CLOIS-III Draft RFP Q and A.pdf

Item Reference Question Answer

M_00_Draft_Section_M_as_of_ 17_Feb_22.pdf and L_05_Cost_Price_Workbook_as _of_7_Feb.xls

To ensure a fair competition, will the Government establish a separate CLIN for phase-in, vehicles and equipment which will be evaluated separately and not a part of the total evaluated price?

The Government has considered this recommendation but ultimately has concluded it is in the Government's best interest that Phase-in, vehicles, and contractor provided equipment be included the Total Evaluted Price.

M_00_Draft_Section_M_as)of_1 7_Reb_22.pdf Paragraph 1.1

Would the Government consider changing the evaluation to a Best Value Trade Off where both Technical and Past Performance each are more important than Price?

The Government has considered this recommendation but ultimately has concluded Past Performance Tradeoff as the most appropriate source selection methodology for this acquisition.

Section L, 2.1.1, 2.1.3 Section M, 2.2, 2.3

Section L 2.1.1 asks to "provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying this subfactor". Section L 2.1.2 states "The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess the proposed technical approach and associated technical risk IAW Section M, Evaluation Basis for Award. The written technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors to describe the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the PWS and all attachments." The subfactors identified are Organization, Resource Management, and Transition Plan. Volume I - Factor 1 - "Technical" appears to be a Management Volume (Organization, Resource Management, and Transition Plan). Does the Government expect the proposers to address any technical PWS elements when defining our approach or methodology? Or, does the Government desire an approach or methodology that only addresses Organization, Resource Management, and Transition plan? If the Government desires both, an increase in page count should be considered and we recommend 50 pages if both (Management and Technical) are to be addressed.

The Government only expects offerors to address the information requested in Section L which will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.

Section L, 5.1.1 Reference: "Provide a listing of contracts performed by the offeror within the last three years."

As a member of a Mentor Protégé JV, this could be 1000's of contracts for the Mentor.

Would it be possible to put boundaries around this requirement such as "contracts within the responsible Business Unit"?

This requirement has been removed under paragraph 5.1.1.

Section L, 5.1.1 Reference: "Provide a copy of the offeror's financial statements for the last three completed fiscal years"

In this environment where companies are sold/acquired and new companies are formed, it is possible that a new entity doesn't have 3 years of financials. If a company has not existed for 3 years, is it acceptable to submit financials for the years it has been in existence?

Language revised to require narrative explanation along with financial statements. If 3 years of financials are not available, the narrative explanation shall address the circumstances and provide adequate detail to assist the Contracting Officer with responsibility determination.

PWS Page 13 Section 1.1.5.1 In the development of our Security program the PWS states to use the Space Launch Delta

(SLD 45) Integrated Defense Plan (IDP) 31-1 as a guide. Will the Government make a copy available for review, and where can it be found?

A copy of the Integrated Defense Plan (IDP) will be provided for review as part of the Bidder's Library.

PWS Page 14 Section 1.1.7 What is the capacity of the virtual servers? Will SLD 45 be responsible for any maintenance or required upgrades?

The Government will not provide virtual servers.

This statement will be removed from the Performance Work Statement.

PWS Page 20 Section 1.1.8.5 Environmental Management System (EMS), and General Awareness Training (AFIT) in TEACH must be completed within 10 days of starting work. How does the contractor obtain access for this training?

The Environmental Awareness Course Hub (TEACH) is accessible to the public; individuals need to set up an account, then can search for and take the class listed at the following link:

https://usaf.learningbuilder.com/

PWS Page 21 Section 1.2.1.2.2 Performance of the scheduling, monitoring and accurate Communication to de-conflict movement of heavy equipment and oversize loads is to be done in accordance with the Range Hub Memorandum. Will the government provide a copy of this document for review and where can it be found?

A copy of the Range Hub Memorandum will be provided for review as part of the Bidder's Library.

PWS Page 22 Section 1.2.1.4.5 Is there an estimated number of the Detachment-1 annual tours of the installation? Will the requests be generated as Service Work Orders

Performance Work Statement (PWS)/Work Load Indicators (WLIs) will be modified to state "Support installation infrastructure and facility site visits."

WLI's updated to reflect 2 site visits/month on average.

PWS Page 22 Section 1.2.1.6 and Section 1.2.1.7

Is the Cape Daily Bulletin report and Cape Support Highlights Report the same? Is the requirement to E-mail the Cape Daily Bulletin to a selected list of offices provided by the Government each day by 0700?

No, they are not the same. The distribution list will be provided during transition. An example of each will be provided in the Bidder's Library.

PWS Page 22 Section 1.2.2.1.1 and Page 23 Section 1.2.2.3

Are all work request required to be generated on AF form 332 or are KSC-SRs accepted? If so, what is the KSC-SR form number?

KSC-CR is an obsolete form and it will be removed from the PWS. Customers will use the AF Form 332.

PWS Page 24 Section 1.2.2.8.7 and Page 67 Section 1.6.12.3

Contractor Non Operational Labor is to be approved by the government per Section 1.6.12.3.

For the first year are these cost negotiated or should an estimated cost be added to the proposal for the first year?

The Government has established a plug number for this CLIN based on anticipated number of weather delays and launch evacuations.

Solicitation FA2521-22-R-0009, CLOIS III RFI 3 - Draft Request for Proposal (RFP)

Questions & Answers 3 May 2022

DISCLAIMER: All answers given are pre-decisional. Should any Solicitation documents conflict with the answers given below, the solicitation documents shall take precedence. These answers are being provided only with the goals of clarifying the Government's intent and obtaining feedback from Industry. Some answers may have changed in light of incorporating Industry feedback since they were answered. The RFP will incorporate more changes than those indicated below.

PWS Page 25 Section 1.2.2.9.4 Will a list be provided of all SLD 45 customers that the contractor is required to obtain clearances for coordination of permits to perform work?

This may apply to any customer with a fully executed Task Order (TO). The WLIs include an estimated number of permits per year. These are permits specific to the work requirement. i.e. if the work requires digging, the contractor needs a dig permit.

PWS Page 25 Section 1.2.2.12 Will the Government make a copy of the Civil Engineering Work Management Playbook with the process to conduct Work Order Closeout available for review, and if so where can it be found?

The Civil Engineer Work Management Playbook will be provided as part of the Bidder's Library.

16 PWS Page 27 Section 1.2.7.2 For Statements of Magnitude (SOM) estimates and project conceptual scope: Is there an accuracy within +/-% requirement?

There is no accuracy within +/-% requirement.

PWS Page 27 Section 1.2.7.2 and Page 21 Section 1.2.1.2.1

CDRL Number 016 on page 27 and CDRL A016 on page 21 the same requirement? They are not the same requirement. The PWS will be updated. 1.2.7.2. is the Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL) for Statement of Magnitude (SOM),

1.2.1.2.1 is CDRL A013 and unrelated.

PWS Page 33 Section 1.4.1.1.2 When is the 5 year cleaning of the water storage tanks and coating integrity inspection on the finished drinking water storage tanks due?

Due 5 years from last, will be required once during base performance. The water storage tank inspection was last completed in 2018 on Patrick Space Force Base, and 2021 for Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.

PWS Page 36 Section 1.4.2.9 When are the Waste Water Treatment Facility Permit When are the Waste Water Treatment Facility Permit renewals due and how often are they renewed?

The Waste Water Treatment Facility Permit is from 2020 and must be renewed every 5 years. The Government performs renewal, but the contractor will be expected to provide data/inputs for permit.

PWS Page 37 Section 1.4.4 Is there a list of all the locations for Utility Meters that require collection of monthly readings? Also, the PWS references Appendix F but the RFP identifies Appendix G as the appropriate appendix for meters.

A listing of all meters and locations is provided in Appendix G. PWS Section 1.4.4. references Appendix G.

PWS Page 38 Section 1.4.6.1 Will the Engineering Technical Letter 11-1 certification requirements for appointment of our

Industrial Control Systems Manager be made available for review, and if so where can it be found?

Certification requirements are publicly available and can be found online.

PWS Page 40 Section1.4.9.1 What is the requirement for the replacement of existing Road signs that currently do not meet the US Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control (MUTCD) standards?

Per Emergency or repair standards as they are identified. It's not meant to be a requirement that all signs be repaired, replaced or installed within some number of days from contract start. For example, a stop sign is hit in a traffic incident and is bent/damaged - sign needs to be replaced as it no longer meets the MUTCD for visual queues to the driver.

PWS Page 41 Section 1.4.12.4 Is there a current Grounding/ Lightning Protection Plan approved for the facilities and protected systems to follow or will a new plan need to be developed and approved?

No. The requirement is to maintain existing systems.

They have been installed in accordance with applicable National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidance.

PWS Page 52 Section 1.5.6.1 Is the performance of EDC reproduction services required? How is the cost of reproduction supplies covered?

Yes. The cost of reproduction supplies would be covered under the cost-reimbursable Materials CLIN.

25 PWS Page 53 Section 1.5.8.4 Is the maintenance of the vegetation height for Lines of Sight and Quantity Distances considered base line work?

No, this is outside the scope of CLOIS III.

PWS Page 64 Section 1.6.2.1 Is the Installation of X09 cipher locks considered baseline work? Yes, if it is the replacement of an existing lock, it would be covered under section 1.3.15. If it is new, it is not baseline work and covered under 1.6.2.1.

PWS Page 68 Section 1.6.15.3.3 For the Electrical-Chemical Laboratory Services provided, are all customers to be invoiced for the work performed? If not, how will we be informed which customers are outside the scope of the CLOIS III contract to be invoiced separately?

Customers are charged/invoiced based on services provided and according to the terms and conditions of their individual task order. Services are not authorized for customers who do not have an awarded task order. The contractor is required to ensure customers provide a statement that the equipment being tested is not Air Force Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) which requires a certified Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory (PMEL) test.

PWS Paragraph 1.1.2.6.3 states:

“Ensure the following contractors are associate contractors with whom agreements exist: Fire and Emergency Management Services (FEMS) contractor, Ascension Auxiliary Airfield Support contractor, Technical Range Architect Engineering Services (TRACES) contractor, Environmental Support contractor, Eastern/Western Operational Communications Services (EWOCS) contractor, and Launch and Test Range System Integrated Support Contract (LISC) contractor”.

Can the Government provide a general statement that defines the correlation, duties and responsibilities required to support the above mentioned associate contractors addressed in PWS Para 1.1.2.6.3?

“Associate Contractor Agreements” (ACA) are agreements between contractors working on government contracts or projects that specify requirements for them to share information, data, technical knowledge, expertise, or resources. Prime contractor to subcontractor relationships do not constitute ACAs, and are not subject to this section’s requirements. The contracting officer may require ACAs when contractors working on separate Government contracts must cooperate, share resources or otherwise jointly participate in working on contracts or projects. The contractor should tailor each ACA to the requirements of the individual contracting situation (Reference: AFFARS PGI 5317.9000)

PWS 1.1.2.1.1 The PWS states in part "In the event of departure of key personnel, a replacement Program Director meeting the Minimum Qualifications must be in place within 14 days of the previous Program Director’s departure

In our experience, identifying, hiring, relocating and placing into position the top manager on this contract (i.e., Program Director) would most likely not be possible within 14 days. Will the Government consider extending this period to at least 30 days?

The Program Director is a key personnel position and vacancy of this position shall not exceed 14 days. The offeror should develop appropriate plans to staffing and recruitment that will facilitate achieving this requirement.

PWS 1.1.2.1.1 The PWS states in part "In the event of departure of key personnel, a replacement Program Director meeting the Minimum Qualifications must be in place within 14 days of the previous Program Director’s departure

If the contractor fails to backfill this position within the 14 days, are there penalties assessed against the contractor?

The Government expects compliance with all areas of the PWS and failure to comply may result in penalties against the contractor that are appropriate to the circumstances.

PWS 1.1.2.2 The PWS states "The PMP is due within 60 calendar days of full service start date."

Does this mean the Program Management Plan (PMP) is due 60 days BEFORE or 60 days AFTER the full service start date?

The PMP is due within 60 calendar days after full performance start date.

PWS 1.1.3.5 The PWS states "Provide automated single, network accessible, financial query tool for authorized government users to develop analysis reports. The tool shall be capable of linking both the accounting and work management systems to allow reports which relate total costs for: CLINs, task orders, FYs, date ranges, facilities, PWS, work orders, work categories, multiple JONs, hours, and amount."

Will IWIMS, Tririga, and/or other Government systems also be used for CLOIS? Currently, the Government uses only Maximo.

PWS 1.1.3.5 The PWS states "Provide automated single, network accessible, financial query tool for authorized government users to develop analysis reports. The tool shall be capable of linking both the accounting and work management systems to allow reports which relate total costs for: CLINs, task orders, FYs, date ranges, facilities, PWS, work orders, work categories, multiple JONs, hours, and amount."

Is the Maximo 7.6.2 referenced in "PWS 1.2.3 Work Management Database" Government-furnished?

No. The Contractor is responsible for providing Maximo 7.6.2 or most current authorized version.

PWS 1.1.9.1 The PWS states "Collection Work shall account for contractor labor associated with non-operational tasks necessary to perform the functions in this PWS for the entire workforce."

Will the Government please provide historical workload and/or a plug dollar number for Collection Work?

Collection Work associated with "time keeping, safety training, shop meetings, document (ID) renewal, etc." will largely depend on the offerors unique staffing approach, therefore relying on historical data or plug dollar number would not be appropriate. A plug dollar number is provided for collection work in accordance with PWS paragraph

1.2.6.4. is provided.

PWS 1.2.2.8.6 The PWS defines Service Work Order as "Work performed that provides labor but does not typically produce a tangible product."

Will the Government please provide examples of service work orders? Service work orders cover a wide variety of areas across the PWS. An example could be heavy equipment support such as crane lifts, forklifts, ordnance shipment, etc.

PWS 1.3.1.4 The PWS states "Request government approval from 45 CES for portable system use exceeding a period of 14 calendar days."

Will the Government please cite examples of "portable systems" in the context of this PWS area?

An example could be that a portable generator needs to be put in place to support a power outage. If the generator will be in place for a period exceeding 14 days request appropriate approvals.

PWS 1.3.3.5 The PWS states "Develop and maintain a roof management plan using the MicroRoofer automated data system or a government-approved equivalent."

Is MicroRoofer currently provided by the Government on the existing CLOIS contract? Yes and it will be provided under CLOIS-III.

PWS 1.3.3.5 The PWS states "Develop and maintain a roof management plan using the MicroRoofer automated data system or a government-approved equivalent."

Will MicroRoofer legacy data be provided by the incumbent contractor to the new incoming contractor?

Yes all legacy data will be provided at start of full performance.

39 RFP Section L.1.4.1.3 Please confirm that a Cross Reference Matrix is required for Volume I - Factor 1 - Technical only and not for any of the other three volumes.

A cross-reference matrix is only required for Volume I - Technical.

RFP Section 1.4.1 Are 11 x 17 pages counted as one or two pages? 11 x 17 pages shall be in accordance with 1.4.1.5.

and will be considered as one page for the purposes of page limitations. L.1.4.1. and 1.4.1.5. will be revised for clarity. 11 x 17 should be used only when practical to depict organizations, schedules, plans, etc. and should not be used to circumvent page restrictions.

RFP Section 5.2.3 Instructions refer to an original signature. Please clarify the requirement as applied to an electronic submittal, as to if it may include a digital signature or the image of a signature.

Digital signatures are acceptable, or the offeror may scan a copy of the wet signed SF33. Reference to original signature has been removed as it would only apply to paper copies of proposal submissions.

PWS Section 1.0 The PWS indicates that there is a Bidders Library. When will it be available? The Bidder's Library will be made available on sam.gov no later than the date of solicitation release.

RFP Section L.3.6 Does the Government intend to provide a template of the Client/Consent letter? The Government does not intend to provide a template of the Client/Consent letter. Offeror format is acceptable so long as it contains the information required within L.3.6.

PWS 4.1.9 Have the current Government Furnished Property (GFP) items been marked with Item Unique

Identification (IUID)?

GFP on the current contract is in compliance with the requirements of FAR 45 and agency supplements.

PWS 4.1.9 Does the Government currently have the hardware available for IUID marking; IUID printer, validator, printer media, barcode readers, etc.? If not, will the Government be providing that hardware or will it need to be purchased as Contractor Acquired Property?

The Contractor is responsible for providing necessary hardware for compliance with IUID reporting and ensuring the costs associated with the equipment are accounted for properly within their proposal pricing.

Refer to Attachment 5 for a list of items that will be furnished by the Government.

PWS 4.1.9 Has the GFP been initially reported to the registry? GFP on the current contract is in compliance with the requirements of FAR 45 and agency supplements.

PWS 4.1.9 Is the current GFP in compliance with IUID reporting requirements? GFP on the current contract is in compliance with the requirements of FAR 45 and agency supplements.

PWS 1.5.4 Have Facility Condition Assessments (FCAs) been completed for CLOIS assets? Yes. FCA must be completed for all facilities and infrastructure every five years. (20% annually minimum). BUILDER data containing facility conditions will be released as part of the Workload Indicators.

PWS 1.5.3 Have assets been evaluated for application of specific maintenance practice of Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), Preventive Maintenance, condition-based, Predictive Testing and Inspection, and Run to Failure?

The PWS will be updated to clarify the RCM requirement. It's up to the contractor to evaluate assets for the most appropriate application of maintenance.

50 PWS 1.5.3.7.14 Regarding condition-based monitoring, please provide a list of assets the contractor is required to monitor and which assets already have sensors installed.

This information is provided in Appendix K.

RFP Attachment L-02 RFP Sections L.1.4.1 and L.2

RFP Attachment L-02 CLOIS-III Staffing Matrix is excluded from the page count. Does the Government want the matrix included in the body of the Subfactor 2 - Resource Management narrative or does the Government want the matrix included in an appendix to Volume I - Factor 1 - Technical?

All documents excluded from page count shall be submitted as Appendices to their respective proposal volume.

PWS 2.7.1.2 and 2.7.7 PWS 2.7.1.2 instructs offerors to address inventory turnover in accordance with PWS 2.7.7.

PWS 2.7.7 tells the offeror to submit a draft Job Order Cost Accounting System (JOCAS) file.

Should the paragraph reference for inventory turnover instead be PWS 2.7.6?

The PWS reference will be corrected to reference 2.7.6.

53 GFP_List_ CLOIS II A&B Can we get a detailed breakdown on equipment that will require a maintenance schedule/frequency.

This information is contained in the PWS Appendices

54 GFP_List_ CLOIS II A&B Can we get a total of square footage for the buildings to maintain. This information is contained in the PWS Appendices

The intent of the cost/price workbook is to ensure a streamlined document for the purposes of cost/price analysis.

Are the instructions for completing Attachment L-XX Cost/Price Workbook clear? Are there any areas within the cost/price workbook that are not compatible with the cost/price data format used by your company?

For CLINs X001, X004, and X005, the workbook is only requiring a total price for each year of the contract. Does the Government intend to ask offerors to provide detailed pricing for these CLINs? If so, where should offerors provide the detailed information? Other than the above questions, we find the instructions to be clear, and the format consistent with our cost/price data format.

The offeror is only required to submit the pricing information requested within Section L as instructed within Attachment L-05 Cost/Price Workbook

Section J, Attachment 4 Draft

DD254

The DD 254 issued with the Draft RFP requires the Offeror to have a Secret clearance. Newly formed joint ventures that were created specifically to bid the CLOIS procurement will not have a Secret clearance if they are not currently performing work on a Government contract that requires a Secret clearance.

QUESTION: Can the Government please clarify if the Offeror is required to have the Secret clearance in place at (a) the time of proposal submittal, or (b) at the time of contract award, or

(c) after contract award but before the start of full contract performance? (NOTE: CLOIS has a 6-month phase-in period.)

The clearance specified in the DD-254 will be required to be in place after contract award but before the start of full contract performance.

Section J, Attachment 4 Draft

DD254

The DD 254 issued with the Draft RFP requires the Offeror to have a Secret clearance. Newly formed joint ventures that were created specifically to bid the CLOIS procurement will not have a Secret clearance if they are not currently performing work on a Government contract that requires a Secret clearance.

QUESTION: In the event that a clearance is required at time of submission or time of award, if all partners to a Joint Venture independently hold the proper level of Facility Clearance, will the Government consider the JV as compliant until a final clearance is issued to the Joint Venture?

Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule on October 16, 2020, implementing the agency’s interpretation of the Small Business Act and the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. SBA Comments at 4; see 85 Fed. Reg. 66146, 66180 (Oct. 16, 2020).

That regulation states as follows: Facility security clearances. A joint venture may be awarded a contract requiring a facility security clearance where either the joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the joint venture that will perform the necessary security work has (have) a facility security clearance.

Sections L and M, numerous references to joint ventures and mentor-protégé agreements

The Small Business Administration (SBA) is currently experiencing significantly longer than normal wait times for approval of mentor-protégé agreements, which in turn causes delays to Offerors in forming small business joint ventures to bid CLOIS under SBA-approved mentor-protégé agreements.

QUESTION: Will the Government consider delaying the release of the CLOIS Final RFP until June 2022 to allow additional time to secure approved SBA mentor-protégé agreements?

The Government has revised the anticipated milestones to reflect an RFP release in June 22.

Milestones are subject to change at the discretion of the Government.

Sections L and M, instructions and evaluation criteria for Volume II – Factor 2 Past Performance

The Draft RFP states “Past performance information will be evaluated for the offeror and any member of the offeror’s team for which a FACTS Sheet is submitted.” However the Section L and Section M language for Factor 2 Past Performance primarily refers to how the Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated. Section M states “Past performance of the offeror may be assessed as having a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than past performance of a subcontractor.” Section M states “Relevancy will be rated for each of the citations based on the criteria identified in Table-2, Past Performance Relevancy. While an individual citation may only contain a subset of the relevancy criteria established in Table 2, an offeror’s total relevancy will be determined based on the sum of relevancy criteria met across all the offeror’s submitted citations.” Please clarify how subcontractors’ past performance will be evaluated to determine the “offeror’s total relevancy.”

QUESTION: Can the criteria in in Table-2, Past Performance Relevancy be met using a combination of citations provided by the Offeror and its subcontractors?

Yes, relevancy criteria may be met using a combination of citations provided by the offeror and its subcontractors. Section M.3.5. provides an example clarifying how relevancy will be evaluated, "While an individual citation may only contain a subset of the relevancy criteria established in Table 2, an offeror’s total relevancy will be determined based on the sum of relevancy criteria met across all the offeror’s submitted citations (e.g. An offeror submits three citations – Citation A addresses relevancy criteria #1 and #2, Citation B addresses relevancy criteria #2 and #3, and Citation C addresses relevancy criteria #3 and #4, that offeror’s citations addressed in total 4 separate relevancy criteria, leading to a relevancy rating of Relevant)."

The Draft RFP states “Past performance information will be evaluated for the offeror and any member of the offeror’s team for which a FACTS Sheet is submitted.” However the Section L and Section M language for Factor 2 Past Performance primarily refers to how the Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated. Section M states “Past performance of the offeror may be assessed as having a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than past performance of a subcontractor.” Section M states “Relevancy will be rated for each of the citations based on the criteria identified in Table-2, Past Performance Relevancy. While an individual citation may only contain a subset of the relevancy criteria established in Table 2, an offeror’s total relevancy will be determined based on the sum of relevancy criteria met across all the offeror’s submitted citations.” Please clarify how subcontractors’ past performance will be evaluated to determine the “offeror’s total relevancy.”

QUESTION: Will the Offeror’s total relevancy (based on the criteria in Table-2, Past Performance Relevancy) be determined by considering all citations provided by the Offeror and its subcontractors?

See answer above.

The Draft RFP states “Past performance information will be evaluated for the offeror and any member of the offeror’s team for which a FACTS Sheet is submitted.” However the Section L and Section M language for Factor 2 Past Performance primarily refers to how the Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated. Section M states “Past performance of the offeror may be assessed as having a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than past performance of a subcontractor.” Section M states “Relevancy will be rated for each of the citations based on the criteria identified in Table-2, Past Performance Relevancy. While an individual citation may only contain a subset of the relevancy criteria established in Table 2, an offeror’s total relevancy will be determined based on the sum of relevancy criteria met across all the offeror’s submitted citations.” Please clarify how subcontractors’ past performance will be evaluated to determine the “offeror’s total relevancy.”

QUESTION: Will the Government consider giving the same consideration to a subcontractor's past performance as it would for the prime's, specifically for the performance areas contained within the subcontractors' past performance citations that align to their assigned work for

CLOIS?

For the purposes of evaluating relevancy, the Government will not make distinctions between citations that are submitted for the offeror vs.

citations submitted for a subcontractor provided that "the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed to be performed under CLOIS III." (See M.3.5.). However, in determining the overall Performance Confidence Assessment past performance of the offeror may be assessed as having a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than past performance of a subcontractor.

Draft RFP RFIs