Questions_and_Answers.docx

1. In response to the DRFP Q&A released in support of FA2486-15-R-0030 on 04/07/2015, the government stated in response to Question 5 that “if the contractor can show that task orders have been performed back to back (such as what happens in a single award IDIQ) to equal a year and the criteria in Section M table 5.1A, “very relevant” past performance citation has been met, then that would count as demonstrating that they can perform at the very relevant criteria.” Can the government confirm that this is still the intent?

Task Orders against IDIQ or Blanket Purchase Agreement vehicles will be considered as separate efforts representing a single past performance record.

2. When are the completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) due to the government?

Proposals are due no later 11 January 2016. The Government requests early submission of an offeror’s Volume II - Past Performance Proposal on 5 January. Past Performance can be submitted any time before the proposal due date. No updates to Past Performance will be accepted after the proposal due date.

3. Can the Government please confirm the anticipated start date of T001? Section L, Attachment 6b Excel spreadsheet indicates a 1 June 2016 start date, but the SSP indicates an August 2016 start date.

The anticipated start date for Task Order 0001 has not been firmly established. The award date of the contract, and anticipated start date of Task Order 0001 are dependent on the source selection process. At this time, the anticipated award date of the contract and Task Order 001 are planned for August, but this is subject to change.

4. Section L, paragraph 2.2.3 d. requires the "Offeror's approach to professional compensation plan........" and Section M, paragraph 2.1.2.4 evaluates that the "Offeror's proposal includes a professional compensation plan......". Given the number of SEMATS 2 categories and levels, and the requirements of an adequate plan, this plan requires many pages for compliance. Does the Government require an approach to the plan or the plan itself? If the plan is required, can it be excluded from the 60 page count?

The Government requires the plan itself, along with any additional information necessary to convey the Offeror’s approach. The plan itself, along with the Transition Plan and OCI Mitigation Plan are excluded from the page count.

5. Cross Reference Matrix (CRM), Sub-Factor-1: The CRM (provided in Section L, Attachment 7) indicates “Sub-Factor 1, Aircraft-Stores Compatibility Engineering Analysis and Support” corresponds to “PWS sections 3.1 – 3.6.4”; however, the specific areas described in Section L paragraphs 2.2.3.a – 2.2.3.l appear to omit PWS sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.2. Based on the Cross Reference Matrix and the Section L paragraphs, it appears that PWS sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.2 are omitted from the proposal and its evaluation.

a. Q1: Are PWS Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.2 intentionally omitted from Section L paragraphs 2.2.3.a – 2.2.3.l? (If in error, please reference where offerors should respond to PWS Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.2.)

Section L paragraphs 2.2.2 a. – 2.2.2 e. address the key elements/activities of the requirements described in PWS sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.2 as indicated in the CRM in Section L, Attachment 7. Responses to items 2.2.2 a. – 2.2.2 e. will be evaluated using the criteria listed in corresponding paragraphs 2.1.1.1 – 2.1.1.5 in Section M.

6. CRM, Sub-Factor-2: The “Management and Government Interface” line of the CRM corresponds to “PWS Sections 2.5.1 – 2.5.1.3”; however, PWS Section 2.5.1.2 and 2.5.1.3 do not appear in the RFP.

b. Q2: Was the omission of PWS 2.5.1.2 and 2.5.1.3 intentional? (if an error, please update the CRM or PWS )

This appears to be a holdover error in the matrix after we made the change that removed 2.5.1.2 and 2.5.1.3 in the last PWS revision. The matrix should indicate 2.5.1 – 2.5.1.1.

7. CRM, Sub-Factor-3: Section L paragraph 2.2.4.a references “Offeror’s approach to understanding OCI issues that may arise during contract performance”, and Section M paragraph 2.1.3.1 references “Recognizing Potential OCI Issues”; however, the corresponding line on the CRM is titled “OCI Determination Statement”.

c. Q3a: Is the “OCI Determination Statement” title in error?

d. Q3b: If answer to Q3a is “No”, will the Government offer further description of the proposal information desired with respect to the “OCI Determination Statement”?

“OCI Determination Statement” was moved to Section L, Par V, Contract Documentation. This should have been removed from the CRM. Please see Section L, 5.2.6.

8. CLIN 0001 (FFP-LOE): In the body of the description it states FFP-LOE, with billings being hours x rates.

e. Q4: Will the Government consider allowing the monthly billings to be a 1/12 proration of the contract value?

The nature of the IDIQ is such that the total spread of hours is not well-known in advance. The Government does anticipate an even distribution of the requested hours over the life of the contract, but the actual distribution could vary significantly.

9. Subcontractor Data: Please confirm that subcontractors are not required to submit a sealed proprietary package to the Government.

Subcontractors may, at their discretion, submit their past performance data directly to the Government POC identified at Section L, paragraph 1.2.e.

10. Reference: PWS Section 1.1, Section L.2.2.1. Both of these sections reference AFI 63-104. Section 3.7 of that document references the Quick Reference List, maintained by the AFSEO for T&E configuration guidance. We respectfully request a copy of this document to aid in the full understanding of T&E configurations. Will the Government provide a copy of this document?

The Quick Reference List (QRL) is a continuously evolving listing of aircraft configurations updated as required to reflect changes in aircraft/store configurations. ‘Sub Factors 1 thru 4’ are provided to elicit responses that will be evaluated by the Government IAW Section M Section 2.0 to determine the soundness of the Offeror’s approach to satisfying AFSEO mission requirements as outlined in the PWS and AFI 63-104. Exact knowledge of the QRL is not required for a successful offer.

11. Reference: Section L, Attachment 6b. This Attachment shows a staffing level of 99 personnel in Year 1, but a staffing level of 100 personnel in Years 2-5 (the number of Project Manager 3 personnel is increased from 6 to 7). Was it the Government's intent to show a staffing change between Year 1 and Year 2?

Yes; 99 CMEs is the contractor end-strength planned for year 1. 100 CMEs is the contractor end-strength planned for year 2.

12. Reference: PWS 2.15.1. "The transition period is from the contract effective date to the beginning of the task ordering period for TO 0002. This period will last up to 30 days." The CLIN 0004 description states "The contractor shall perform a 30 calendar day Transition Period for the SEEK EAGLE Modeling, Analysis, and Tools Support contract in accordance with Task Order 0001." Does the Government intend an "up to" 30 day transition or a full 30 day transition following contract award?

The Government intends to award ‘up to” a 30 day transition period. No evaluation credit will be given for less than a 30 day transition.

13. Reference PWS Section 3.6.3. This section states the Contractor shall follow the AFSEO Software Process (ASP) to develop and sustain all software. Will the Government please provide a copy of this process?

The ASP is based on industry best practices with deference to DoD/AF regulations and guidelines and local directives. As such it is a living document. A company successfully executing a managed/disciplined approach to software development in support of a secure, complex engineering IT environment should be able to adequately address the requirements of 3.6.3. See Section M para. 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. Knowledge of the ASP contents will not be evaluated.

The relevant measures of merit from Section M are as follows:

“2.1.1.1 Offeror’s proposal presents an approach for managing a complex engineering IT environment that is sound and addresses, at minimum, the following areas: cybersecurity protection measures, network administration and management, and the maintenance and sustainment of a high data volume, high end computational hardware and software infrastructure.

2.1.1.2. Offeror’s proposal presents an approach for developing, maintaining, and sustaining software that is sound and addresses, at minimum, their methods and practices for establishing repeatable processes and deploying a managed environment for developing, maintaining, and sustaining software products.”

14. Reference EGLIN-H003, PORTABLE PENSION PLAN (AUG 2015). A question was previously asked (see the shaded portion below) concerning the Portable Pension Plan. There is a very important distinction between a Defined Benefit Plan and a Defined Contribution Plan, both of which may be Portable. The intention of the question previously asked was to determine if the incumbent’s existing plan is a Defined Benefit Plan or a Defined Contribution Plan. Although the Government confirmed there is a portable pension plan (question #12 of the Industry Day contractor questions dated 3 April 2015), our specific question has not been answered to date. There can be a tremendous risk to a contractor taking over a Defined Benefit Plan. It would be reasonable for the Government to provide vital information about the incumbent Plan, such as how much unfunded liability the plan contains. If the current Portable Plan is a Defined Contribution Plan, then most contractors would be able to easily move the incumbent monies to their company Defined Contribution Plan. The distinction is important and we respectfully ask that the question below be re-visited and our recommendation for neutralizing contractor risk be considered.

Previous Question: Reference EGLIN-H003 (Portable Pension Plan). Please confirm that some or all of the SEMATS 1 incumbent employees currently receive a defined benefit plan (pension plan). If incumbent employees currently receive a defined benefit plan, and EGLIN-H003 requires the SEMATS 2 contractor to assume the pension’s assets/liabilities, it would be beneficial to all offerors to understand the assets/liabilities of the pension today. Could the Government provide pension assets/liabilities data and other pertinent pension information to offerors? Also, given the complexities and uncertainties in characterizing allowable pension costs over a five-year period (including but not limited to influences of CAS and ERISA rules), would the Government consider requiring all offerors to use a prescribed plug value of pension costs, to ensure equitable representation of pension costs for all offerors’ evaluated most probable costs (MPCs). As an example, in the AEDC Test Operations Support (TOS) Contract’s RFP, issued in late 2014 the following paragraph is included in the Section L Instructions to Offerors:

L-6.4.8. Defined Benefit Pension Plan (DBPP) Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) Contribution. Use $12,900,000 for the estimated amount for the DBPP contribution for each year of the contract. No escalation will apply to this number.

We recommend using a similar strategy to appropriately neutralize the impact of the pension across all offerors’ MPCs.

Previous Answer: Please refer to question #12 of the Industry Day contractor questions dated 3 April 2015 that are posted on FBO.

Industry Day Question #12: With respect to Eglin H003 Portable Pension Plan, does the incumbent contractor have a defined benefit pension plan? If so, can a copy be provided?

Answer to Industry Day Question #12: Yes, the contractor does have a Portable Pension Plan. No, the pension plan cannot be provided as it is proprietary in nature.

The incumbent has a defined contribution 401 (K) Plan with a major investment broker.

15. Reference Sub Factor 3: Organizational Conflict of Interest. The Government has changed the requirement for a conflict of interest mitigation plan (previously paragraph c. of this section), and now requires the provision of an OCI Prevention Plan, and has included a blank page for Attachment 5, reserved for contract-submitted Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan. Is it the Government’s intention that the selected offeror’s response to Sub Factor 3 will be modified to serve as a separate plan to be inserted as Attachment 5 after award?

The Offeror’s response to Sub Factor 3 and the submitted OCI plan provides the basis for assurance the Government has that the contractor or their sub-contractor will adequately avoid, monitor, disclose, and mitigate any OCI before and during contract execution.

16. Reference Sub Factor 2 Technical Workforce Management. In the Final RFP, the previous Sub Factor for Transition has been combined with Sub Factor 2. The Final RFP also added Attachment 4 as a Reserved Attachment for Contractor Submitted Transition Plan. Is it the Government’s intention that the selected offeror’s response to the Transition portion of Sub Factor 2 for Transition will be modified to serve as a separate plan to be inserted as Attachment 4 after award?

The Offeror’s responses to Sub Factor 2 and submitted transition plan form the basis for Task Order 001 upon selection for award.

17. Reference Sub Factor 2 Technical Workforce Management. In the Final RFP, Attachment 6 was added as a Reserved Attachment for Contractor Submitted Professional Compensation Plan. Is it the Government’s intention that the selected offeror’s response to the Professional Compensation Plan portion of Sub Factor 2 will be modified to serve as a separate plan to be inserted as Attachment 6 after award?

Yes.

18. Reference Section L 1.4 Table L1 and 1.4.1.1 Page Size and Format. Table L1 provides the Offeror an additional 10 pages, but the language in Section 1.4.1.1 no longer allows for the cover page, table of contents, list(s) of tables and drawings, and Cross Reference Matrix to be excluded from the page count. Based on the exclusion of this language in the Final RFP, it is our understanding that only blank pages are excluded from the 60 page limit. Was this the Government’s intent?

Yes.

19. Reference Section L 1.4 Table L1 and 2.2.3 Sub Factor 2 Technical Workforce Management (h). In the DRFP, Table L1 provided guidance for the page count for the GM/Contract Manager resume and stated that it was excluded from page count. In the final RFP, the page count instructions for the resume have been removed. Is the page count for the resume still limited to 2 pages?

No.

Is the resume still excluded from the 60 page limit for Volume I?

No.

20. Reference: The Year 1 – Year 5 worksheets in Section L, Attachment 6b. These worksheets require that the total Contract Year hours for each labor category/skill level in column B be divided into fiscal years in columns C and F. For labor categories/levels that have 1 hour in column B, is it acceptable to have fractional hours in columns C and F that sum to 1 hour?

No, Offerors must use a rate that correlates with the rate sheet. Offerors must chose to place the rate in only one FY. If column C states 1, then column F would state 0, or vice versa.

21. Reference: Note 6 on the 52.217-8 worksheet in Section L, Attachment 6b. This note states that the option period of performance is 30 April 2021 – 29 October 2021. The worksheet requires that the total Contract hours for each labor category/skill level in column B be divided into FY20 (column C) and FY21 (column F); however, the period from 1 October 2021 through 29 October 2021 is part of FY22. Please resolve.

This error has been updated.

22. Reference: Labor categories/skill levels listed on the Year 1 through Year 5 worksheets in Section L, Attachment 6b. These worksheets include “Electronic/Electrical Engineering 1” through “Electronic/Electrical Engineering 4”. The CLIN 0001 worksheet in Section J, Attachment 3 does not include these exact categories/levels, but does include “Electrical Engineering 1” through “Electrical Engineering 4”, which are not found on the Year 1 through Year 5 worksheets. Please confirm which labor categories are correct.

“Electrical Engineering” and “Electronic/Electrical” are used interchangeably in this instance. The labor category “Electronic/Electrical 1” through “Electronic/Electrical 4” is correct.

23. Reference: Note 6 on the TEP worksheet in Section L, Attachment 6b. This note states that the contract performance period is 1 June 2016 to 30 April 2021, while Note 5 on each of the Year 1 through Year 5 worksheets states that the contract performance period is 1 May 2016 to 30 April 2021. Please resolve.

The correct period of performance to assume is 1 June 2016 to 30 April 2021. The worksheets have been updated.

24. Reference: Section L Attachment 6b, Source Selection Plan Section 7.0, Schedule of Events. The period of performance requested in Section L Attachment 6b is May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2021; however, the anticipated award date is listed as 29 August 2016 in the Source Selection Plan. Does the Government plan to modify the period of performance to align with the current anticipated date of award?

The actual award date could occur sooner or later than the assumed start date in RFP. The assumed period of performance within the RFP is what Offerors shall use in their proposals.

25. Section L, Technical Volume: Table L-1 states 60-page limit for “Volume I, Technical Capability”. Section L2.2 prescribes the organization of Volume I, to include: a) Table of Contents, b) List(s) of tables and drawings, c) Glossary, and d) Cross Reference Matrix, as well as, items e) Short Introduction and Summary, f) Sub Factor 1: Aircraft-Stores Compatibility Engineering Analysis and Support, g) Sub Factor 2: Technical Workforce Management, h) Sub Factor 3: Organizational Conflict of Interest, and i) Sub Factor 4: Program Management. Do items “a) Table of Contents, b) List(s) of tables and drawings, c) Glossary, and d) Cross Reference Matrix” count as pages in the 60-page limit of Volume I ?

Yes.