Attachment 13 - Questions and Answers.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted Apr 8, 2022

Attached to: Systems Engineering & Technical Assistance (SETA VI) Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: FA002122R0002
Issued by: Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Installation and Mission Support Center Installation Contracting Agency

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Systems Engineering & Technical Assistance (SETA VI), newest first.
File	Type	Posted
Attachment 12 - Section M Evaluation Factors for Award V3.pdf	PDF	Apr 21, 2022
Solicitation Amendment FA002122R00020003 SF 30.pdf	PDF	Apr 21, 2022
Attachment 12 - Section M Evaluation Factors for Award V2.pdf	PDF	Apr 8, 2022
Attachment 8 - Financial Responsibility Questionnaire 20220331.docx	DOCX document	Apr 8, 2022
Solicitation Amendment FA002122R00020002 SF 30.pdf	PDF	Apr 8, 2022
Attachment 11 - Section L Instructions to Offerors V2.pdf	PDF	Apr 8, 2022
Solicitation Amendment FA002122R00020001 SF 30.pdf	PDF	Mar 28, 2022
Attachment 4 - Past Performance Information Reference 20220124.docx	DOCX document	Mar 11, 2022
Attachment 6 - Teaming Partner Consent Letter 20220124.docx	DOCX document	Mar 11, 2022
Attachment 3 - Compensation Plan and Price Proposal 20220201.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Mar 11, 2022
Attachment 1 - Contractor Team Organization 20220124.docx	DOCX document	Mar 11, 2022
Attachment 10 - Questions and Answers.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Mar 11, 2022
Attachment 8 - Financial Responsibility Questionnaire 20220105.docx	DOCX document	Mar 11, 2022
Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire 20220124.docx	DOCX document	Mar 11, 2022
Solicitation - FA002122R0002.pdf	PDF	Mar 11, 2022
Attachment 12 - Section M Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf	PDF	Mar 11, 2022
Attachment 11 - Section L Instructions to Offerors.pdf	PDF	Mar 11, 2022
Attachment 9 - SETA VI Ordering Procedures 20220105.pdf	PDF	Mar 11, 2022
Attachment 2 - DD-Form-254-Draft- SETA VI Dec 21.pdf	PDF	Mar 11, 2022
Attachment 7 PWS with appendices 20220225.pdf	PDF	Mar 11, 2022

Show all 20

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.

Table 1

SETA VI

FA002122R0002

Questions and Answers

NO. REF. PARA. NO ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION	GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
	1	Section L	2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits	Due to the requirements and the importance of the technical evaluation/rating, would the Government consider allowing for 10 additional pages for Vol II Technical/Technical Risk (from 25 to 35)? This solicitation, with 25 pages allowed, is significantly less than the previous solicitation, which allowed 60 pages.	The Government considered the request and reevaluated the page limit for technical. The limit of 25 pages will remain, as we want offerors to be concise.
	2	Section L	2.2.5 Indexing	Would the Government allow for bookmarks to be added to a PDF in order to appropriately "index" and delineate the subparagraphs within the value and identify sections?	Yes.
	3	Section L	2.3 Electronic Offers	For all volumes other than the Price Volume, will the Government allow for Adobe PDFs instead of Microsoft Word documents?	Yes.
	4	Atch 1-Contractor Team	4.1.2.1 Teaming/Organizational Structure (Tab 2A)	For Attachment 1, Contractor Team Organization for Question 4 narrative: Are offerors allowed to add additional pages or only use the space provided in the box for Question 4?	The Government will allow 1 additional page for a total of 3 pages.
	5	Section L	4.1.6 Technical Risk Matrix (Tab 6)	Should Technical Risk Matrix be referenced as Tab 5? Or, should it remain as Tab 6? Currently, there is not a Tab 5 referenced in Section L, Attachment 11.	Leave as Tab 6, Tab 5 was not used.
	6	Section L	7.1.6.2. Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations	Would the Government also like the SAM Unique Identifier, since the DUNS will not be used by proposal submission?	The U.S. Federal Government will no longer require organizations to obtain a DUNS number to register in SAM.gov beginning April 4, 2022. The UEI (SAM) is assigned automatically to all active and inactive sam.gov registered entities. The Government would also like the SAM Unique Identifier (UEI).
	7	Atch 4-Past Performance Info	A. DUNS	Would the Government still like the offeror's DUNS or should the SAM Unique ID be included since DUNS will not be used by proposal submission date? Offerors could include this in the "Additional Information" section?	The U.S. Federal Government will no longer require organizations to obtain a DUNS number to register in SAM.gov beginning April 4, 2022. The UEI (SAM) is assigned automatically to all active and inactive sam.gov registered entities. The Government would also like the SAM Unique Identifier (UEI).
	8	Atch 5-PPQ	A. DUNS/Cage	Would the Government still like the offeror's DUNS or should the SAM Unique ID be included since DUNS will not be used by proposal submission date?	The U.S. Federal Government will no longer require organizations to obtain a DUNS number to register in SAM.gov beginning April 4, 2022. The UEI (SAM) is assigned automatically to all active and inactive sam.gov registered entities. The Government would also like the SAM Unique Identifier (UEI).
	9	Section M	3.1.2. Teaming/Organizational Structure	Within the Evaluation Description paragraph, it is indicated that the "location of work for prime contractor and all teaming partners and subcontractors is included." Does the Government want this included on Attachment 1, Contractor Team Organization? If so, where should that be indicated?	Yes, in para. 4 Attachment 1.
	10	Section M	4.2.2. Relevance	Given this competition is intended for SDVSOB companies with a size standard limit commensurate with the NAICS, only allowing a Very Relevant adjectival rating for past performance citations that have been performed under a MAC does not encourage competition and seems skewed to current SETA V incumbents. In general, concurrent performance providing these services for AFSOC is vital to lowering risk and demonstrating the ability to deliver. Would the government consider removing the requirement for the task orders supported to be under a MAC and instead require the task orders AND/OR standalone contracts to be concurrently supporting PWS services for AFSOC?	There are no incumbents. Refer to the Updated Section M Past Performance Relevancy Requirements.
	11	Section M	4.2.2. Relevance	Section M, Table M-4 requires task order services to be performed in ALL of the following: 1) Management and Professional Services, 2) Education and Training, 3) Engineering and Technical Services, and 4) Additional Professional Services to achieve either Very Relevant or Relevant ratings. Historically many of these AFSOC support areas have been separated by task order and/or standalone contracts. Most notably, 2) Education and Training and 3) Engineering and Technical Services are usually separate Tasks or Contracts. Currently many of the similar efforts that encompass the 4 major functional areas are separate, stand alone contracts, not under a MAC/Task Order. Would the government please modify the description to require services in 2 of the 4 areas to more accurately reflect the way contracts have been separated over the past for AFSOC?	There are no incumbents. Refer to the Updated Section M Past Performance Relevancy Requirements.
	12	Section M	4.2.2. Relevance	Section M, Table M-4 states "ALL" of the four major functional areas must be addressed in a single task order to be deemed Very Relevant or Relevant. Given the size standard for the NAICS and the SDVOSB nature of the procurement it seems to be almost impossible for a SDVOSB prime to achieve an acceptable score, much less three for the prime. Can the Government confirm that an individual Past Performance citation can include a single functional area as long as all four functional factors are covered across the Past Performance Volume as a whole?	There are no incumbents. Refer to the Updated Section M Past Performance Relevancy Requirements.
	13	Section M	4.2.2. Relevance	Section M, Table M-4 seems to value PWS services provided to customers other than AFSOC under a MAC more than these same services provided to AFSOC customers via task orders not under a MAC by assigning Relevant to this type of past performance. Would the government consider revising Table M-4 to value PWS services provided via separate task orders appropriately? This could be done by simply removing the MAC requirement in the Very Relevant description or adding modifying the Relevant rating to include similiar requirements from the Very Relavent rating withint the MAC requirement. It would seem that delivering thsese services for AFSOC should be valued more than simple being able to claim these services for other customers via a MAC. Can the government confirm that IDIQ management is more relevant than AFSOC-specific functional area technical expertise?	There are no incumbents. Refer to the Updated Section M Past Performance Relevancy Requirements.
	14	Section L	PP 5.1 and 5.5	PPI instructions in Para 5.1 and 5.5 appear to be in conflict. Para 5.1 states, PPI "information is required on the offereor and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to preform as documented in Attachment 1, Contractor Team Organization," and para 5.5 indicates "The total number of PPI submissions cannot exceed five for prime, teaming partners, and subcontractors combined." Given the extensive and diverse nature of the PWS, can this be clarified to not limit the number of Past Performance Information sheets? In other words, can we have three PPI forms from teaming partners and subcontractors rather than just two PPIs?	No, the total number of PPI submissions cannot exceed five for prime, teaming partners, and subcontractors combined. IAW section L, para 5.5, the offeror should sumbit PPI citations "that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort". The Government will use data provided by each offeror and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.
	15	Section L	Para 5.5.	Para 5.5 instructs respondents to label PPI submissions as "Volume IV", since Volume IV is Price, should these be labeled "Volume III"?	See updated Section L.
	16	Section M	Para 1.0 & 3.0 (As well as Section L, Para 4.1.2)	Para 3.0 (midway through) calls out Subfactor 1, Corporate Management Plan. Paragraph 1.0 identifies Subfactor 1 simply as Management Plan. Are these intended to be the same? Please clarify.	Yes, the naming of the document is irrelevant. The evaluation will be done based upon the offeror's response to meeting the Evaluation Description found in paragraph 3.1.2 of Section M.
	17	Section L	7.1	Para 7.1.2 instructions are for TAB 2 and Para 7.1.3 instructions are for TAB 4. Has TAB 3 been omitted in error or are we missing some instructions?	TAB 3 was omitted. Please use TAB labels in solicitation
	18	Section L	5.6.2.2	What will the Government do if the government/contracting POC does not fill out the PPQ and CPARS are not available?	Please see Table M-3 of section M.
	19	Atch 7-PWS	5.8 Professional employees	The government calls out and defines what a Professional Employees is in this paragraph. Does the government intend that all employees on this contract be considered Professional Employees? Will the Government further clarify their intention regarding this paragraph?	No, every employee is not considered Professional Employees, but some positions will be considered Professional Employees.
	20	Atch 7-PWS	1.5 and 1.5.3 (As well as Section L, Para 4.1.3.1)	The government implies the requirement of KEY PERSONNEL on this contract. However, there appears no PWS paragraph that states Key Personnel are needed and defines what the government requires as KEY PERSONEL. Will the Government provide a KEY PERSONNEL Paragraph which fully clarifies what is required?	PWS para 1.5.3 states "The contractor shall employ and retain an appropriate number of key personnel who have the necessary skills, education, or SOF expertise to effectively perform contract management and accomplish the range of requirements required at the TO level." The identified Key Personnel necessary, or deemed "appropriate" could vary at the basic and task order level. A Key Personnel paragraph will not be provided.
	21	Atch 1-Contractor Team	Block 4 (As well as Section M, 3.1.2 & Section L, 4.1.2.1)	Block 4 instructions state, "Provide a narrative describing how the proposed Teaming/Organizational Structure ensures the outcomes identified in the solicitation (reference Section L-II 3.1.2.)". This reference does not exist. Please correct/modify instructions for this block.	The correct reference is Section L, para 4.1.2.
	22	Section L	4.1.6 Technical Risk Matrix	Instructions state, "Classify each risk in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 2B, Technical Risk Rating Method, excerpted in Section M paragraph 3.1." This table does not exist. How are risks classified?	The latest DoD SSP dated April 1, 2016. Table 2B is on page 25. It can be found at: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf.
	23	Section L	4.1.4	Section L, Para 4.1.4, offers instructions for Subfactor 1: Program Management Plan.However, Section M, Para 3.0 indicates we will be graded on Subfactor 1: Corporate Management Plan. Will the government clarify Subfactor 1 as PMP or CMP?	Section L, Para 4.1.4., is titled "Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms (Tab 4)". See question 16.
	24	Section L	Pricing	To what extent does the Government desire subcontractor pricing to be submitted? For example, does a separate Compensation Plan Narrative (Section L, para 6.5) need to be submitted by each sub? If so, can the subcontractor provide their submission directly to the Government? Are there any other expectations regarding subcontractor pricing?	The Government only desires pricing submissions from the prime contractor. A seperate Compensation Plan should not be submitted from each sub-contractor.
	25	Section L	4.1.4 and 4.1.5	Attachment 11 Section L Instructions to Offerors lists 4.1.4 as "Tab 4" and then jumps to 4.1.6 "Tab 6". Can the government confirm that there is no 4.1.5 "Tab 5" or can the government update the ITO to include 4.1.5 instructions?	There is no 4.1.5 / Tab 5 not used. Also see question number 5.
	26	Section L	7.1; 7.1.2, and 7.1.3	Attachment 11 Section L Instructions to Offerors lists 7.1.2 as "Tab 2" and then jumps to 7.1.3 "Tab 4". Can the government confirm that there is no "Tab 3" or can the government update the ITO numbering for section 7.1 Tabs?	There is no Tab 3 in Section L 7.1 paragraphs.
	27	Section L	5.5 and 5.6.2	Attachment 11 Section L Instructions to Offerors Section 5.5 states "The total number of PPI submissions cannot exceed five for prime, teaming partners, and subcontractors combined." However, section 5.6.2 of the same document states that the Past Performance References should take up Tabs 2-9 (7 Tabs total).	For Section L, the tabs will be as follows: Para, 5.6.1 (Tab 1); para 5.6.2.1 (Tabs 2a-2e) as needed. Para. 5.6.2.2, Past Performance Questionnaires (Tab 3). Para 5.6.2.3 (Tab 4), Para 5.6.2.4 (Tab 5). Para 5.6.2.5 (Tab 6). See updated Section L.
	28	Section L	2.2	Attachment 11 Section L Instructions to Offerors Table L-1 Proposal Organization details that the Volume III Page limit is "2+completed attachments." Can the government explain what information should be included in the 2 pages and if there is a page count for any of the required attachments?	The offerors should include pertinent narrative information related to section L, 5.0 Volume III - Past Performance. IAW Section L, para 2.2.1, pages from Table of Contents and attachments in past performance, will not be counted. This would leave up to 2 pages for offerors to provide an overview/ intro for Vol III, and address, any organizational structure changes in Tab 5. In para 5.5, Vol IV in first sentence should be Vol III. See updated L And M, separate document.
	29	Section L	5.6.2.3	Attachment 11 Section L Instructions to Offerors Section 5.6.2.3 states, "Provide with the proposal, a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement." Since a Subcontractor consent Letter is required for all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement and not just those whose Past Performance References we are proposing, would the government considering making this requirement its own Tab in Volume III?	Yes, Attachment 6, if required, will be submitted under Tab 4 in Vol III. See updated Section L.
	30	Section L	4.0; 5.0; 7.0	Volume I-IV all include a Tab for the Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms but Volume V does not. Does the government want offerors to include a Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms within Volume V? If so, should offerors include this inside of the Other Required Information Tab (Tab 7) or should it be its own Tab within Volume V?	No glossary of abbreviations and acronyms is needed for Vol V.
	31	Atch 4-Past Performance Info	N/A	For Multiple Award Contracts like GSA's OASIS, where there is not a clear IDIQ level government POC who monitors performance or is aware of our TO-level execution, can offerors provide a sampling of the CPARS reports from the task orders to demonstrate performance?	Yes, IAW Section L, para 5.5, offorors should submit PPI that they consider most relevant. Also see question 44.
	32	Section L	2.2	How should we identify our proposal when redacting? Can we request from the Contracting Officer an anonomyous reference, such as Offeror XY to refer to our company/team in the ExecSum and Technical Volume?	The Government will ID the redacted proposals via internal process.
	33	Section L	2.2.7	This section states that our cover page should include our name. Can we assume we should remove our name on the cover page of the redacted volumes?	Yes, remove name on the cover page of the redacted volumes.
	34	Section L	4.1.2.1	Section 2.2.1 stated submission of Attachment 1 is outside the page limits. Attachment 1 asks several "Provide a narrative describing how the proposed Teaming/Organizational Structure ensures the outcomes identified in the solicitation" with a narrative response. This question seems to overlap the items asked for in 4.1.2.1 . Does the Government want teaming addressed in both the Technical Volume and Attachment 1? Should we repeat information relevant to both areas?	The offerors proposal shall include a completed Attachemnt 1, Contractor Team Organization which identifies the proposed organizational structure for conducting business operations under this contract (Tab 2A). Repeating information is not desired.
	35	Section L	Tabs	Can tabs be labeled as paragraph/section headers or should the section they represent start new pages with a dividing page? We recommend using these as paragraph headers.	Yes, it is acceptable to use paragraph and/or section headers in lieu of tabs.
	36	Section L	4.1.3.1	Is the listing of key personnel individuals within the corporate HQ? If not, can the Government elaborate more on who they anticipate being key personnel?	PWS para 1.5.3 states "The contractor shall employ and retain an appropriate number of key personnel who have the necessary skills, education, or SOF expertise to effectively perform contract management and accomplish the range of requirements required at the TO level." The identified Key Personnel necessary, or deemed "appropriate" could vary at the basic and task order level. A Key Personnel paragraph will not be provided.
	37	Section L	2.2.4	Section 2.2.4 is missing from Section L.	Paragraph 2.2.4 in Section L was not/ is not used.
	38	Section L	2.2.5	The Government recommends using tab indexing in Section 2.2.5. Since this submission is submitted electronically, would the Government remove the requirement of using tab indexing?	Use electronic tabs or sections. Also see question 35.
	39	Section L	3.3.2	If the prime elects to enter into a CTA 9.601 (1) with one or more additional companies, does the Government agree that within that CTA the Prime and CTA 9.601 (1) partner will be treated as a single business entity and therefore Past Performances from either organization may satisfy the requirement for the Prime?	IAW FAR 9.601 (1) and 13 C.F.R. 125.8(e) If two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture, the Government will consider the past performance of each joint venture member.
	40	Section L	4.1.5	Section 4.1.5 is missing from Section L and 4.1.4 is Tab 4 and 4.1.6 is Tab 6. Is there supposed to be a Tab 5 under 4.1.5?	See questions 5 and 25.
	41	Section L	5.6.2	If offerors are allow no more than 5 references, why does 5.6.2 refer to Tabs 2-9? Then 5.6.2.5 skips Tab 10 and refers to Tab 11	See updated Section L.
	42	Section L	7.1.3	7.1.2 refers to Tab 2, 7.1.3 refers to Tab 4. Should there be a tab 3?	See questions 17 and 26.
	43	Section L	4.1.5	Section L appears to be missing paragraph 4.1.5 instructions for a Tab 5.	See questions 5 and 25.
	44	Section L	5.0	Please clarify what offerors are required to submit within the Past Performance volume if CPARs are available for the past performance references we use. It is unclear whether the government is requesting that we complete the PPI and PPQ forms regardless of whether CPARs are available for the past performance references. If our past performance is in CPARs do we provide copies of the CPARs within the Past Performance volume?	IAW Section L, para 5.5, it is requested that offerors submit past performance that they consider most relevant. The Government is requesting that offerors complete PPI and PPQ attachments whether or not past performance information is available in CPARS.
	45	Section L	Attachments 2, 6, 8	The contracting officer referenced in Attachments 2, 6, and 8 is not the same as the contracting officer listed in the RFP. The concern is completed attachments directed to the wrong person (financial responsibility questionnaire is sent directly to the government from the financial institution).	Attachments 2 and 6 will not be updated. See updated Attachment 8.
	46	Section L	5.3	For this effort, “recent” is defined as ongoing contracts or those completed within three years. We request the recency be expanded to five years.	See updated Section L.
	47	Section L	5.5	The current evaluation factors, when combined, unequally favor the AFSOC V incumbents. To ensure a fair and equal evaluation by eliminating bias from the evaluation criteria, consider the following changes to make fair and equal evaluation criteria.: (1) With the limitation of two citations from subcontractors, the evaluation factors as written give unequal favor for evaluation weighting to current prime incumbents and create barriers to new non-incumbent offerors. Consider allowing up to four citations from offerors (prime, subcontractors, teammates) and one citation performed by the prime.	See question 14.
	48	Section L	5.5	(2) Consider increasing the number of citations allowed to be submitted by the Offeror (including teammates) from two to three, as required in the previous SETA V RFP. The past performance relevancy criteria are already over-restrictive. Only allowing two citations from teammates creates a greater advantage for the current incumbent primes, and creates barriers to fair competition.	See question 14.
	49	Section L	5.6.2.2	Please confirm all citations are to be at the task order/delivery order level and be accompanied by a CPARS at the task order level OR PPQ at the task order level and include a PPI.	Submit PPI on no more than five (5) recent contract citations that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. See updated Sections L & M and Question 44.
	50	Section L	5.6.2.2	Many government customers will not generate CPARS or provide PPQs at the IDIQ level, only at the task order level. Please confirm that the government will accept CPARS or PPQ at the task order level as long as offerors clearly articulate the multipleaward contract vehicle the task orders were awarded under in the PPI narrative.	The Government will accept CPARS or PPQs at the Task Order level. Please see updated Section M.
	51	Section L	5.6.2.2	Verify that the government requests the past performance volume be sent seven (7) calendar days prior to the proposal submission as written in section L, or if the intent is to request PPQs be sent (instead of the past performance volume) seven (7) calendar days prior.	The Government requests PPQs be sent seven calendar days prior to the proposal submission date. The completed Past Performance volume is not due until the due date of the RFP.
	52	Section M	4.2.2	This section indicates additional consideration will be given to past performance supporting Air Force Special Operations Forces as well as past performance managing government multiple award contracts for A&AS. These items, when combined as in Section L, having to be met on the same citation, create bias towards the incumbent primes giving them an unfair advantage and creating a barrier to otherwise highly qualified, non-incumbent primes. Consider creating a separate requirement for the prime to demonstrate a past performance where they have managed a MAC vehicle. Require they list the task orders POPs and values awarded under the MAC. Remove the requirement from M.4 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method that Very relevant requires the citation be on a MAC vehicle where there were executing at the same time.	See updated Section M.
	53	Section M	4.2.2	Consider amending the relevancy requirement to reflect the SETA V RFP language so that the relevance of the work performed will be assessed by the similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.	See updated Section M.
	54	Section M	Table M-4	Remove the requirement for "at least 3 concurrent task" orders. A stronger indicator or relevance require one of the prime citations be of a MAC vehicle.	See updated Section M.
	55	Section M	Table M-4	To prevent unfair advantage to the current incumbent primes, consider expanding the Very Relevant" relevancy rating from "in support of Air Force Special Operations Forces" to "Special Operations Forces."	See updated Section M.
	56	Section M	4.2.2	Request that the government also consider single-award IDIQs and MACs, for high relevancy assessments.	See updated Section M.
	57	Section M	4.2.2 Relevance, Table M-4	For a project to receive a "Very Relevant" rating, do each of the Task Orders under a MAC need to support AFSOC or just any of the 3+ submitted?	See updated Section M.
	58	Section M	4.2.2 Relevance, Table M-4	For a project to receive a "Very Relevant" rating, do each of the Task Orders under a MAC need to cover PWS 1.3.1 through 1.3.4 or just a combination of the 3+ submitted covering in totality?	See updated Section M.
	59	Section M	4.2.2 Relevance, Table M-4	For a project to receive a "Relevant" rating, do each of the Task Orders under a MAC need to cover PWS 1.3.1 through 1.3.4 or just a combination of the 3+ submitted covering in totality?	See updated Section M.
	60	Section M	4.2.2 Relevance, Table M-4	Is there a max number of concurrent task orders we are allowed to submit for each MAC?	Paragraph 5.6.2.1 Section L states no more than 5 instances of past performance.
	61	Section M	4.2.2 Relevance, Table M-4	Please confirm that a MAC counts as 1 of the 5 Relevant Experience projects we are to submit, regardless of how many concurrent task orders we provide?	See updated Section M.
	62	Section M	4.2.2	Frequently, work in this area is classified. If we have a full and open MAC with Multiple TOs that is classified, will the government allow us to submit that past performance as a classified document with contact information for this MAC?	No, past performce documentation should be submitted in unclassified documents.
	63	Section L	Attachment 3	Given the listing of Aircrew training positions on the pricing spreadsheet and the fact that some of that work is currently "Union" how would the government expect the contractor to handle those rates as part of this IDIQ?	Proposals should be submitted in accordance with the union or the CBA if applicable. Updated CBA or union agreements will be incorporated upon Task Order award, or at the exercise of an option.
	64	Section L	Attachment 3	Does the government anticipate the need for contractor to be able to support Union work?	Supporting union work is always a possability.
	65	Section L	Attachment 3	Would the rates for that work be negotiated separately at the TO level?	Yes.
	66	Section L	Attachment 3	Is it the government's intention to cover any special insurances (i.e. DBA, Flying Insurance) as an ODC cost bid at the TO Level?	Yes.
	67	Section L	5.6.2.1	If a contract citation has one or more CPARS, do offerors still need to provide a PPI form? Do offerors need to send a PPQ to the customer?	See updated Section L Paragraph 5.6.2.1. See question 44.
	68	Section L	5.6.2.2	If a contract citation has one or more CPARS, do offerors still need to submit a PPQ to the customer?	See question 67.
	69	Section M	4.2.2, Table M-4	The Government states that for a citation to be rated very relevant or relevant, "...citation is one which includes recent record of performance on a Government multiple award contract (MAC) in which the offeror (including teaming partners and subcontractors) managed at least 3 concurrent task orders." Question - does the government intend for offerors to provide a citation at the MAC level (e.g., OASIS Pool 1) or at the TO level (e.g., AFSOC 492SOW)? If at TO level, how do we link it to other TOs managed concurrently on the same MAC?	See updated Section M.
	70	Section M	3.2.1	The Government states that the proposal includes a demonstration of the offeror’s understanding of qualification requirements by providing a listing of key personnel (including security manager) with a description of their qualifications and clearance levels. Question - is there a minimum number of key personnel positions that the offeror is required to propose? PWS 1.5.3 only stipulates "an appropriate number of key personnel".	No, there is no minimum number of key personnel that an offeror is required to propose. However, PWS Paragraph 1.5.1 and 1.5.2, have overarching requirements while PWS Paragraph 1.5.3, could have overarching requirements as well as Task Order specific requirements. Also see question 36.
	71	Section M	3.2.1	The Government states that the proposal includes a demonstration of the offeror’s understanding of qualification requirements by providing a listing of key personnel (including security manager) with a description of their qualifications and clearance levels. Question - is there a list of key personnel qualifications provided in the RFP? What skill level (I, II, III, IV, V) is required for key personnel positions?	See question 70.
	72	Section M	4.2.2., Table M-4	The past performance relevancy criteria is incredibly narrow, AFSOC SETA V was the AFSOC specific IDIQ with an ordering period that ended years ago, unless work was extended without competition. OASIS SB Pool 1 SB has awarded several AFSOC TOs, but very limited scope and few to none of the vendors who have been awarded 3 TOs concurrently. The SETA contract requires a wide range of capabilities inherent to the Special Operations Command as a whole. Would the government consider performance on a Government multiple award contract (MAC) or IDIQ in which the offeror (including teaming partners or subcontractors) managed at least 3 concurrent task orders in support of USSOCOM Special Operations Forces, in which task order services performed include all of the following requirements: PWS 1.3.1, PWS 1.3.2, PWS 1.3.3, PWS 1.3.4, as "Very Relevant"?	See updated Section M.
	73	Section L	2.0	Section L 2.0 General Instructions states: “The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the PWS.” Could the government please specify their meaning of "compliant"? Nowhere in the Section L/M requirements is there a Section to address all of the PWS requirements; the instructions are all management related. If we are to address all of the PWS, in which Section should that write-up go?	The Government intent with the word compliant, is two fold. Primarily, it is a notice to offerors that we expect succesful offorors to be in compliance with the PWS requirents after award. For the solicitation, if the offeror would like to address any parts of the PWS not specified in Section L, this would be placed in Vol II.
	74	Atch 7-PWS	1.7.4 page 14	Some short fused travel may require additional cost or third party support (Middle East). Are the cost of visas reimbursable via the travel CLN?	The cost of VISA's are reimbursable and will be addresed at the Task Order level.
	75	Atch 7-PWS	1.9.4 Page 15	Does the term vacation also include Paid Time Off, labor laws define them differently?	Yes, vacation means paid time off in the PWS para 1.9.4.
	76	Section M	4.2.2 and Table M-4	We perceive that the government’s recency requirement of three years unfairly favors the incumbents and restricts competition. Would the government consider changing the recency requirement to 5 years?	See updated Section M.
	77	Section M	4.2.2 and Table M-4	The government’s requirements for meeting “Very Relevant” ; a single past performance citation, on a MAC, support three concurrently running AFSOC task orders that includes Management & Professional Services, Education & Training, Engineering & Technical Services, and Additional Professional Services seems likely to yield an extremely small pool of candidates, and unfairly favor the incumbents. To ensure adequate and fair competition, we respectfully request the government align the rating method to focus more on the management of multiple advisory and assistance services task orders on a MAC.	See updated Section M.
	78	Section L	7.1.4	The paragraph in Section L references the Financial Responsibliity Questionnaire as Attachment 7, however, the solicitation references the Financial Responsibliity Questionnaire as Attachment 8. Please confirm Para 7.1.4 of Section L should read Attachment 8.	See updated Section L Paragraph 7.1.4. It should read Attachment 8.
	79		Solicitation, DFARS Clause 252.208-7000	Does inclusion of DFARS Clause 252.208-7000 in the Solicitation mean the Government intends to furnish precious metals as GFM? If so, is it expected that Offerors complete this clause at time of award or will the requirement for this be identified and completed at the Task Order level?	Yes, the Government intends to furnish precious metals as GFM. This will be completed at the Task Order level.
	80	Section M	Table M-4	In order to reach a grade "very relevant" per Table M-4, does the cited past perfomance have to be a MA IDIQ or can it be a single award IDIQ?	See updated Section M.
	81	Atch 5-PPQ	General	Is the Government requiring PPQs for individual task orders under multiple award IDIQs with multiple task orders?	See question 44.
	82	Atch 4-Past Performance Info	General	Is the expetation that Past Performance Information Reference form be filled out for the MA IDIQ, the individual task order, or both?	See updated Section M. Also see question 49.
	83	Section L	5.6.2.1 & 5.6.2.2.	We understood that up to 5 PPI can be submitted. It would be much appreciated if we share how many maximum PPQ can be submitted?	See updated Section L Paragraph 5.6.2.2.
	84	Section L	4.1.3.2.	Do we need to provide key personnel resume?	IAW with section L Paragraph 4.1.3.1 "the proposal shall include a demonstration of the offeror's understanding of qualification requirements by providing a listing of key personnel (including security manager) with a description of their qualifications and clearance levels".
	85			We would like to know, do you have incumbent or is this new opportunity? If yes, what is contract number?	There is no incumbent. The last SETA basic contract had a period of performance from Aug 2015 - Aug 2019. The previous solicitation was FA002115R0004 and resulted in three Delivery Orders: SA Technical Inc - FA002115D0001; Advanced Concepts Enterprise, Inc - FA002115D0002; Streamline Defense, LLC - FA002115D0003.
	86			Can you please share what is the contract value of this IDIQ?	The ceiling for the MAC IDIQ is $90M.
	87			Can SDVOSB prime have partner who is a small business as subcontractor or JV for this opportunity? We do not see any issue but wanted to confirm if there is any restrictions.	Yes, IAW section L paragraph 1.0. and attachment 6. As long as prime meets the Limitation on Subcontracting and performance 50% of the work. Similarly situated (same SB status) subcontracts are included in the 50%. See FAR 52.219-14 for more information.
	88		Solicitation Section C, Page 5.	Pg 5, Requirements, Line 7. (2) is shown as Studies, Analyses and Evaluations. PWS, pg 3, SCOPE, shows (2) as Education and Training. Believe they should be the same.	See updated solicitation.
	89		Solicitation	ADMIN ONLY -- SF-33, Blocks 7 and 8. Is the correct address for the contracting agency AFICA 765 SCONF or AFICC 765 ESF? It is shown as the former in many locations, but some documents (PPQ and Consent Ltr, for example) show 765 ESF .	AFICA 765 ESF is the correct office, contract writing system defaults to AFICA 765 SCONF, which is the same office.
	90		Solicitation	ADMIN--P3, Item 0001 Supplies/Services , Line 7 should read AFSOC vs AFASOC.	See updated solicitation.
	91	Section L	6.3.f	ADMIN-- States labor cats and quals are found in Tabs on the Comp Plan. We believe that they are actually found in the PWS, Appendix B and C.	There are no descriptions of LCATs on the Attch 3- Copensation Plan & Price Poposal doc. Actual descriptions are on PWS Appendix B&C.
	92	Atch 7-PWS	Para 4.2	ADMIN-- Holidays listed are correct, however, the listing shown is somewhat confusing. Might want to list each holiday on a separate line or create a multi-column table for clarification.	This is a format error. No update at this time.
	93	Atch 7-PWS	Appendix A, Para 1.1 and Para 2	ADMIN -- Suggest a Reviewfor currency. Para 1.1 refers to 5 active duty wings and one overseas group, while Para 2 lists 6 active duty wings and no groups. There have also been changes in the AFSOC directorate line up.	The PWS will not be updated at this time. We expect all offerors to be familiar with AFSOC and AFSOC mission.
	94	Section L	Para 5.1, Pg 8	This paragraph states: “Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information (PPI) in accordance with the format contained in this section (Attachment 5). This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform as documented in Attachment 1, Contractor Team Organization, identified in the offeror’s Management Plan.” This paragraph states that we must submit PPI on all subcontractors identified in Attachment 1 (whether they are one of the subcontractors we are using to submit one of the five PP contracts or not). Is the intent to have PPI on all subcontractors in the Past Performance Volume.	See question 14.
	95	Section M	Para 3.1.2, Pg 4	Same as above.	See question 14.
	96	Section L	Para 7.1.6.2	"7.1.6.2. Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations". Does the government went this information for the Prime and all subcontractors or just the Prime?	Just for the prime offeror.
	97	Atch 1-Contractor Team	Para 4	Attachment 1, paragraph 4 states “Provide a narrative describing how the proposed Teaming/Organizational Structure ensures the outcomes identified in the solicitation (reference Section L-II 3.1.2.)”. There is no paragraph 3.1.2 in Section L, Attachment 11. Do you mean Section L - 4.1.2.1 or Section M - 3.1.2?	See question 21.
	98	Section L	Para 4.1.5	Para 4.1.5 is missing from this document. Possbily Tab 5 also.	See questions 5 and 25.
	99	Atch 3-CP3	Row 10-11, Column C	This cell asks for "Base Rate Hourly Salary %". Row 4, item B states that "Offerors shall provide No Less Than (NLT) percentages of the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Fully Burdened Labor Rate (FBLR) for each labor category in columns C and D ." We already have a NTE rate which is the FBLR (columns F through J). I believe this NLT rate means that we will have a rate that we cannot go below for that Labor Category. Is that correct?	Yes, that is correct. Column C, D & E are NLT rates for employees.
	100	Section L	6.0	Please provide confirm/clarify that Cost Volumes are only required for Prime Contractors. If Cost Volumes are required for subcontractors/teammates, we respectfully request that the requirements for subcontractor/teammate submissions are clearly articulated and all terms defined.	See question 24.
	101	Atch 3-CP3	General	Please provide additional guidance regarding the completion Columns C – Especifically in regard to unpopulated Joint Ventures as this information is not applicable to unpopulated joint ventures and may vary among the joint venture partners.	Offerors are required to provide an NLT rate for employees. Information is required to evaluate the completeness, reasonableness, balance and professional compensation plan realism of the offerors proposed prices. IAW Section L 6.3.d NTE Fully Burdened FFP labor rates shall be submitted for each labor category and education & experience level indicated in the Compensation Plan and Price Proposal, Attachment 3. Failure to propose all rates in the Compensation Plan and Price Proposal will render the proposal incomplete and the entire proposal will be subject to rejection.
	102	Section L	6.0	In order to ensure consistency in the proposed labor rates, what start date should be used for pricing purposes?	June 2022.
	103	Atch 3-CP3	General	Please confirm or clarify that the FFP NTE labor rates should be based on government site performance. Section H.2.5.4 and H.6 seem to indicate that performance is anticipated to be performed at a government site.	The contractor may be required to perform work at Government

facilities, its own facilities, or at other facilities. Generally, work will be performed at a Government facility. See PWS Paragraph 4.4.

104	Atch 3-CP3	General	Section H.6 indicates that Base Support will be provided at Hurlburt Field. Should the proposed labor rates be based on performance at this location or other locations (and if so, what locations)?	The individual TOs will specify the location where work is to be performed. Principal contract performance is at Hurlburt Field, FL. Other locations, both Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside Continental United States (OCONUS), will be specified in individual TOs. See PWS Paragraph 4.4.
105	Section L	6.4	The Compensation Plan includes the following language "Currently, only the engineer labor categories would be classified as professional. Historically, the engineer labor categories have not represented a large portion of our requirements making TO evaluation more appropriate as needed." This seems to imply that the Service Contract Act is applicable to the majority of the labor categories. Please provide any applicable Wage Determinations to ensure consistency across submissions.	Applicable Wage Determinations will be incorporated at the Task Order level. For the purpose of this evaluation, please refer to Service Contract Act WD# 2015-4531, dated Mar 14, 2022.
106	Section M	5.0	Item 2 indicates that "For evaluation purposes only, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be based on the “All 5 Years Average Rate” and “Totals” columns in the Compensation Plan and Price Proposal.. Please clarify the reference to the "Totals" column as the Excel spreadsheet provided as Attachment 3 does not appear to include a "Totals" column.	The average rate total will be displayed on Column K Row 112.
107	Section M	5.1	Section M Total Compensation Plan and Price Proposal indicates that "The “Totals” column amounts will then be automatically combined to develop the TEP." Attachment 3 does not appear to include a "Totals" column. Please clarify how the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated.	Please see question 106.
108	Section M	5.2.2	Item3 indicates "For evaluation purposes only, the reasonableness of Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be evaluated based on comparison of each Offeror’s respective TEP to the average TEPs from all Offerors." Attachment 3 does not appear to include a calculation of the Total Evaluated Price. Was this an oversight? Please provide clarification on how the Total Evaluated Price will be calculated.	Please see question 106 and Section M Section 5.2.
109	Atch 7-PWS	4.10.2	The vacancy credits section contains the following language "When vacancies occur, TO monthly payments may be reduced commensurate with the reduction in Contractor Manpower Equivalent (CME) as awarded at the CO's discretion." Please clarify how the vacancy credit will be calculated.	Vacancy credits are equal to the manpower not provided by the contractor. This will be handled at the Task Order level.
110	Atch 7-PWS	1.5.8	The Personnel Substitutions or Replacements section contains the following language "All personnel substitutions shall be subject to CO approval." Please provide clarification of number of workdays the CO has to provide appproval of replacement candidate.	The CO has 10 business days to approve or deny substitutions.
111	Atch 7-PWS	1.5.6	The Conduct of Personnel section contains the following language "Upon receipt of notification from the CO, the prime contractor has ten (10) workdays to find a replacement candidate in accordance with the hiring and retention requirements of this PWS." Please clarify if the 10 workday window is applicable to only finding a replacement candidate or if 10 workday window is applicable to finding a replacement candidate and obtaining CO approval of candidate.	The contractor has 10 business days to find a replacement and 10 days for CO approval.

FA4855-17-R-0008-0004

Attachment 13 16 June 2017

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Jul 22, 2025.