Q A 22 Sep 09.doc

Q&A, 22 Sep 09

Questions & Answers

1. Question: RFP Section M-1, Evaluation Procedures, A. Small Business Set-Aside (page 45). Paragraph 1 states the NAICS code and size standard for the full small business set-aside. The definition for this size standard states, “services are related to or support space system R&D and require a thorough knowledge of complete spacecraft.” How does the Government evaluate whether the small business prime or small business JV has present/past experience related to space system R&D and has thorough knowledge of complete spacecraft?

Answer: The NAICS code best describes the principle purpose of the product or service being acquired and establishes the small business size standard. The Government will evaluate past performance in accordance with (IAW) Section M-5, Volume IV - Factor 2 – Past Performance.

2. Question: Paragraph M-1A.2. suggests that “Offerors are strongly encouraged to avoid proposed business arrangements that could be construed as other than small business in consideration of the SBA Ostensible Subcontractor Rule.” This paragraph goes on to say, “All aspects of the relationship between the prime and subcontractor are considered including terms of the proposal, agreement between the prime and subcontractor, and whether the subcontractor is the incumbent contractor. Based on language in Section H of the Draft RFP, information regarding teaming agreements or other information that would provide the Government with insight into the relationship between the prime and subcontractor(s) appeared to be desired in Volume I. However, in the Final RFP, it appears there are no requirements to provide this information. How will the Government assess these relationships and make a determination in accordance with the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule?

Answer: If it appears that a small business prime has violated the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule, the issue will be addressed to the Contracting Officer and/or the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) Area Office for a determination.

3. Question: If the prime or small business JV cannot provide proof of present/past experience related to space system R&D and thorough knowledge of complete spacecraft as described above, and are therefore dependent on their subcontractors for this experience, does this make them in violation of the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule?

Answer: Proposals shall be evaluated for past performance IAW Section M-5, Volume IV - Factor 2 – Past Performance, of the request for proposal (RFP).

4. Question: Re: MILSATCOM PWS. – The requirements in the PWS did not substantively change between the Draft RFP and Final RFP, however, the budget depicted in the Final RFP is reduced significantly from the Draft. Can the Government provide any clarifying information regarding this situation? It has been conjectured that this could be due to a possible conversion of contractor positions to Government positions. Can the Government provide comment on this and what the potential impacts are on the PWS requirements?

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 AFSPC are currently in review; information will be provided as it made available to the Government.

5. Question: Section F-1, Period of Performance (PoP); Section L-9, F. SECTION 2, budget information; and MILSATCOM and MW/MD PWS. The PoP for the contract is shown as award date through five years. The budget is given with a basic period and option years. The PWS depicts the PoP for each Requirement. Can you provide an estimated start date for the PoP in order to correlate the timeframe for the basic year and the option years? Or should it be assumed that each requirement in the task order (TO) PWS consists of a full basic year and four option years? The answer to this question drives the number of hours available in the basic year. In addition, the actual dates impact the rates bid since each company may have different times of year when their rates change.

Answer: The PoP and ordering period for the basic contract is date of award through five years. TOs have separate PoPs. The MILSATCOM TO begins 16 Sep 2010 and has four option periods. Assuming all option periods are exercised, the TO PoP ends 15 Sep 2015. The MW/MD TO begins 20 May 2010 and has four option periods. Assuming all option periods are exercised, the TO PoP ends 19 May 2015.

6. Question: Reference: RFP L-9H6, Schedule of Rates; Page 43 of 55. The reference states, “Submit a schedule with proposed direct and indirect rates by year. This schedule is to include (but separately identify) prime contractor, subcontractor/team member, and inter-divisional transfer rates." Since the prime has no insight into subcontractor direct and indirect rates, should this be written as "fully burdened labor rates by year?"

Answer: The specified data requirements for the Price Proposal Section 6 states that fully detailed subcontractor proposals are required if they exceed both $650,000 and 10% of the total proposed price for the task order. In the subcontractor's submission, the detailed wage rates, indirect rates, profit/fee rate, etc. used to calculate the subcontract proposal should be submitted as a part of the subcontractor proposal to the Government. Fully burdened subcontractor rates may be presented in the prime's proposal; however, the fully burdened rates must be traceable to the subcontractor provided information. It is contemplated that proprietary subcontractor information will be submitted directly to the Government.

7. Question: Reference: RFP L-9H6, Schedule of Rates; Page 43 of 55. Is the intention for this to be a list of rates by year, by company, against proposed labor categories?

Answer: The intention is to obtain for each year, in tabular format, a listing of the proposed wage rates, by labor category, and all company proposed indirect rate factors that can be easily verified with DCMA and/or DCAA. This information is required for the prime and each subcontractor whose proposed price exceeds the thresholds defined for the Cost/Price Proposal, Section 6.

8. Question: Page 35, Section L-6, C, 2 – CCR code, and Page 40, Section L-8, C, 6 – CCR number. Please clarify if the solicitation is referring to the DUNS number when “CCR code” and “CCR number” is mentioned. If not, please define CCR code and CCR number.

Answer: Both sections, L6C.2. and L-8C.6., request both the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and Dun & Bradstreet (DUNS) numbers. These are two separate numbers. Central Contractor Registration is required for all vendors doing business with the Federal Government. “CCR code” and “CCR number” both refer to the assigned CCR number (see https://www.bpn.gov/ccr/default.aspx). A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit sequence recognized as the universal standard for identifying and keeping track of over 100 million businesses worldwide (see http://www.dnb.com/US/duns_update).

9. Question: Page 53, Section M-5, B – Relevancy Criteria for Cyber. Is “at least two of the following:” correct for both relevant and somewhat relevant? Both reflect “two” where previous criteria identified “three” for relevant and “two” for somewhat relevant

Answer: Yes, at least two is correct for both relevant and somewhat relevant for Cyber relevancy.

10. Question: Pages 2 – 3, Section B Supplies or Services and Prices. The individual Option CLINs that were in the previous draft have been removed. Are CLINs 0001-0005 now inclusive of all years?

Answer: Yes, the basic contract has a five year basic/ordering period. Therefore, option CLINS are unnecessary for the basic contract.

11. Question: Pages 2 – 3, Section B Supplies or Services and Prices. Do we populate this section with the Costs, Fees and Prices for all five years totaled?

Answer: No; see Section L-9F which states, “Do not include any cost information at Schedule B. All cost/price information for Factor 1, Mission Capability, shall be provided as Volume V, MILSATCOM, and Volume VI, MW/MD”

12. Question: Pages 2 – 3, Section B Supplies or Services and Prices. If we are to represent the base and option period data separately, please provide guidance on how to do that in Section B.

Answer: Because this is an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract, Schedule B of this RFP is for the basic contract and will reflect ceiling amounts. Task orders are placed on the basic contract and contain individual task order Schedule Bs. Please refer to Section L-9F.

13. Question: Page 35, Section L-6, A – completed Sections A through K. Please clarify whether the model contract must include all sections (Sections A through K) or only sections that require information to be completed (e.g. Sections A, B, G, etc.).

Answer: All sections.

14. Question: Page 34, Section L-3D, DD Form 254, states that DD Form 254 will be applicable to any contract awarded and completed upon notification of contract award. Page 35, Section L-6C.2, states to include a completed DD Form 254 in Volume I. Please clarify if the DD Form 254 is to be completed and included in the proposal or if it is to be completed upon contract award.

Answer: Offerors are to complete areas of the DD 254 as specified in L-6C.2. The Government will provide signatures to complete the DD 254 upon contract award.

15. Question: Page 41, Section L-9, Cost/Price Proposals, F, Section 2, states that no travel or other ODCs should be included, because these amounts will be determined by the Government. However, on Page 43, Paragraph H.3 Basis of Estimate – States that we should include BOE sheets to support the proposed hours, material and ODCs for each task order. We have identified some potential cost saving measures that would require us to bid ODCs. Can ODC costs be included in the proposal? Otherwise, please confirm that travel and ODC costs should not be included and the statement on Page 43 is only as applicable (where ODC is N/A for this proposal). We have identified some potential cost saving measures that would require us to bid ODCs. Can ODC costs be included in the proposal? Otherwise, please confirm that travel and ODC costs should not be included and the statement on Page 43 is only as applicable (where ODC is N/A for this proposal).

Answer: ODC costs should not be included in the proposal as stated in Section L-9. However, if your approach is such that it would require additional costs to the Government in the form of ODCs in order to perform the work, so state clearly in your technical proposal. Include estimated costs of these additional ODCs in your cost/price proposal, along with any other information required in Section L-9 for ODCs. Please also cross-reference these additional costs in your technical and cost/price proposals.

16. Question: The Government identified a large number of "Quick Look Reports" as deliverables with the various PWS paragraphs of the OPIR section of the MW/MD PWS. It is the Government’s intent that the successful offeror provide that number of "Quick Look Reports" each year of the task order?

Answer: Yes.

17. Question: Attachment L-11, Position Description Format. We plan to propose Junior, Mid, and Senior-level position descriptions for all positions with the only difference being the experience and education requirements. Would the Government prefer these be included in one position description (with the experience and education requirements called out for each level) or have each level on a separate position description? If the Government prefers all levels included in one position description, should each level be assigned a unique ID number?

Answer: As stated in Attachment L-12, the ID# identified in Attachment L-12 must coincide with the ID# in Attachment L-11.

18. Question: Sec M, Para M-1.D.1 (pg 46). The RFP states for an Exceptional Rating: “A proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive an exceptional.” RFP states for an Acceptable Rating: “A proposal must have no deficiencies to receive an acceptable but may have one or more strengths.” As written a proposal with “no deficiencies” and “one or more strengths”, can be rated either “Acceptable” or “Exceptional.” Please provide descriptions which distinguish between rating levels.

Answer: Definitions for ratings at Section M-1D.1.are contained in the Air Force FAR Supplement Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.

19. Question: Sec M, Para M-1.D.1.c (pg 46). RFP states, “All task order technical criteria provided in M-4 must be passed to be considered technically acceptable.” Please clarify if “technical criteria” encompasses both “Program Management and Staffing” and “Technical Capability.”

Answer: Yes. Section M-4 encompasses Volumes II and III and are Factor 1, Mission Capability. These make up the ‘technical’ portion of the RFP.

20. Question: Sec M, Para M-5.B Relevancy Table (pg 51). The Organize, Train and Equip criteria is unclear because Relevant uses “and” multiple times without punctuation and Somewhat Relevant uses “or” multiple times without punctuation. Please clarify the sentence structure so the intent is clear.

Answer: “And” means the Offeror must provide a citation with all these criteria to be relevant. “Or” as used in somewhat relevant provides offerors with greater possibilities to be considered somewhat relevant.

21. Question: RFP Cover Letter. Letter states: “On a cautionary note, please be advised budget numbers provided in Section L are as of 8 September 2009 and are subject to change as a result of Resource Management Decision 802 which reduces funding for Department of Defense (DoD) contracted services. All contracts at Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) are currently in review, and budget numbers may change as a result as AFSPC works through this process.” Please clarify if we can expect notification of any of these changes prior to proposal submission date.

Answer: It is very unlikely.

22. Question: CSMC Perf Plan Para 3.0. Perf Plan states: “The Contractor shall develop, implement, maintain, enforce and document a QPP in accordance with Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Data Item 0034.” CDRL 34 calls for a “Syllabus”. Please provide reference for QPP CDRL.

Answer: The CSMC Performance Plan is a draft and will be revised. However, as noted in Section J, the Performance Plan is not included as part of the contract itself, because it is a ‘living’ document that can be revised if need be throughout contract performance.

23. Question: Sec L, Para L-9.H.7 (pg 44). The RFP states "Submit an electronically encoded cost/price model." Does the reference to "encoded" have any special security implications, or is a CD-ROM as stated on page 33 sufficient?

Answer: Yes.

24. Question: Section H-7 (C). Non-Disclosure Agreement: Is there an AFSPC NDA format to use or will the prime provide an NDA for the personnel performing on the contract to use?

Answer: The offeror should provide their NDA.