MSCC_QAs__7JUN17.pdf

Item Question Government Response

Page 85, L6.6: Should this be a subsection to L6.3? Or are you saying you want L6.6-L6.9 in the Total Compensation Plan tab?

No, this should not be a subsection of L.6.3. The Total Compensation Plan is applicable to the entire contract. As instructed in the RFP, review FAR 22.1103 and Provision 52.222-46 for guidance.

2 Page 86, L7: Should this be L6.7? Yes, a correction will be made prior to release of the final RFP.

3 Page 87, L6.10: Should this be Tab 6? Is it appropriate to this level or just the TO level?

Yes, a correction will be made prior to release of the final RFP.

Page 87, L7 and L7.3: It says the Task Orders are a subsection to Volume 1. Are the 15 pages per TO from L7.3 included in 50 pages for Volume 1 as called out in L.6 on page 85?

No, the 15 pages per TO are not included in the 50 pages for Volume 1 as called out in L.6 on page 85.

PP 87-90: The required tab #s for TOPs do not appear to correspond to the template in Attachment 11. Recommend that required content be aligned to the Attachment 11 sections.

Attachment 11 is the preferred format for Task Order Proposals (TOPs) in order to streamline Government evaluations. Please use this format as much as possible when submitting TO proposals.

6 Page 89, L7.3.3: Is the text under Tab 3 correct? Yes, as part of sample TO 0003.

27-Apr-17

Clarification Question to Q. 1 above On Question 1, L6.6 is not Total Compensation Plan. L6.6 is SF - 1 Software Development. My underlying question was if L6.6 through L6.9 should have their content in Tab 3 or if they are in the correct location and have their own tabs.

Correction to response given in #1 above: Yes, the subfactors (SFs) should immediately follow Technical Capability under Tab 3. The final RFP will reflect the necessary changes.

The new order format is as follows:

L.6.1 Tab 1: Executive Summary L.6.2 Tab 2: Table of Contents, Glossary, and Definitions L.6.3 Tab 3: Special Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) L.6.4 Tab 4: Total Compensation Plan L.6.5 Tab 5: Technical Capability L.6.6 SF 1 - Software Development

Clarification Question to Q. 6 above On Question 6, the answer is exactly why I asked. TO3 is the analysis TO and the text does not appear to correspond to either analysis TO or the intent of "Task Order Lead Roles and Responsibilities".

New language:

Tab 3: Task Order Lead Roles and Responsibilities: Describe an approach for overall management, conflict resolution and risk management for the sample TO.

28-Apr-17

Do you have an idea when the library will be made available? The Government is currently working on finalizing content of the MSCC Bidders Library;

instructions concerning content and access will be included NLT final RFP release.

INDUSTRY DAY Q&As

The following questions and answers are documented notes received in response to the DRAFT RFP posted 25 APR 17 and one additional One-on-One exchange.

MSCC - Q&As in response to DRAFT RFP Posted 25APR17

What keeps you "up at night" now, and in relation to future MSCC requirements?

The timely award of the contract is a major concern of the Government at this time, as well as some apprehension regarding the interest of leadership in MSCC contract capabilities, and the subsequent need for engagement of engineers, and the delivery of modeling capabilities that can be transformed into real-time warfighter missions. We need to address how space capabilities come together to support a variety of battlespace scenarios. The following are list of General Officer-level issues we need to address currently:

1. AFSPC/CC Congressional Testimony -- Space Modeling, Simulation, & Analysis (MS&A)

2. Independent Strategic Advisory Group (ISAG) -- MS&A

3. Joint Space Warfighter Forum (JSWF)

4. Principal DoD Space Advisor MS&A Tasker

5. Space Enterprise Vision (SEV) MS&A

6. Military Operations Research Society (MORS) -- What is the impact of space on warfighting?

7. Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) MS&A Tasker

What is a perfect scenario come award day? At contract award the Government anticipates working with a fully qualified prime contractor in the assumption of MSCC duties, with a manageable number of equally qualified subcontractors dedicated to the success of the contract. Flexibility, professional competence, and a comprehensive grasp of the technical requirements of the contract are essential.

In relation to FTE, how big is the effort? Current MSCC requirements are being met with approx. eighteen positions at HQ

AFSPC; additional staffing will depend on the types of analysis required at any given time.

5 How open is the government to viewing a demonstration? The Government will not entertain demonstrations in the course of the MSCC source selection.

6 Do you have the right network in place? The PWS addresses networks.

AVAC as a standalone network is in place. The contractor will be required to follow standard protocols as they may apply to stand alone networks.

Why is the Government considering consolidation of contracts?

This is a matter of program Integration - the Government desires to award the proposed MSCC IDIQ contract to a single contractor capable of integrating all technical MSCC activities in the management of the modeling and analysis required, in addition to the singular operation and management of the AVAC stand alone network.

8 Is it disjointed? Sometimes it is.

What is a "good fit" for the Government? Are you confident that the MSCC requirement will meet all the Government's MS&A needs?

Yes we are confident that the MSCC requirement will meet all the Government's projected MS&A needs. We're primarily looking for extraordinary program management (PM) skills and a comprehensive program integration capability.

22-May-17

(Page 83) - L.4.1 Organization, Number of Copies, and Page Limits: This section does not provide number of hard copy submissions required for each volume. Please clarify

Offerors will be expected to provide four hard copies and one electronic copy of their proposals.

(Page 85) -The title L.6 Volume I – Technical Capability has “(includes Management)” in the title. However, there is no “management” requirement under Volume I – Technical Capability. Is the Government referring to Task Order 0001?

If not, please clarify where the management requirement is requested.

We have removed "includes Management" language from that section.

(Page 85-86) The staffing matrix (Attachment 7) is mentioned in a note at the end of L.6.6 SF1 – Software Development. It’s unclear exactly where the offeror is to include the staffing matrix. Is the staffing matrix required as part of each TO or for each Subfactor (SF)? Please clarify.

Regardless of where the staffing matrix is required, please confirm it is excluded from the page limitations.

A staffing matrix is required for each task order, and is excluded from the overall proposal count.

(Page 87) L7.1 Executive Summary appears to be a direct copy from L6.1 Executive Summary (i.e., “…provide an executive summary of the Technical Capability Volume”).

However, L7.1 is referring to task orders, not the overall technical capability volume. Recommend revising to “provide an executive summary of the task order.

Revised to read "The Offeror shall provide an executive summary of the TOP Volume…

(Page 88) TO1, Tab 6: Organizational and Team Structure requests the inclusion of the Team Composition Matrix (Attachment 8). Please confirm this attachment is excluded from TO 1 page count?

Attachment 8 is excluded from TO 1 page count.

(Page 88) TO1, Tab 6: Organizational and Team Structure does not have a corresponding evaluation element in section M. Consider adding.

There is corresponding evaluation criteria applicable to the requested staffing matrix -please see subparagraphs M3.1.2(b), M3.1.3(e), M3.1.4(c), and M3.2.3, Tab 3.1.

(Page 89) Under TO2 and 3, under Organizational and Team Structure, the RFP references L6.5.4, Tab 7. This reference does not exist. Please advise

Reference removed.

(Page 90) L.8 Volume II – Past Performance. Is there an established page count for the past performance volume?

There is no established page count for past performance volume.

(Page 91) L.8.1, Tab 4: Past Performance Information states, “No more than five (5) recent contracts performed either as prime or subcontractor, or for teaming partners/significant subcontractors.” “Offeror shall also include no more than three (3) recent contracts performed by each teaming partner and significant subcontractor.”

Please confirm the requirement is five total and no more than 3 from subcontractors.

Past Performance Information shall be provided on no more than five recent (within the past three years) contracts for the prime contractor, and no more than three recent contracts for subcontractors.

10 (Page 91) L.8.1, Tab 4: Past Performance Information. Is there a page count associated with each reference?

There is no page count associated with each reference.

(Page 93) L.9, Volume III – Cost/Price requires subcontractors to submit excel cost proposals for Tab 5 and

6. However, Tab 5 is Financial Capability. Is Tab 6 the applicable reference or does the Government expect both tabs from subcontractors as well?

Prime contractors are responsible for evaluating their subcontractors' financial capability, and to provide the required information with their proposal. Tab 5 is intended to address matters of financial capability only, and is most applicable to the Contracting Officer's final determination of contractor responsibility. Tab 6 requires the actual submission of cost and pricing information, and will be evaluated in terms of cost/price reasonableness, realism, and affordability.

(Page 94) L.9.6 Tab 6, Other Direct Costs & Travel Costs:

The RFP instructs the offeror to propose plug numbers for ODC line items in Section B. Section B does not include ODC plug numbers. Please advise.

Offerors are not required to propose estimated costs for ODCs. "Plug numbers" will be established by the Government based on budgetary estimates, and will be applied at the task order level when required.

(Page 94) L.9.6, Tab 6, Other Direct Costs & Travel Costs:

The RFP states that the estimated cost provided shall be considered to include Offeror’s indirect costs. Given that each contractor has different indirect rates, this would skew the total evaluated price in favor of a contractor with higher indirect rates. To ensure a fair competition, we recommend requiring indirect rates to be applied to ODC plug numbers.

Offerors are not required to propose estimated costs for ODCs. "Plug numbers" will be established by the Government based on budgetary estimates, and will be applied at the task order level when required.

(Page 94-95) L9.6.1 TO Cost Volume, TO 0001 Tab 1 through TO 0003 Tab 3 request cost detail in Attachment

15. Is the Government referring to Attachment 16, Task Order 0001-0003 tab?

We expect to alter the format for the submission of cost and pricing data in the final RFP, possibly combining the contents of Attachments 14, 15, and 16 into a single attachment .

Given that the Total Compensation Plan (TCP) is evaluated as part of the technical capability, is this part of the trade-off process and how do you apply the technical/risk rating to the TCP? Will higher compensation or increased benefits receive strengths according to the Technical/Risk rating, and will the government be able to trade up to an Offeror as a result of these strengths? Industry Day indicated TCP would not be part of the trade-off process. TCPs are typically part of the Contracts or Pricing Volume and evaluated according to FAR 52.222-46. According to question 137 of the posted Q&A, the Government intended to include the TCP in the Cost/Price Volume and evaluated on a pass/fail basis. To ensure fair competition, will the Government consider moving the TCP to Volume III and eliminate it from the technical trade-off as originally intended?

The Government is moving the requirements for TCP to Volume III and will evaluate it on a pass/fail basis, eliminating it from the technical trade-off.

(Page 102) M3.2.2, Tab 3.1: This seems like a near duplicate of Tab 3 above and already included in Tab 3 of TO3. Recommend removing Tab 3.1 under M3.2.2.

This requirements applies to TOs 0002 and 0003

M4.3 Relevancy Assessment lists a detailed description of the evaluation approach to PWS requirements. However, these evaluation areas (MS&A, Analysis Resource Portal, Consolidated Computer Facility, and Continuous Service Improvement) do not directly align with the PWS. Further, L.8.1, Tab 4, Past Performance Information, instructs the offeror to identify how their past performance references are similar to the PWS. Recommend aligning the detailed description of the evaluation approach under M4.3 with the MSCC PWS for ease of evaluation.

Para. M4.3 describes the manner in which relevancy will be determined, and is applicable across the entire PWS. Offerors shall demonstrate experience and success in as many mission and functional areas of the PWS as possible.

M4.3 Relevancy Assessment lists a detailed description of the evaluation approach to PWS requirements, including MS&A, Analysis Resource Portal, Consolidated Computer Facility, and Continuous Service Improvement. The requirements to be rated “Very Relevant” for MS&A, Analysis Resource Portal, and Consolidated Computer Facility seem very restrictive since it requires the reference to be a prime contract and relevant to all listed areas (A, B, C, D). However, in Section L.8.1, Tab 4, the RFP asks for references “performed either as a prime or a subcontractor.”

Given that proposing small business primes in this revenue threshold likely have minimal prime experience and will leverage the resources of large business subcontractors, this seems to be an unnecessary and restrictive requirement. To ensure a fair competition, we recommend changing the “Very Relevant” requirement to references performing as prime or subcontractor.

M4.4.1 has been revised to permit the submission of relevant past performance information as either a prime contractor or a subcontractor.

Please clarify how the Government will evaluate price.

M.10.4 states, “For purposes of contract award, best value will be based on the contract proposal at Tab 6 of Volume III.” Is this a total of the combined price of all TOs? How does the fully burdened composite rates in Attachment 14 and 15 factor in? Question 133 of the posted Q&A suggests that “prices will be determined using offerors’ fully burdened labor rates listed in RFP Attachment [14].” However, offerors are to propose their own labor categories according to Government instructions. How will the Government ensure a fair "apples to apples" comparison of the rates and total price when factoring in fully burdened rates and hours for the three task orders?

The Government's evaluation of price will assess cost/price reasonableness, realism, and affordability. We expect each offeror's cost/price proposal to be different, and each will be evaluated on it's own merits in the determination of best value. Best value determinations enable the Government to award to other than the lowest priced offeror based on a combined assessment of technical capability, past performance, risk, and price - therefore a standardized cost/price structure applicable to all offerors is not necessary.

Section L.9.4 Tab 4: Accounting System, Page 93 of 110 "If the Government has not determined your accounting system to be adequate within the past three years, complete the Pre-award Survey, Section J, Attachment 17. Section J, Attachment 17 is a preaward survey of prospective contractor for technical capability.

Did the Government intend to attach the preaward survey of prospective contractor for accounting system?

No.

Section L.9.6 Tab 6: Contract Cost/Price Proposal, Page 93 of "Summary spreadsheets shall be provided in current format;

however, detail spreadsheets feeding these may be in contractor format." Please confirm that the summary spreadsheets in current format is Attachment 14.

Attachment 14 provides the format for submission of burdened labor rates that will eventually be attached to the awarded MSCC contract, for use in pricing the work required under future task orders. As there will be both cost type and fixed price task orders, offerors may choose to submit two separate pricing tables reflecting burdened labor rates for cost type and fixed price work, or use a single rate for both types of effort.

Section L.9.6 Tab 6: Contract Cost/Price Proposal, Page 93 of "Show fully burdened hourly rates at Section J, Attachment 14.

Using Section J, Attachment 15, Schedule 1, provide subcontract cost burdened with the applicable indirect rates. Use Section J, Attachment 16, TO Template to propose to Tos 0001, 0002, and SAMPLE 0003. Is the subcontractor only required to prepare and submit Attachment 15? Please confirm. Attachment 16 appears to be in Prime Contractor format only.

Attachments 15 & 16 have been deleted from the RFP.

Section J, Attachment 15 "Fully Burdened Subcontractor Rate; this rate should include the base labor rate, and applicable burdens. No Fee is allowed on Subcontractor Labor." This attachment is to include Subcontractor labor rates. Please clarify that the Subcontractor is allowed to apply fee/profit to the fully burdened rates.

Will the fully burdened labor rates be used as benchmarks for CPFF and FFP Task Orders (TOs)? Recommend that separate rates be provided for CPFF and FFP TOs as different inherent risks exist between the two contract types. Additionally, fee/profit is applied differently to CPFF and FFP contract types.

As there will be both cost type and fixed price task orders, offerors may choose to submit two separate pricing tables reflecting burdened labor rates for cost type and fixed price work, or use a single rate for both types of effort.

Section J, Attachment 15 "Fully Burdened Subcontractor Rate; this rate should include the base labor rate, and applicable burdens. No Fee is allowed on Subcontractor Labor." Are the proposed labor rates FFP or CPFF rates?

Offerors may choose to submit a single rate for both FFP and CPFF work, or propose two separate rates depending on type.

Section J, Attachment 15 Years 2018 - 2023 are listed in the attachment. How do the years provided correspond to the PoP?

2018 - 2023 reflect the proposed contract's five year ordering period, therefore offerors should build pricing tables that reflect whatever escalation may be applicable across all five years of the ordering period.

Section L.9.6.1 TO 0001 Tab 1, Page 95 of 110 Provide a cost detail, in an electronic spreadsheet format, by major cost elements in the format at Section J, Attachment 15…Reference section L-8.6, Supporting Detail… Please confirm that the intention was to reference Attachment 16 and section L- 9.6.

Yes, intention was to reference Attachment 16, however Pricing attachments will be revised.

Section L/M - TO 1,2,3 Please clarify how the evaluation of the TO responses will be consolidated with the overall Technical Volume rating.

How does the evaluation criteria specified in Section M for the TOs map in importance to the Tech Vol score?

It is the responsibility of the SSA to make a combined assessment based on the recommendation of the Source Selection Evaluation Team in his determination of best value. As such, the evaluation of TO technical proposals, in addition to the Offeror's technical volume, will be made independently. The evaluation criteria for technical capability is equally applicable to both Task Order technical proposals and the Offeror's technical volume.

TO 1,2,3

Comparison of PWS and TO 1,2,3 for period of performance.

What period of performance for pricing action does the Government expect for each TO? Does the pricing period include the option period as well?

Period of Performance will be added to each TO

Section L.9.6.1 - Tab 2 Task Order 2 shall be proposed as FFP and as CR.

The Task Order PWS does not indicate how its scope should be divided, if at all, between CPFF and FFP. Is the government requesting two alternative proposals, or is it suggesting the scope should be split? The Task Order PWS is silent about any preference by the Government as to what scope is FFP, if any; is this up to Offeror's discretion?

Task Order 0002 will be primarily FFP as far as the Labor cost is concerned, however a Cost Reimbursable CLIN will be established to pay for Other Direct Costs such as travel, materials, etc. Two proposals are not necessary, nor is a split in the scope of the task order.

Section B "All labor" necessary to perform O&M for Requirements 1, 5, and 7 should be quoted as CPFF for item 1000; Item 2000 then requests "all labor" necessary for the same requirements as an FFP line. This issue repeats for the options (1001/2001) and again for RDT&E for Requirements 1,2,3,4, and 6 (see 3000/4000; 3001/40001) and again. The PWS is silent about any preference by the government as to what scope is FFP, if any. Is this up to Offeror's discretion?

The MSCC CLIN structure listed in the solicitation is the framework we intend to use on all MSCC task orders, depending on the nature of the work to be performed and the funding on the contract to pay for it. Do not price the CLINs on the Basic contract -they are strictly for use and inclusion in the task orders issued thereunder. Offerors' pricing should be applied at the task order level only.

PWS 3.1.3.3

REF: Sections subordinate to 3.1.3.3 are numbered as follows:

Revised PWS will be posted to FBO

3.1.3.3.1 3.1.3.4 3.1.3.5 3.1.3.6 3.1.3.7 Should the correct numbering be as follows?

3.1.3.3.1 3.1.3.3.2 3.1.3.3.3 3.1.3.3.4 3.1.3.3.5

L.2-Communications REF: … Email may be used to transmit such information to Offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes...

32 Please identify the system on which the Government intends to send Offerors encrypted email.

The Government will use Microsoft Outlook to send and receive encrypted e-mail traffic.

L.4.2-Binding and Labeling REF: …Include a cover sheet in the front of each binder, clearly marked with the Offeror’s name, volume number and title, solicitation identification and the copy number (for example:

Company A, Volume I, RFP FA2517-15-R-7003, MSCC, (copy 2 of 3). …

Offerors will be expected to provide four hard copies and one electronic copy of their proposals.

Please provide the number of bound copies of each of the following volumes the Government requires to be delivered on July 6, 2017.

· Volume I Technical Capability

· Volume II Past Performance

· Volume III Cost/Price L.4.7-Electronic Copies REF: The Offeror shall submit a complete copy of the proposal in electronic format, IAW the above instructions, using non-rewritable compact disks (CD-R). …

Are we correct to assume the Government requires delivery of one (1) electronic copy of each of the following volumes on July 6, 2017?

Correct - however the Government desires a separate CD for each volume.

· Volume I Technical Capability

· Volume II Past Performance

· Volume III Cost/Price

L.7.3.2 & L.7.3.3 REF: L.7.3.2 TO 0002 – AVAC Tab 3 and L.7.3.3 TO 0003 – Technical Tab 3.1 (RFQ p. 89) instruct the following: “Referencing requirements at section L.6.5.4, Tab 7, provide a narrative describing your staffing approach to ensure adequate performance of TO requirements.”

Reference L.6.5.4 removed from RFP

There does not appear to be a section L.6.5.4, Tab 7 in the RFQ document. Can the Government advise if/where these additional requirements are in the RFQ?

L.8.1, Tab 4 REF: …Offeror shall also include no more than three (3) recent contracts performed by each teaming partner and significant subcontractor(s). …

This requirement is a bit ambiguous and appears to be anti-SB.

Are we correct to assume the Government wants no more than a total of three (3) teaming partner/subcontractor PPI submissions per prime submission? This requires the prime to submit 2 PPIs themselves. Is this appropriate for a SB set-aside where many SBs are not primes, but significant subcontractors providing vital support instead, and per Section L, would need to submit 2 prime contracts > $5M?

Past Performance Information shall be provided on no more than five recent (within the past three years) contracts for the prime contractor, and no more than three recent contracts for subcontractors.

L.9 REF: 9 Volume III – Cost/Price ...The Government expects to receive a written cost proposal for all Tabs listed below for all prime contractors and subcontractors, and excel cost proposals for Tab 5 and 6 for the prime contractors and subcontractors.

L.9.5 Tab 5 is Financial Capability which does not appear to require an excel spreadsheet for the Offeror’s response.

Should the instructions in L.9 say “The Government expects to receive a written cost proposal for all Tabs listed below for all prime contractors and subcontractors, and excel cost proposals for Tab 6 and Tabs 1, 2 and 3 of the TO Cost Volume for the prime contractors and subcontractors.”?

Please reference Section L.9.6 (Tab 6).

L.9.3 Tab 3 WRT Contractors Purchasing Systems (CPSR), 48 CFR Part 44, Subpart 44.3 states, “The ACO shall determine the need for a CPSR based on, but not limited to, the past performance of the contractor, and the volume, complexity and dollar value of the subcontracts. If a contractor’s sales to the Government (excluding competitively awarded firm-fixed-price and competitively awarded fixed-price with economic price adjustment contracts and sales of commercial items pursuant to Part 12) are expected to exceed $25 million during the next 12 months, perform a review to determine if a CPSR is needed. Sales include those represented by prime contracts, subcontracts under Government prime contracts, and modifications. Generally, a CPSR is not performed for a specific contract. The head of the agency responsible for contract administration may raise or lower the $25 million review level if it is considered to be in the Government’s best interest.”

This requirement is onerous for small businesses with much lower revenues and not expecting to exceed $25 million over the next 12 months.

A significant portion of the MSCC contract is expected to be on a Cost Reimbursable basis, and the Government must ensure that contractor's large and small participating in the MSCC contract have accounting and purchasing systems capable of accurately tracking costs in accordance with DCAA standards.

Therefore we respectfully request this requirement be removed.

Does the government require 3 submissions for Section B for each separate task order?

The MSCC CLIN structure listed in the solicitation is the framework we intend to use on all MSCC task orders, depending on the nature of the work to be performed and the funding on the contract to pay for it. Do not price the CLINs in Section B of the Basic contract - they are strictly for use and inclusion in the task orders issued thereunder.

Offerors' pricing should be applied at the task order level only.

L.9.7.2, Section B How should the contractor submit Rqmt 1 labor funds (3400 and 3600 funds)?

The MSCC CLIN structure listed in the solicitation is the framework we intend to use on all MSCC task orders, depending on the nature of the work to be performed and the funding on the contract to pay for it. Do not price the CLINs in Section B of the Basic contract - they are strictly for use and inclusion in the task orders issued thereunder.

Offerors' pricing should be applied at the task order level only.

L.9.7.2, Section B How should the contractor price “Max Quantity Undefined” under 1000, 1001, 3000, 3001, 5000, 5001, 6000, 6001, 7001

The MSCC CLIN structure listed in the solicitation is the framework we intend to use on all MSCC task orders, depending on the nature of the work to be performed and the funding on the contract to pay for it. Do not price the CLINs in Section B of the Basic contract - they are strictly for use and inclusion in the task orders issued thereunder.

Offerors' pricing should be applied at the task order level only.

M.3.1.1, SF 1b REF: Demonstrate (using process flow diagrams) a successful approach to prepare and execute software development tasks to include (Basic PWS para 3.3.1):

To “execute” software development, the contractor must perform ALL tasks – that is, you cannot execute software development without a successful approach to software development planning, software requirements definition, software design notes/documentation, software integration and testing, and software installation and acceptance. Not successfully completing each task would result in poor software execution.

· Software Development Planning

· Software Requirements Definition

· Software Design Notes / Documentation

· Software Integration and Testing

· Software Installation and Acceptance Please clarify under which bullet you expect “execute software” development tasks fall under? Would it belong under Integration, or should another bullet be added that says “Software Development”?

M.3.1.4, SF 4a and b REF: a. Demonstrate (using process flow diagrams) a successful approach to operate and maintain UNCLASSIFIED, SECRET, and TOP SECRET resource portals to include (Basic PWS para 3.5):

A “Resource Portal Concept and Configuration” also requires an effective “Configuration Control Process." An effective "Resource Portal Concept and Configuration" without an effective "Configuration Control Process" could result in failure. This is also true of an effective "Configuration Control Process" without an effective "Resource Portal Concept and configuration".

· Resource Portal Concept and Configuration

· Data Life Cycle Management

· Data/Information Access

· Resource Portal Maintenance Concept (including work order resolution)

· Resource Portal Improvement Processes

· Resource Portal Security Management

b. Demonstrate an effective process for configuration control of the resource portal and how to ensure operational availability and minimize portal downtime. (Basic PWS para 3.5.3.12)

How is bullet 1 “Resource Portal Concept and Configuration” (para a.) different from “b. effective process for configuration control of the resource portal” (para b.).?

M.3.1.4, SF 4a and b REF: a. Demonstrate (using process flow diagrams) a successful approach to operate and maintain UNCLASSIFIED, SECRET, and TOP SECRET resource portals to include (Basic PWS para 3.5):

Part b should describe how the “Resource Portal Maintenance Concept” (including Configuration Control) minimizes portal downtime.

· Resource Portal Concept and Configuration

· Data Life Cycle Management

· Data/Information Access

· Resource Portal Maintenance Concept (including work order resolution)

· Resource Portal Improvement Processes

· Resource Portal Security Management

b. Demonstrate an effective process for configuration control of the resource portal and how to ensure operational availability and minimize portal downtime. (Basic PWS para 3.5.3.12)

How is “Resource Portal Maintenance Concept” (para a) different from “how to ensure operational availability and minimize portal downtime” (para b)?

M.3.1.4, SF 4 b REF: a. Demonstrate (using process flow diagrams) a successful approach to operate and maintain UNCLASSIFIED, SECRET, and TOP SECRET resource portals to include (Basic PWS para 3.5):

The government understands that the contractor cannot be held responsible for factors outside their control such as base power outages. Part b should describe how the "Configuration Control Processes" put in place by the contractor will ensure operational availability within constraints outside the contractor's control.

· Resource Portal Concept and Configuration

· Data Life Cycle Management

· Data/Information Access

· Resource Portal Maintenance Concept (including work order resolution)

· Resource Portal Improvement Processes

· Resource Portal Security Management

b. Demonstrate an effective process for configuration control of the resource portal and how to ensure operational availability and minimize portal downtime. (Basic PWS para 3.5.3.12)

Please explain AFSPC’s/A9’s role/resources provided in “ensuring operational availability and minimize portal downtime” in resolving issues outside of the contractor’s control?

M.3.2.1, Tab 1 REF: Tab 1: Executive Summary: Please provide a summary specific to this TO; however, the summary will not evaluated (section L.6.5.1).

Removed Executive Summary language

The reference L.6.5.1 does not exist. Should this reference be L.7.1?

M.3.2.1, Tab 2 REF: Tab 2: Assumptions to Solicitation Requirements: See statement in section L.6.5.2.

Revised reference.

The reference L.6.5.2 does not exist. Should this reference be L.7.2?

Revised reference.

M.3.2.3, Tab 1 REF: Tab 1: Executive Summary: Please provide a summary specific to this TO; however, the summary will not evaluated (section L.6.5.1).

Removed Executive Summary language

51 The reference L.6.5.1 does not exist. Should this reference be L.7.1?

Revised reference.

M.3.2.3, Tab 2 REF: Tab 2: Assumptions to Solicitation Requirements: See statement in section L.6.5.2.

Revised reference.

53 The reference L.6.5.2 does not exist. Should this reference be L.7.2?

Revised reference.

M.4.3 Relevancy Assessment REF: Offerors shall demonstrate experience and success in as many mission and functional areas of the PWS as possible, so that collectively, citations reflect past performance in all aspects of the contract. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings will be rated as given in the following Table 4, taken from the DoD Source Selection Guide Dated 1 April 2016.

Based on M.4.3 it appears the Government is prepared to apply a score to each contract cited in a PPI. Can you share the formula by which relevancy assessments (VR, R, SR, NR) within each PPI will be scored and then tallied as a total for each prime submission to be objectively evaluated against other offerors?

(e.g., How would a single citation that is Very Relevant in two of the criteria but Not Relevant in the other two criteria be rated?)

In the evaluation of offerors' past performance the Government intends to follow the guidance in Table 4 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dtd 31 March 2016. As such, past performance will not be scored, however it will be rated. Past performance that may be rated Very Relevant in two of the criteria but Not Relevant in the other two criteria be rated would likely be rated as Relevant or possibly Somewhat Relevant, but such a rating is highly dependent on the exact nature of that offeror's past performance.

Past Performance Information should be provided on no more than five (5) recent (performed during past three (3) years) contracts performed either as a prime or a subcontractor, or for teaming partners/significant subcontractor(s). Note that work performed as subcontractors shall reference their prime contractor’s point of contact and not indirect customers (i.e. submissions should reference POC with direct contract relationship). A contract is considered one contract, or one work assignment for the prime, joint venture partner, team partner, subcontractor, predecessor company, or key personnel (If using key personnel past performance, include individual name in the EZ Source tool. Each contract may have multiple questionnaires, one per point of contact.

Offeror shall also include no more than three (3) recent contracts performed by each teaming partner and significant subcontractor(s). A subcontractor is considered significant if it is anticipated they will perform more than 20% of the overall contract labor value or will be performing an entire mission or functional areas, SF 1: Software Development, SF 2: Knowledge of Modeling and Simulation (M&S) tools and how used to support studies, analyses, and Analysis of Alternatives (AoAs), SF 3:

Knowledge of M&S analysis processes, methodologies, and scenario development, and SF 4: Approach to operation, enhancement, support, and maintenance of a space and cyberspace resource portal in accordance with AF and DoD standards. In addition, level of knowledge concerning space and cyberspace systems, models and simulations, authoritative data sources IAW Air Force DoD Policy Directives, see Section J, Attachment 16. Relevant past performance information provided shall be consistent with the team structure provided in the Technical Volume.

M.4.4.1, M.4.5.1 and M.4.6.1 We assume the government’s designation of the MSCC IDIQ as a Small Business Set Aside and a Best Value procurement indicates its desire is to attract technically superior small business teams to the MSCC competition.

According to the government’s response on Question 40 answered in the 24 April 2017 Q&A response, the government indicated that “No one small business seemed to have the ability to cover all aspects of Space and cyber analysis support….”.

WRT to the solicitation’s past performance evaluation criteria, the requirement to be a prime contractor in order to earn a Very Relevant rating is inconsistent with this statement/sentiment.

Therefore, we recommend the government consider changing the criteria to “Prime or as a Subcontractor performing primary and vital requirements of a contract or task order…”

Secondly, the criteria requiring work to be performed as a Prime to be considered “Very Relevant” in M4.4.1, 4.5.1 and M4.6.1 clearly limits competition by making it impossible for traditional small businesses to achieve a Very Relevant rating for any past performance, despite their role on a contract or task order.

We respectfully request the Government consider changing the requirement to be considered Very Relevant in M4.4.1, 4.5.1 and M4.6.1 by changing from “… below in a contract as a Prime contractor, …” to “…below in a contract as a Prime or as a Subcontractor performing primary and vital requirements of a contract or task order,…”?

Revised from Prime Contractor to "Prime Contractor or Subcontractor" for Sections M.4.1, M4.5.1, and M.4.6.1

M.4.7, M.4.7.1 & M.4.7.2 REF: M.4.7 Continuous Service Improvement

M.4.7.1 Very Relevant - To be considered very relevant, the Offeror must show experience in criteria A, B, and C listed below in a contract with at least an annual amount of $5 million supporting analysis efforts at a DoD Command Headquarters or similar U.S. Government Agency Headquarters.

M.4.7.2 Relevant - To be considered relevant, the Offeror must show experience in at least two of the criteria listed below in a contract with at least an annual amount of $5 million supporting analysis efforts at a DoD Command Headquarters or similar U.S.

Government Agency Headquarters.

The Small Business (SB) size limitation to compete on this IDIQ must be under $27.5M. Additionally, a strong Continuous Service Improvement (CSI) protocol should be valid across various contracts of differing technical requirements and should stand on its own merit regardless of contract value or size.

The requirements M.4.7.1 & M.4.7.2 that only contracts valued at least $5M dollars/yr can be cited to achieve a “Very Relevant” or “Somewhat Relevant” is not a reliable qualification or predictor of a quality CSI model or its successful implementation. Rather a more reliable measure WRT MSCC would be to gauge 1) contract size, 2) subcontracting capability, 3) similar IT-related NAICS, and

4) task order CSI completeness for this MS&A IDIQ.

The $5M/year threshold under a $27.5M NAICS code procurement means that the SB bidder has approximately 20% or more of their annual revenue dedicated to one task order contract, which is unrealistic for even the most experienced SBs.

We respectfully request the Government consider and remove the $5M/yr annual requirement from M4.7.1 & 4.7.2 so contracts with multiple task orders with successful CSI programs can achieve a “Very Relevant” or “Somewhat Relevant” rating based on sophistication and technical merit, and replace it with an amended scale based on other federal procurement practices seen from 3 other recent federal government IDIQ solicitations.

Table 4 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dtd 31 March 2016, defines the past performance rating of Very Relevant as "Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires." The value of $5M is approximately equal to the scope and magnitude of the CSI activities anticipated to be expended on the proposed MSCC contract, therefore we feel that the $5M threshold is appropriate.

Other recent federal SB IDIQ procurements (i.e., Alliant2 SB and VETS-2) required CONTRACT/TO VALUEs (not annual project revenue), and lower annual contract size thresholds (OASIS - $2.25M) for their relevancy scoring.

Aligning with this contract’s operational requirements and SB objectives, we suggest the following:

Very Relevant >$5M contract or task order value; for work done under the same NAICS (541511); with 3 or more subcontracted companies;

performing similar PWS requirements (5 or more); and show experience in criteria A, B, and C.

Relevant $2M - $5M contract or task order value; for work done under relevant IT-based NAICS; with 2 or more subcontracted companies; and performing similar PWS requirements (3-5); and show experience in at least 2 of the 3 criteria listed;

Somewhat Relevant $500K - $2M contract or task order value; for work done under relevant IT-based NAICS; and performing similar PWS requirements (3 or more), and show experience in any 1 of the 3 criteria listed.

M4.5.1 A and B Please describe the difference between “Change Management process” in the A criteria with “Service Configuration Management” in criteria B?

“Change Management process” in the A refers to managing updates/improvements of the SARP will the “Service Configuration Management” in criteria B refers to configuration control.

M4.5.1 Very Relevant, 4.5.2 Relevant and 4.5.3 Somewhat Relevant The requirement to show experience … at UNCLASSIFIED, SECRET and TOP SECRET seems very restrictive knowing the difficulties and the extensive time frame in getting a portal approved at all three classification levels on gov’t networks.

Would the gov’t consider changing the requirement to UNCLASSIFIED and CLASSIFIED levels for each of the criteria and not specifying SECRET or TOP SECRET. There are very few portals that are hosted on all three gov’t networks except for SharePoint and it has very limited capabilities and could not support the functionality/work flows that are present in the Space/Cyberspace Analysis Resource Portal.

The government will consider the recommended change to experience at the UNCLASSIFIED and CLASSIFIED levels for a VERY RELEVANT rating.

For example, a contractor may have experience in all 4 of the criteria but only supporting portals at the UNCLASSIFIED and SECRET level OR at the UNCLASSIFIED and Top Secret Level but would not meet any of the Very Relevant, Relevant or Somewhat Relevant ratings and would receive a Not Relevant.

M4.6.1 Very Relevant, 4.6.2 Relevant and 4.6.3 Somewhat Relevant The requirement to show experience … at UNCLASSIFIED, SECRET and TOP SECRET seems very restrictive knowing the difficulties in getting a portal approved at all three levels on gov’t networks. Would the gov’t consider changing the requirement to UNCLASSIFIED and CLASSIFIED levels for each of the criteria.

The government will consider the recommended change to experience at the UNCLASSIFIED and CLASSIFIED levels for a VERY RELEVANT rating.

For example, a contractor may have experience in performing Project Management (A), Portfolio Management (B), Transition Planning and Support of Consolidated Computer Facilities at the UNCLASSIFIED and SECRET level or at the UNCLASSIFIED and Top Secret Level but would get a NOT meet any of the Very Relevant, Relevant or Somewhat Relevant ratings and would receive a Not Relevant. Although Top Secret processing is somewhat different from the SECRET level, it still requires the same approval processes, IA controls, oversight, updates etc.

Attachment 6, MSCC OCI Disclosure/ Analysis Form REF: The instructions for block 4 do not align with the form structure as it is.

Revised Attachment 6, OCI Disclosure & Analysis Form

Block 4(a-f): Place an "X" in the appropriate box for the types of work where you believe conflicts of interest, real or perceived, exist. Immediately to the right, list the AFSPC contract/subcontract numbers with titles needing analysis and a Contracting Officer determination.

Block 4: Provide brief summaries of the work performed under the contract/subcontract(s) listed in Block 5. Include the period of performance and the total contract value.

Block 4(a-f): There is no a-f designation or an obvious “box” in which we should place an “X”.

Please align instructions with OCI form fields Block 4: Asks for summaries, but appears to be where the contract/subcontract should be listed and Block 5 appears to be where the summary should go Please clarify instructions and align the instructions to the form fields provided on Attachment 6.

MSCC_QAs_dtd_21Apr17_saw.pdf, QA #119 REF: QA #119 states – “Work performed by the small business prime contractor and any small business subcontractors may now be combined to satisfy the minimum 51% participation by small business under the contract.”

Attachment 16, tab “Limitation on Subcontracting” states, "The matrix below will be used for the purpose of compliance with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations of Subcontract. Under the 50 percent rule, at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the prime small business contractor. The prime contractor must meet this requirement (1) individually, or (2) together with other small business members of a formal joint venture, or (3) together with a small number of small business subcontractors forming an informal joint venture, in which those subcontractors meet the definition of “ostensible subcontractor” in 13 CFR 121.103(h)(4).

Team members in such formal and informal joint ventures are exempt from affiliation rules under the conditions in 13 CFR 121.103(h)(3). There is no limit to the number of other team subcontractors."

The answer in Q&A 119 doesn’t match with FAR 52.219-14 unless you are inferring that “combined” meets the conditions of

(2) or (3) above. There is great confusion and interpretation as to the definition of what “ostensible subcontractor” means?

Please provide further clarification so that the prime presents the correct teaming relationship.

In accordance with FAR 19.508(e) or FAR 19.811-3(e), FAR 52.219-14 is applicable to this requirement. Section 52.219-14(c)(1) states, Services (except construction). At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.

The 21CONS answer in the Q&A is inconsistent with formal 21CONS policy and FAR 52.219-14 which indicates that the SB prime still has to perform 51% of the labor costs with their own employees.

Pls see above response.

Page 94 paragraph 6 “Fixed Fee/Profit” states that “On TOs involving subcontractors, the subcontractor may charge fee/profit on their proposed labor, and the Prime may charge fee on the Prime’s proposed labor. The Prime is not allowed to charge a direct pass-through fee on subcontractor labor”.

The government will remove that statement from the RFP. Profit/fee will be allowed on subcontracting work.

30-May-17

Reference: L.4.3 Discussion: L.4.3 states “The Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 19) shall be used to provide a cross-reference matrix indicating where discussion of all evaluation areas listed in paragraphs L.6.1 through L.6.5.6, can be found in the offeror’s proposal.” However, specific instructions regarding the location/inclusion of Attachment 19 are not provided.

Question(s): Where does the CRM (Attachment 19) reside in the proposal? Separate file? Front of each volume?

The attachment for the cross reference matrix is found at Attachment 17. As instructed at Section L.4.3, please incorporate Attachment 17 immediately following the table of contents for each volume.

Reference: L.4.6 Discussion: L.4.6 requires that “Each Volume and tab shall be written on a stand alone basis…” This guidance is high restrictive, given the sheer number of tabs found in each volume. In the Task Order section alone, every paragraph is tabbed, per section L.

Question(s): Please confirm that offerors can cross reference within a given volume. Please confirm that offerors can cross-reference between the Technical Volume and the Task Orders (however they are bound)

All volumes must be stand alone volumes. Offeror may cross reference within a particular volume but may not cross reference across volumes; i.e., do not reference data located in the Technical volume within the Past Performance or Cost volumes or vice versa.

Reference: L.6.9 Discussion: L.6.9 (first para) states “In addition, level of knowledge, concerning space and cyberspace systems, models and simulations, authoritative data sources:” These words are neither a sentence nor clear in their intentions.

Question(s): Will the Government reword this sentence to clarify its intention and or instructions?

This Section is now L.6.8

Changed to read: In addition, knowledge of space and cyberspace systems, models and simulations, and authoritative data sources:

Reference: L.6.4; L.6.10 Discussion: Paragraph L.6.4 is labeled as “Tab 4.”

Paragraph L.6.10 is labeled as “Tab 4.”

Question(s): Will the Government update the Tab numbering for the Technical Volume.

L.6.4 is now tab 3; L.6.10 has been removed.

Reference: L.6.10; L.7.3 Discussion: Under L.7.3, each Task Order has a designated paragraph for assumptions. L.6.10 is titled “Assumptions to Technical Requirements” and requires that all assumptions made in the development of proposal to be document in that paragraph. It is unclear why L.6.10 is required and placed where it is.

Question(s): Why are the assumptions to technical requirements located at the end of the technical volume? Ca that paragraph be moved by offerors?