Q A_as_of_16_Jun_16.pdf

Questions and Responses as of 16 Jun 16

RFP

Section

Page Paragraph # Question Response

Section L 48 2.7 Since this is a Trade-off source selection, can the government please clarify the statement "Past Performance is approximately equal to Cost/Price factor." This statement seems to state Cost/Price is weighted more than Past Performance. Also, the terminology associated with "approximately" can be subjective.

As stated, “Past Performance is approximately equal to Cost/Price factor” to allow a best value decision.

Section L 53/54 3.9 (last sentence on pg 53)

Based on the following statement "The offeror is respectfully requested to contact Alion, enter into a suitable agreement, and provide a copy with its proposal." Are primes (including subs) required to establish NDAs with Alion and provide copies? If so, which Volume should the copies be included in?

Volume IV, Tab 6, Other Representations, is for information not covered identified under another tab.

Section L 55 4.2.1 Paragraph states "The offeror is responsible for sending PPQs to the points of contact for the past efforts they identify which will subsequently submit information to the Government to be received no later than the proposal due date." However, in section

3.8.12 (p. 53 first paragraph) states "past performance questionnaires are requested to be emailed to the government by 27 June 2016, 1:00 pm MT. Which date time is correct? Is it July 8th (proposal due date) or the Vol II due date on the 27th of June?

PPQs are due by 27 Jun 16, 1:00 pm MT.

Para 4.2.1 will be corrected by amendment.

Section L 62 4.3.5.3 Paragraph states "The offeror's cost/price proposal shall be crossed-referenced to the technical proposal. The level of detail in the technical proposal shall match and be cross-referenced to the cost/price data." This statement seems to contradict section 3.8.8 Stand Alone Volumes. Please clarify

The Government should be able to cross-reference the elements of cost/price volume to elements of the technical volume. For example, if the technical proposal offers three full-time positions in the technical approach, then the cost/price volume should whether or not cross-reference is allowed and how much information cross referencing is deemed acceptable.

indicate the cost price elements that support the full-time positions proposed.

L 60 4.3.5 This paragraph states: "The offeror shall use the labor rates as proposed in the labor tables." The AFTENCAP TPR references liaison duties for geographically separated locations (i.e. Nellis AFB, Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam or as assigned), in addition the 17th TS TPR references work to be accomplished at Vandenberg and Patrick AFB. Should offerors bid separate rates for the same labor category at multiple locations?

The offeror shall propose one ceiling rate.

This successful awardee may propose discounted or lower rates at the task order level.

CDRLs 40 What is the due date for the first draft of

CDRL A005?

CDRL A005, Management Plan, is due 5 days from task order award and 10 days after updates to the Management Plan. This will be corrected by amendment.

L 59 4.3.4.1 This paragraph states: "The rates as proposed in the Labor Table (Attachment L-

7) shall be contractually binding ceiling rates should the offeror be awarded a contract.

The ceiling rates shall be utilized for future firm fixed price TOs and TO modifications;

however, discounted or lower rates may be proposed. What does the government mean by "TO Modifications?" Does this mean modifications to any of the 4 proposed CPFF task orders should they be awarded or does this mean any task order awarded after contract start?

The labor table applies to FFP task orders only as indicated in para 4.3.4.1. This table does not apply to CPFF task orders. This applies to any FFP task order or FFP task order modifications after contract award per para 4.3.4.1.

L 54 4.1.1 The tabs indicate that there are 2 subfactors

- Security and Scenarios. In paragraph 4.1.4 these are identified as factors 1 and 2. Which is correct?

Para 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 shall be changed from Factor to Subfactor.

L 58 4.3.1.4 This section states: "The compilation of these prices will result in the TPP to be used as the price factor for evaluation." In section M page 77 para 2.3 it states: "The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the basis for evaluating cost/price for contract award decision purposes." If during evaluations the government adjusts an offeror's proposed price due to unrealistically low salaries or indirect costs to come up with the probable cost as in para M2.3.2.3, does that offeror's proposed TPP get recalculated and if higher, does it then get moved out of the 7 lowest priced proposals that the government will evaluate? If so, does the government then move the 8th proposal with a lower TPP into the 7 proposals to be evaluated? If not, how does the government prevent unrealistically low-priced offerors from eliminating better qualified and reasonably priced competition?

The government believes adequate competition may be obtained in the 7 lowest price proposals; however, if none of the lowest priced offerors are evaluated as substantial confidence, the Government reserves the right to add the next lowest priced offeror until a substantial confidence is determined.

Attch L-1, TO3

10 Attch A Attachment A indicates a Base Period plus 5 Option Years

Attachment A should be a Base Period and 4 Option Periods.

Attch L-1, TO3

2,3 3a1)b) and 3a1)d)

What is the difference between these paragraphs or is it accidentally repeated?

Para 3a1)d) is accidently repeated.

Paragraph is delete and changed to “Reserve.”

Section L 4.1.5

TPR

006, page 6 &

TPR 006, item b, section & item d, section

Should the offeror propose to Communications and Information Systems Planning paragraph in both areas?

Page-6 b) refers to CSS, computer systems support from a help desk perspective including ADPE and IA.

Page-10 d) refers to IT from the engineering perspective. A tech solution would be the results of this engineering slot.

Section L 4.1.5

Attac hmen t L-1

All TPR's POP listed in each TPR is inconsistent with solicitation (10 month option vs 12 month)

The solicitation is for a 5-year ordering period. The TPRs should be proposed according to the period of performance outlined in each TPR.

Attch L-9 All Ex: page 8 Not all Government Labor Categories have a Skill Level identified. Example: page 8, Cybersecurity Specialist and Operations Research Specialist. Should we determine the appropriate skill level or will the government provide an update to Attachment L-9?

A revised L-9 will be posted by amendment.

Volume II We respectfully request the Government allow past performance be marked for Distribution D IAW DoD Instruction 5230.24, Distribution Statements.

Much of the past performance relevant to focus areas identified for the 3IS II effort will inherently be in support of customers within the intelligence community. Many of those customers require at least a Distribution D marking in order to allow the contractor to release contract data to potential customers.

The offeror shall enter a “fictional” contract number for classified contracts only and follow PPI instructions and complete information to the extent possible. If you are unable to enter any information using the PPI instructions, please contact the contracting officer by email. PPQs should be marked appropriately by the respondent completing the PPQ.

RFP 82 PM Relevant The current DRFP states:

Offeror provided citations involving experience managing all of the following: (1) a prime contract cost-type contract… (3) staffing with personnel requiring TS/SCI and SAP clearances; …

We respectfully request the government consider changing the “Relevant” criteria to include contracts that support Top Secret SCI or Special Access Programs (SAP) instead of as written as TS/SCI and

SAP.

The relevancy requirement to cite single citations with both TS/SCI and SAP is very limiting. Industry does not have the ability to afford SCI only the government can. The government affords all TS/SCI. Contractors can only provide personnel eligible for access. As not all TS/SCI programs are

The RFP, Section M, PM relevant criteria states, “staffing with personnel requiring TS/SCI or SAP clearances.”

SAP and SAP programs exist at the Top Secret and Secret level.

RFP 75 Volume IV Section 4.4.1.6 Tab 6

Can the Government be more specific in terms of what other statements or certifications it would like to see in this section?

Other Representations. Complete other statements or representations required by the solicitation, or which the offeror chooses to bring to the attention of the CO.

Additionally, submit a copy of any teaming arrangements.

Example, teaming arrangements or other information an offeror chooses to bring to the attention of the CO not previously identified under another tab in Volume 4.

RFP 59 Section L, Volume III, paragraph 4.3.4.1

Using Attachment L-7, the solicitation requires the offeror to provide ceiling rates for each labor category by calendar year.

Attachment L-7 segregates costs by the Government fiscal year. Can the Government please clarify whether the ceiling rates shall be provided by calendar year or Government fiscal year?

Para 4.3.4.1 should be changed from “calendar year” to “fiscal year” by amendment shortly.

Attachment L-

In reference to Attachment L-8, the header on the summary sheet states it is Attachment L-11. Can the Government confirm that the summary tab should be labeled as Attachment L-8?

The second tab in the excel spreadsheet should be marked “Attachment 8.”

Attachment L-

With respect to the employee's yearly out of pocket expenses there are a number of factors that determine the total amount to include the health plan selected (if any), the size of the household, and the company's contribution to their Health Saving Account if applicable. Can the Government clarify how the offeror should address these variables in Attachment L-8?

The offeror shall explain how they arrived at the fringe rate information, such as an average cost of employees.

3 PWS Section A, paragraph 1.2.2

Section A of the solicitation notes approximately 400 days of OCONUS travel is required. Can the Government confirm this is the projected total number of travel days

The 400 days of OCONUS travel is over the life of the contract. The locations will vary depending on requirement.

over the duration of the IDIQ contract or the annual requirement? What are the anticipated OCONUS locations?

RFP 60 Section L, paragraph 4.3.5

Is it correct to assume Task Order 002 is FFP and Task Orders 003-006 are CPFF?

Yes, that is correct.

58 Section L, paragraph

4.3.1.4, PWS

paragraph 1.4.2.3.2

The solicitation requires the offeror to separately price Phase-In within each task order which will be excluded from the cost/price evaluation. As noted in the PWS, the Phase-In Plan will identify all the issues with the Contractor's Phase-out Plan. For pricing purposes, will the Government provide the Phase-Out Plan or provide any additional insight that the offeror should take into consideration?

No, the Phase-Out Plan will not be provided.

The Phase-In is the offeror’s cost for a 30-day period of performance.

RFP 8 and

Section G-1, Section L, paragraph 4.4.1.2

Tab 2 requires the offeror to complete Section G, Contract Administration Data.

Included in the administratrative data identified in subparagraph f. is the requirement to provide the Offeror's CCR number. Given the CCR has been replaced by SAMS whereby the offeror are identified by their DUNS number or CAGE Code is it correct to assume the CCR is not needed?

The CCR number will be removed from Section G, para f by amendment shortly.

RFP 66 Section L, Volume V, Tab 8.2, paragraphs 4.4.1.8.2, 4.4.1.8.2.1, 4.4.1.8.2.2, and 4.4.1.8.2.3

The explanation of the estimating system, estimating methods and past experienced based estimates applicable to the development of the proposed IDIQ labor rates and task orders seems more appropriate to include in Volume III Cost/Price Volume. Will the Government consider moving these requirements to enable the consolidation of the information relevant to the proposed price/cost to a single volume?

The estimating system is not an evaluation criteria; however, it is a determination of responsibility. The cost/price volume is an evaluation factor. The estimating system will not be included in the cost/price volume;

however, the offeror may cross reference to Volume IV, Contract Documentation.

6 Section F and Attachment L-

The period of performance identified in Section F states 1 February 2017 to 31 January 2022 however, Attachment L-7 states the period of performance is 1

The current ordering period is identified as 1 February 2017 to 31 January 2022.

February 2017 to 30 September 2022. Can the Government confirm the period of performance end date for the ordering period under the IDIQ?

55 Para 4.2.1 According to the following solicitation guidance the PPQs are currently due NLT 1:00 pm MT July 8.

4.2.1 Past Performance Questionnaire

(PPQ) …The offeror is responsible for sending PPQs (Attachment L-2) to the points of contact for the past efforts they identify who will subsequently submit information to the Government to be received no later than the proposal due date….

Request the Government relax the PPQ submission date to August 5, 2016 (45 business days from Final RFP release) to accommodate customer approval, completion and submission

In order to meet Section M. relevancy requirements in many of the Focus Areas, offerors must accommodate stringent classified customer approval requirements (252.204-7000 Disclosure of Information. As prescribed in 204.404-70(a)) prior to release of PPI and PPQ content.

FAR Disclosure of Information restrictions specifically states, “(b) Requests for approval under paragraph (a)(1) shall identify the specific information to be released, the medium to be used, and the purpose for the release. The Contractor shall submit its request to the Contracting Officer must allow for 45 days before the proposed date for release.”

Past performance volume and PPQs will be due according to the RFP. Efforts will be made by the Government to contact POCs identified in the Past Performance volume.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/html/current/204_4.htm#204.404-70

Although the bolded text above was changed in 2007 to read “at least 10 business days “, multiple classified customers with whom experience shows direct relevance to work on the 3IS II contract still require a 45 day approval window.

RFP 60 &

Attac hmen t L- Labo r_Ta ble

4.3.4.4

Section 4.3.4.4 states “Profit rates are not applied to FFP TOs.” Was it the government’s intent not to allow for any fee added to the FFP Task Order Labor? OR, since the labor rates associated with the performance of the FFP Task Order will come from ‘Attachment L-07 Labor_Table’, which are ceiling rates that include fee already, is the government asking that we do not calculate fee on top of fee?

Rates shall be fully burdened.

RFP 60-

Tables L-2 2, Tables L-3 3, 4.3.5.4

Tables L-2 2 and L-3 3 on pages 61 and 62 of the RFP state that those tables should be used for Task order 002 to 006.

Section 4.3.5.4 provide instruction to calculate CPFF task order cost detail as described in tables L-2 2 and L-3 3 . There were no specific instructions for the FFP task order 002.

Was it the governments intent for the contractor to complete tables L-2 2 and L-3 3 for the FFP Task Order 002 with full cost detail?

The offeror shall propose its monthly firm-fixed-price for the effort. It is up to the offeror to determine how to best meet the requirements for this FFP TO. The labor hours and skill mix utilized as the basis of the price proposal shall match the technical approach proposed in the technical proposal for the task order.

PWS Para 1.4.6.1.1.2

What is the Government provided trouble ticket system?

It is a government-owned SQL database that tracks customer problems. It allows the customer to put a ticket in for us to respond to.

Attachment Attachment L- 1 Scenarios / Notional TOs (002-006

Government Provided

Should the contractor assume that the Government provided travel/ODC costs within the Attachment L-01 task order scenarios are inclusive of burdened costs?

Yes, per Section L, para 4.3.5.5, the established baseline amounts include allowances for reimbursement of applicable contractor burdens.

Travel and/or ODC Costs

Attachment Attachment L- 1 Scenarios / Notional TOs (002-006

The last section in each TPR is “Management” and requests names of contractor and government staff.

Is it correct to assume this requirement should remain blank in the representation within the offeror’s proposal and is to be completed by the government at contract award?

The names will be completed upon task order award.

Attachment 3 TO 006, para 1, line 2

Define a workgroup. Is this a term or a grouping of personnel in a functional area?

“Workgroup" is a group of personnel in a functional area working to overcome a problem, to find efficiencies, etc. WGMs may roam around the customers to assist customers as an extension of the help desk.

Attachment 3 TO 006, para 2, line 2

Define a workgroup manager. The workgroup manager reports to the helpdesk, and gets tickets issued to them from the helpdesk.

Attachment 4 Attachment L- 1 Scenarios / Notional TOs

(006) para e

Who is “The Consolidated Job Control/Help Desk will be the workgroup manager” for?

To the best that I understand the question, "The consolidated job control/help desk will be the workgroup manager" are for the benefit of the customer.

Attachment Attch L-9 Attachment L-7 provides a labor category line item for “Program Manager”. However, the Program Manager position appears to be the only Government Labor Category omitted from Attachment L-9.

Respectfully request the Government please provide the functional responsibilities for the 3IS II Program Manager.

Program management requirements are outlined in TO 006, Program Management.

PWS Para L.4.2.3.2 PWS L.4.2.3.2 states that the relevancy matrix (Attachment L-3) is to be completed for “only the past performance citations

Para L.4.2.3.2 shall be changed to reflect “The proposal shall provide a completed relevancy matrix for the offeror including submitted”. With a limited number of citations and very specific relevance criteria, there are situations where teammates/partners may provide support to an area from a staffing/pricing perspective but not submit a citation within the past performance volume. Can the Government clarify if the Relevancy Matrix is ONLY for submitted citations? If so, then please clarify that L.4.3.4 will allow us to provide rates for all teammates/partners that will actually support each TPR regardless of submitted PP citations.

each proposed teaming partner (see format at Attachment L-3) for areas they are proposed to work” by amendment.