

There are three sub-factors in Volume 2, Factor 1 - Technical Approach, Key Personnel & Staffing, and Transition Plan. Can the Government confirm these three sub-factors are weighted equally when determining an Offeror's combined rating for Factor 1? There are sections not sub-factors in Factor 1; the sections are not weighted. Factor 1 will receive one overall rating in accordance with Section M of the solicitation. The Offeror shall address all 3 sections (Technical Approach, Key Personnel & Staffing, and Transition Plan) within their Technical Proposal.

PWS 1.6.7

Personnel Security

Clearance Requirements

Will the Government provide a Draft DD254 for review to ensure that contractors can review all the required industrial security requirements of the contract? A draft DD254 will be provided as an attachment to the final solicitation.

Section L&M

Volume 5 - Factor 4 - Cost/Price

Historically this work has been performed as a commercial item contract and it is noted again within the draft documents that this solicitation is for a commercial contract. Will the Government change the procurement of these services to FAR Part 12 instead of FAR Part 15 to be in line with the commerciality of the services?

The Government is conducting this solicitation under procedures set forth in FAR Parts 12 and 15.

Section L&M Section 2 - Key Personnel and

Staffing

Section 2.A, Key Personnel and Resumes, requires letters of intent for contingent hires. We recommend the Government modify this requirement to require letters of intent for all Key Personnel to include those currently employed by the Prime and/or subcontractors. This will ensure that the Offeror assigns those personnel to the program after award.

Letters of intent are only required for proposed Key Personnel who are not currently employed by the Offeror.

Section L&M Section 2 - Key Personnel and

Staffing

Section 2.A requires 12 Key Personnel. We recommend modifying the first sentence as follows "… the Offeror shall submit resumes for at least twelve…" This will allow Offerors to demonstrate a significant strength by choosing to exceed the Government's minimum requirement.

The Government has revised Section L, Section 2 - Key Personnel and Staffing to require submission of resumes for all proposed Key Personnel. As stated in PWS section 1.10.2 Requirements by Labor Category, Program Manager, Technical Director, and Team Lead labor categories are designated as Key Personnel.

Section L&M Section 2 - Key Personnel and

Staffing

Section 2.D specifies the position description requirements to be provided in Excel. Would the Government consider adding criteria to provide additional confidence in the vendor's ability to deliver key personnel? The recommended changes would be to add both of the following: 1) the individual's name or "TBD" if no individual is identified, 2) identify if the named individuals have signed a letter of intent to confirm the Offeror's commitment to staff those personnel on the program. Please also confirm that the inclusion of named individuals will be considered when assessing the Offeror's overall risk profile and determination of strengths.

The Government has revised the submission requirements for the organizational structure. See Section L, Volume 2 - Factor 1 - Technical, Section 2 - Key Personnel and Staffing for updates. Per Section L, Volume 2 - Factor 1 - Technical, Section 2, Key Personnel and Staffing, the Offeror shall include signed letters of intent for all of the proposed Key Personnel specified in the PWS who are not currently employed by the Offeror.

Section L&M

Volume 3 - Factor 2 - Past Performance

The past performance requirements in Section L, Volume 3 - Factor 2 state "… up to three (3) contracts for the prime…" We recommend this be clarified to state "… at least three (3) contracts for the prime." This will ensure the prime has the capabilities required for success and avoid a situation where the prime is simply a pass-through contract overly dependent on its subcontractors. Further, as written, the prime could choose to have simply one (1) past performance if they don't have any major subcontractors.

The Government has considered this suggestion and has decided not to modify this requirement. Offerors shall provide narrative descriptions for up to 3 contracts for the prime Offeror and no more than 2 for all major subcontractors. Per section M, the Government will first assess the offeror's past performance to determine if it is recent and relevant. The Government will only include recent efforts in the relevancy assessment. Relevancy of past performance will then be assigned for each offeror in accordance with Table 2. The Government will then assess the quality of the offeror's past performance on those efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the offeror performed on those contracts. The offeror will then be assigned an overall confidence rating in accordance with Table 3, based on the quality of the offeror's past performance.

Section L&M Section 3 -

Transition Plan

Section 1.6.7.1 of the PWS states "Within 10 calendar days of award of any task order, the Contractor shall provide the Primary COR a list with the names, location of performance and clearance requirements of all company employees assigned to the task order." For clarity, we recommend that Section L, Section 3 - Transition Plan be updated to incorporate this requirement of the PWS.

The Government has considered this suggestion and has decided not to modify this requirement. This is a post award contract requirement.

Section L&M

Volume 5 - Factor 4 - Cost/Price

Section L, Volume 5 - Factor 4 - Cost/Price states "The Offeror and any subcontractor(s) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Service Contract Act (SCA) for any applicable labor categories." Please confirm that the SCA is not applicable to the Government provided labor categories in the PWS Section 1.10.

The Government confirms the SCA is not applicable to the Government provided labor categories in PWS Section

1.10. This statement has been removed from Section L.

Section L&M Section 2 - Key Personnel and

Staffing

Section L, page 4, item 11 states that "letter of commitment/intent for personnel not currently employed will not count against page limits." In order to demonstrate the availability and commitment of personnel outlined in the Management Plan, will the Government allow Offerors to also include letters of commitment of current employees who will be assigned to this contract? And that these additional letters of commitment will not count towards the page count?

Per updated Section L, Volume 2 - Factor 1 - Technical, Section 2, Key Personnel and Staffing, the Offeror shall include signed letters of intent for all of the proposed Key Personnel specified in the PWS who are not currently employed by the Offeror. Letters of intent will not count toward the page count.

64 Section L&M Volume 5, Factor 4 Would the Government please confirm that a determination letter from a CPA firm would provide the "documentary evidence" requested?

Per Section L, Volume 5 - Factor 4 - Cost/Price, Offerors may demonstrate accounting system adequacy through a signed assessment either from the offeror's cognizant accounting officer(s) or from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

Section L&M Factor 1 - Technical - Table

1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Section L, page 21, allows for an Outstanding rating if the Offeror's proposal "...contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength..."

With just one significant strength required, this creates the likelihood that all Offerors would be rated Outstanding and thus cost/price would become the dominant factor in a best value tradeoff. We recommend the definition of Outstanding be modified as follows "...contains multiple strengths and multiple significant strengths..." This would provide the Government greater flexibility in its scoring.

The Government will not modify the Outstanding rating definition.

PWS 1.10.2

Requirements by Labor Category

Section 1.10.2 of the PWS requires a Masters degree or certification for the Senior Consultant I labor category but only a Bachelors degree for the Manager I labor category. This appears inconsistent especially since the Manager is the more experienced role. We recommend a Bachelors degree be the requirement for both LCATs since this will reduce the cost of labor and increase the availability of qualified personnel.

The Government concurs with this recommendation. The Senior Consultant I labor category description has been updated. The requirement for a Master's degree has been removed and replaced with a Bachelor's degree for the Senior Consultant labor category.

Section L&M

Volume 3 - Factor 2 - Past Performance

Please confirm that a past performance reference performed by an entity or affiliate, that through acquisition or reorganization is now part of the Offeror, will be accepted as a past performance reference.

Per Section L, Volume 3 - Factor 2 - Past Performance, Offerors proposing subcontractors/team members/affiliates or other organizational elements not part of the entity submitting the offer shall provide evidence of the commitment from these organizations to perform as presented in the proposal.