Q A 21 Sep 09.doc

Q&A, 21 Sep 09

Questions & Answers

1. Question: Section H-8 (page 15 of 55) addresses Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA), will these agreements need to be in place before proposal submission or will they go into place after each task order is awarded?

Answer: Associate Contractor Agreements shall apply at the task order level as stated in H-8.

2. Question: In Section L-2.C.6.h the RFP states that CD-ROMs must be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft Office 2003 or 2007. To maintain the integrity of the document can files be submitted in .pdf?

Answer: No, but CD-ROMs may be submitted as ‘read-only’.

3. Question: In both the MILSATCOM and MW/MD task orders, the requirements have different start dates for the period of performance. The base year for each task order will begin on the earliest “Period of Performance (PoP) Begins” date. For the MILSATCOM task order this is Requirement 1 on 16 September 2010. For the MW/MD task order this will be Requirement 4 on 20 May 2010. The Base Year for each Task Order will end one year after the start dates above regardless of when the other seven requirements begin on each task order. For the MILSATCOM task order this will be 15 September 2011. For the MW/MD task order this will be 19 May 2011. Option Year 1 for each task order will begin from one day after the end dates above. Option Year 2 one year later, etc. to a final end date five years after the start dates above (15 September 2015 and 19 May 2015 respectively). Please confirm that this is the proper determination of start and end dates for the Base and Option Years for each task order.

Answer: Yes, this is correct.

4. Question: In Section F-1 Period of performance of the RFP states that the basic period is award date for five years. In Section L-9 F, Section 2, the RFP states that each TO shall include a basic year and four option years. Does Section F-1 refer to the entire IDIQ contract and Section L-9 F, Section 2, refer to subsequent task orders awarded?

Answer: Section F-1 refers to the entire IDIQ contract. Section L-9F, Section 2, refers only to the two task orders, MILSATCOM and MW/MD, being competed under this RFP that make up Volumes V and VI of Section L-9, Cost/Price Proposals for MILSATCOM and MW/MD Task Orders.

5. Question: Reference: Section I, 5352.242.9000 Contractor Access to Air Force Installations, pages 24-25 of 55 mentions "vehicle passes.” Are vehicle passes still required or used on Peterson Air Force Base (PAFB)?

Answer: Currently vehicle passes are no longer required for PAFB. However, the clause remains as written should the policy change in the future.

6. Question: L-8, C.7.b requires: “Questionnaires for firms as subcontractors shall be addressed to the prime contractor.” In addition to the prime contractor POC information, would it be permissible to submit the relevant Government POC information in the "Other" POC section of Attachment L-6, Past Performance Citation Information?

Answer: No. The Government has no privity of contract with a subcontractor.

7. Question: L-9. Reference: The budgeted level for the MILSATCOM Task Order in the final RFP is approximately 40% less than originally projected in the draft and similarly less than that funded in current incumbent task orders under CAASETA. However, the scope of the PWS has not changed. Lacking other information as to why this was done, the budget reduction complicates development of a supportable Basis of Estimate. Are there other changes in the anticipated workload that may not reflect in the PWS, e.g., deletion of programs, conversion of contractor slots, or realigning of work off of CSMC?

Answer: The budget numbers provided in Section L are anticipated funding as of 8 September 2009. Due to the Resource Management Decision 802, funding is being reduced for Department of Defense (DoD) contracted services. All contracts at Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) are currently in review.

8. Question: Subfactor 2, MW/MD TO, Factor 1 paragraph 1a (page 38 of 55) states offerors are to provide Position Descriptions for each labor category proposed for the Task Order. In addition to the Position Descriptions and estimated costs for those positions bid on the respective task orders, is it the Government’s intent for offerors to also provide additional Position Descriptions that we anticipate using for other Task Orders for the duration of the IDIQ contract and an estimated average cost per hour associated with these Positions Descriptions?

Answer: No.

9. Question: L-9.F. (page 41) provides the "Organization of Volumes V and VI and includes six sections. L-9.G and L-9.H have additional requirements for the cost volumes. In what sections should we include our responses to G-Contractor Systems Status and H-Other Information?

Answer: Information for G-Contractor Systems Status should be included in the Price Proposal, Section 1. Data requested in H-Other Information should be included in the Price Proposal, Section 2.

10. Question: Regarding the ITAR registration requirement in the CSMC RFP, Section H-9 and Section L paragraphs D.3 and E.3, we called the State Department for a reading on whether a JV must have a separate ITAR registration. The State Department representative informed us the correct procedure was to have the majority owner in a JV list the JV as a subsidiary in block 9 of the DS 2032. DCAA contract Audit Manual paraphrased from 7-1802(b)(2)(c), “… if one member exhibits control by ownership of a majority voting interest the venture is likely to be considered a subsidiary of the controlling member”, and Block 13 instructions of DS 2032 state “Company entities or subsidiaries may not register separately.” Given the statements above, would you concur that the JV, that is a subsidiary of the majority owner, is covered under the majority owner’s registration and the JV should not register separately?

Answer: Yes. However, offerors are reminded that any other joint venture partner/ subcontractor/team member proposed to perform the work on either of the two task orders must also comply with ITAR requirements.

11. Question: Reference: RFP H-1, Contractor Price Adjustments; page 12 of 55. The reference states, “Workload estimates may be identified in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) or PWS. Because of the nature of these services and when cost-type TOs are selected, deviations to the individual CDRL and total workload estimates that are customary in this environment will not be the basis for a contract price adjustment IAW FAR 16.306, CPFF Contracts.” If this paragraph H-1 refers to deviations including “surge requirements,” will the contractor retain its fee for future surge costs? If this paragraph H-1 refers to deviations including “surge requirements,” does this mean that when there is a surge requirement and the Government customer needs additional help that this is not a basis for a contract price adjustment?

Answer: If the CPFF task order is a completion form, and there is no change to the task order PWS, the Government would consider this ‘more of the same’, and the Government would require more effort without increase in fee. In the same manner, if the CPFF task order required less work, and there was no change to the task order PWS, the Contractor would still be entitled to the negotiated fee. If there is a change to the task order PWS, the cost and fee would then also be renegotiated.

12. Question: Reference: RFP L-9F. Section II, MILSATCOM; Funding over the POP. The funding line for MILSATCOM has two major changes since the DRFP.

1. There is an overall funding reduction of over 40% across the POP with no corresponding reduction in requirements compared to the MILSATCOM PWS associated with the DRFP

2. In addition, the funding line takes an approximate 10% dip in the second year and a 9% dip in year three, without any corresponding reduction in requirement.

When the DRFP and MILSATCOM PWS were released, our analysis showed near parity with the MILSATCOM-related Task Orders awarded under CAASETA. The collation of tasks under a Mission Capability Team construct appeared reasonable and appropriate. That is, MILSATCOM contract support was funded at approximately $9M per year to perform the tasks that generally aligned with the CSMC MILSATCOM PWS. When a contractor sees a funding line that shrinks from one year to the next we understand this reflects the realities of the POM, but could also reflect Government knowledge that might include out-year strategies such as requirements reduction (e.g., some systems transitioning from development to sustainment) or contractor-to-Government FTE conversions. It is difficult to propose an accurate cost strategy to the Government in a shrinking funding environment when we don’t understand what the corresponding requirements reductions are. Was there an oversight that resulted in a 40% funding reduction (over the POP) without a corresponding reduction in requirements?

Answer: There is no reduction in requirements; the reduction in budget amounts is a result of Resource Management Decision 802 wherein funding is being reduced for Department of Defense (DoD) contracted services.

13. Question: Will the Government divulge to Industry evolving requirements knowledge that corresponds to the fluctuating funding line?

Answer: All contracts at AFSPC are currently in review; information will be provided as it made available to the Government.

14. Question: Reference: RFP Paragraph, L-7D1a. The Government added the requirement to "…include an organizational chart aligned with technical specifications of the TO PWS and proposed staffing." While fully understanding the technical requirements staffing needed to deliver products and services for those requirements, we are not as familiar with how the Government has aligned those PWS specifications against “A-Code” Divisions and Branches. That information is not publicly-accessible and is largely FOUO. Only the Government and the current incumbent have access to it. Will the Government share information on what products and services from the PWS are aligned to which division and branch?

Answer: The organizational chart should align proposed staffing to technical specifications of the TO PWS, not to directorates. IAW AFSPC Directive 08-01, the Command was reorganized from directorates into capability teams.

15. Question: Reference: RFP M-5B, Relevancy Criteria Table; CYBER; page 53 of 55. The Cyber Criteria for “Relevant” (R) and “Somewhat Relevant” (SR) are nearly identical with both requiring citations that address two cyber-related elements. Though some of the verbiage is slightly different across the elements, we want to be certain the Government is not requiring more elements to be covered by citations considered “Relevant” than those considered “Somewhat Relevant.” Is the specification correct? “…a citation with at least two of the following” for both R and SR?

Answer: Yes. Some components of the two relevancy definitions are different.

16. Question: Reference: Volume II, MILSATCOM Awardable Task Order (ATO) Performance Work statement (PWS). The Draft PWS included percentages of workload spread across major requirements areas. This percentage allocation assists non-incumbent bidders in determination of staffing allocation. What is the level of effort?

Answer: The offeror’s proposal should provide this.

17. Question: Reference: Volume II, MILSATCOM Awardable Task Order (ATO) Performance Work statement (PWS), Paragraph 1.4, “Facilities and Supplies.” The reference states: “SIPRNET access is required to support this task order.” As the Government knows, obtaining contractor facility SIPRNET access is a process that includes a partnership of the Defense Security Service, the Government Sponsor, and the Contractor. Each has a role to do in bringing the system to operational readiness. Based on Teammate experience, we understand it can take more than 6 months to obtain SIPRNET access. The process cannot begin until the requirement is established (i.e., contract award). As written, incumbent SIPRNET access presents a potentially unfair advantage. Will the Government relax the requirement for SIPRNET access to support the task order, or will the Government relax the timing of access to allow for approval and installation post-award?

Answer: AFSPC has converted to performing day-to-day work on SIPRNET. Offerors may use a team member’s SIPRNET until SIPRNET is installed at their facility.