Attachment_9,_Questions_and_Answers_(2).pdf

Solicitation Questions & Answers AFLOA Computer Assisted Legal Research (CALR)

Government Contracting Questions Solicitation# FA330020R0001

23 Oct 2019

1. Question for FAR 52.222-26 Equal Opportunity (page 115): The RFP includes FAR

52.222-26 Equal Opportunity (2015-09). Under the current Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAR 52.222-26 has been updated (Sept 2016). Please clarify.

Answer: Acknowledged. FAR 52.222-26 Equal Opportunity (Sept 2016) will be updated at time of contract award. Please refer to the most recent version of this clause (Sept 2016) for further reference outside of the solicitation.

2. Question for AFFARS 5352.201-9101 (page 121): The RFP includes AFFARS

5352.201-9101 Ombudsman (6/1/2016). Under the current AFFARS, 5352.201-9101 has been updated (Oct 2019). Please clarify.

Answer: Acknowledged. AFFARS 5352.201-9101 Ombudsman (Oct 2019) will be updated at time of contract award. Please refer to the most recent version of this clause (Oct 2019) for further reference outside of the solicitation.

3. Question for DFAR 252.213-7000 (page 124): The RFP includes DFAR 252.213-7000 (2018-03). Under the current DFAR, 252.213-7000 has been updated (Sept 2019).

Please clarify.

Answer: Acknowledged. DFAR 252.213-7000 (Sept 2019) will be updated at time of contract award. Please refer to the most recent version of this clause (Sept 2019) for further reference outside of the solicitation.

4. Question for 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, C.1, Specific Instructions (page 135):

The specific instructions provide that offerors must submit proposals in electronic format (CD-ROM). The instructions and answers provided October 16 also provide that “All emails must be forwarded to” Tatyana Webb and Ryan Schnepf.

a. Are we correct in understanding that offerors are supposed to email their proposals to Tatyana Webb and Ryan Schnepf, in addition to shipping the CD- ROM copies of the proposal?

Answer: No. As outlined in 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, C.1, Specific Instructions, “Submit proposals in electronic format (one (1) CD-ROM with full proposal, plus five (5) CDROMs with Technical Proposal ONLY),” and, “All proposal information shall be submitted to: 42d Contracting Squadron/PKA-1, Attention: Tatyana Webb, 50 LeMay Plaza South, Maxwell AFB, AL 36112- 6334.”

The Government has removed the following language from Section C.1 Specific Instructions, “All emails must be forwarded to Tatyana Webb, tatyana.webb@us.af.mil and Sandra Turner, sandra.turner.1@us.af.mil.” See Amendment 0002.

b. If the solicitation requires that offerors provide both via email submission and shipment of CD copies of their proposals, we pose the following question: To ensure delivery of the CD copies by the current deadline (November 1), offerors will be required to ship their proposals two days before the deadline (October 30), which takes two days out of the already tight response deadline. To provide offerors as much time as possible to create responsive proposals for AFLOA, will AFLOA allow offerors to submit the email response by the current submission deadline (November 1) with the CD copies to be delivered within two business days after the submission deadline?

Answer: See response in Question 4a above.

5. Question for 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, C.2, Specific Instructions (page 135):

Section C.2 cautions offerors about the visitor control procedures at Maxwell AFB. To ensure proper and timely delivery of the CD-ROM copies of the proposal, does AFLOA recommend that offerors use a standard courier service for delivery (e.g., UPS or FeDEx), or is hand delivery of proposals by an offeror representative preferable?

Answer: The Government is not requiring any special handling / service for proposals submitted via standard overnight Delivery Services (e.g., UPS, FEDEX, DHL, etc.).

Either hand or standard courier service for delivery is acceptable as long as the complete proposal (one (1) CD-ROM with full proposal, plus five (5) CDROMs with Technical Proposal ONLY) is submitted by the solicitation deadline detailed in Section C. Specific Instructions, Paragraph 1 (Reference 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors - Commercial Items (Oct 2018), Section C, Paragraph 1).

6. Question for DFAR 252.215-7008 (page 138-139): The RFP includes DFAR 252.215- 7008 (2019-06). Under the current DFAR, 252.215-7008 has been updated (July 2019).

Please clarify.

Answer: Acknowledged. DFAR 252.215-7008 (July 2019) will be updated at time of contract award. Please refer to the most recent version of this clause (July 2019) for further reference outside of the solicitation.

7. Question for Section 1.2 Background and Objective (page 1): Section 1.2 provides the background on the CALR solicitation.

a. What is the contract/task order/purchase order/delivery number of the current CALR contract?

Answer: There is currently a 2-month bridge contract in place under Purchase Order Number FA330019PA091.

mailto:tatyana.webb@us.af.mil mailto:sandra.turner.1@us.af.mil

b. When does the current CALR contract expire?

Answer: The current bridge contract expires 30 Nov 2019.

c. What is the total annual value of the current CALR contract?

Answer: The estimated value of the current CALR bridge contract is $189,962.00.

8. Question for Section 2.1.1, All Databases Menu (pages 1-2): The All Databases Menu description includes a list of required content, followed by “and other materials.” We request that “other materials” be deleted from the requirement. Alternatively, we request clarification of what is meant by “other materials.” In being evaluated on an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis, it is critical for offerors to clearly understand the requirements. If Offeror A offers significantly more or higher value “other materials” (either in terms of quantity or functionality) than Offeror B, it places Offeror A at a competitive cost disadvantage. Therefore, we request that the “other materials” be deleted, or at least fully articulated as to specific requirements.

Answer: The Government has removed “and other material” from the technical evaluation criteria. See Amendment 0002.

9. Question for Section 2.1.1, All Databases Menu (pages 1-2): The All Databases Menu description includes the statement, “This Menu shall include all databases described by the vendor as premier or premium, or exclusive to that vendor, its parent, or subsidiaries, if offered to other United States federal government agencies for unlimited usage at a fixed price.” In being evaluated on an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis, it is critical for offerors to clearly understand the requirements. We request that is provision be deleted from the requirement. If Offeror A has significantly more premier, premium, or exclusive databases than Offeror B, this places Offeror A at a competitive cost disadvantage.

Alternatively, we request that the specific requirements alluded to as “premier, premium, or exclusive” be clarified as to specific requirements.

Answer: No; we cannot remove this language. The Government is only asking for the offeror’s All Database Menu to provide the “premier,” “premium,” “exclusive,” or whatever highest quality version of databases that the offeror, its parent, or subsidiaries can provide if offered to other United States federal government agencies for unlimited usage at a fixed price. As long as the offeror can provide this to the Government, the offeror will meet the technical criteria. This language has been designed to ensure that we receive all databases offered by the offeror to any other Federal agency at a fixed price irrespective of any labels attached to the database by the offeror. This language is also identical to the language contained in the previous SOR.

10. Question for CLINs 0006, 1006, 2006, 3006, 4006 (pages 4, 7, 11, 15, 19): CLINs X006 provides access to the “All Transaction Priced Databases” per SOR Section 2.1.7 for both Air Force Legal and SAF/GC. We note, however, that SOR Section 2.2.1.2 does not reference access to the Transaction Priced Databases Menu for SAF/GC, similar to the reference made in 2.2.1.1 for Air Force Legal. Please clarify whether CLINs X006 should include Transaction Priced Database Access for SAF/GC.

Answer: CLINs X006 should not include Transaction Priced Database Access for SAF/GC. CLINs X006 have been changed to remove the “& SAF/GC” requirement. See Amendment 0002.

11. Question for CLINs 0017, 1017, 2017, 3017, 4017 (pages 6, 10, 13, 17, 21): CLINs X017 provides for 136 users of the Docket Databases Menu for DCMA. We note, however, that SOR Section 2.2.6.1.i and Appendix 15 indicate that the number of DCMA users for the Docket Database menu is 5. Please clarify the correct number of users for CLINs X017.

Answer: Correct number of DCMA users for the Docket Database Menu is 5. CLINs X017 have been changed to decrease from 136 users to 5 users. See Amendment 0002.

12. Question for CLINs X006, X009, and X013: We understand that CLINs X006, X009, and X013 are Not to Exceed CLINs for Air Force Legal, Army Legal, and Navy Legal to have access to the Transaction Priced Database Menu described in SOR Section 2.1.7.

Is it a correct understanding that USMC Legal does not wish to have access to the Transaction Priced Database Menu?

Answer: Yes; USMC Legal does not wish to have access to the Transaction Priced Database Menu.

13. Question for Part I – Technical Factor, Section B, Subfactor 2: Databases and Training (page 136): This section provides that offerors shall create and provide exhibits labeled A-I to “indicate the counts of databases that meet the requirements” and Item 1a requires offerors to provide “An approximate count of databases included.” In previous CALR solicitations, it is this vendor’s understanding that the count of databases has not been an evaluation factor but, rather, has been used as a post-award reference point.

Please confirm if this is still accurate, or, if not, please explain how the database count(s) will be used in evaluating offers.

Answer: Database counts will not be evaluated. The Government has removed the following language from Part I – Technical Factor, Section B, Subfactor 2: Databases and Training, Exhibit A – All Database Menu, 1., “a. An approximate count of the databases included.”

The Government has additionally modified Part I – Technical Factor, Section B, Subfactor 2: Databases and Training to read, “The offeror shall create and provide exhibits labeled A - I to indicate the description/detailed source listing of databases that meet the requirements identified in Attachment 1, Statement of Requirements (SOR) as referenced below. When providing descriptions for the databases referenced below, descriptions shall be sufficiently detailed as to clearly delineate the coverage of the various databases. In addition, do not include combinations of sources (e.g., all Federal court decisions) that are already described/listed as individual sources.

When providing descriptions for the databases referenced below, descriptions shall be sufficiently detailed as to clearly delineate the coverage of the various databases.”

14. Question Evaluation Factors for Award, Part III – Price Factor (page 142): The RFP states that the Government does not commit to order “the DLA and DCMA legal subscriptions and related services (CLINs X015, X016, X017, and X021).”

a. Are we correct in understanding that there is a typographical error and DCAA should be referenced in this statement, in addition to DLA and DCMA?

Answer: The government has removed “the DLA and DCMA legal subscriptions and related services (CLINs X015, X016, X017, and X021)” from the Evaluation Factors for Award, Part III – Price Factor. See Amendment 0002.

b. Under what circumstances would DLA, DCMA, and DCAA not be included in the contract award?

Answer: See response to question 14a above.

c. Are we correct in understanding that, even though the Government is not committing to order CLINs X015, X016, X017, and X021, these line item prices will be evaluated as part of the price evaluation?

Answer: See response to question 14a above.

15. Question for Section 2.2.1.1.i, AF Legal, Dockets (page 3): Tracking — For the AF Legal users that require tracking capability, please provide the following information:

o Under the user group’s current subscription, what is its usage information with respect to tracking of dockets (e.g., rough number and common courts)?

Answer: The information requested is not available.

o Does the user group anticipate that future use of tracking dockets will be in line with current usage? Or is an increase in usage expected?

Answer: The information requested is not available.

o Please identify if there are any specific state courts of interest for docket tracks.

Answer: The information requested is not available.

16. Question for Section 2.2.1.1.i, AF Legal, Dockets (page 3): Docket PDFs/Images — For the AF Legal users that require access to PDFs, please provide the following information:

o Under the user group’s current subscription, what is its usage information with regard to PDF usage (e.g., rough number, common courts)?

Answer: The information requested is not available.

o Does the user group anticipate that future use of PDFs will be in line with current usage? Or is an increase in usage expected?

Answer: The information requested is not available.

o Please identify if there are any specific state courts of interest for PDFs.

Answer: The information requested is not available.

17. Question for Section 2.2.1.2, SAF/GC (page 3): This section indicates “Unlimited access to the All Databases Menu for SAF/GC,” but does not mention access to Transaction Priced Databases Menu (similar to Section 2.2.1.1 for AF Legal). However, CLINs X006 indicates All Transaction Priced Databases Menu for AF Legal and SAF/GC. Please confirm if SAF/GC requires access to Transaction Priced Databases Menu.

Answer: See response to question 10 above.

18. Question for Section 2.1.2.3, NonAF (page 3 and Definitions page 18): The Statement of Requirements indicates that there are registered FLITE users (other than AF Legal, SAF/GC, Army Legal, and Marine Legal) receiving unlimited access to the All Databases Menu.

o Please indicate which offices/divisions/entities/groups comprise the NonAF group requiring access to the All Databases Menu.

Answer: NonAF users are individuals or small numbers of users from other DoD or Federal Agencies that do not fall into other established groupings and that associate with the Air Force for provision of legal research services.

o Please confirm that the number of NonAF users requiring access is 100 (as indicated in Section 2.1.2.3.).

Answer: 100 is the correct number of users.

19. Question for 2.2.2.1.ii, Army Legal, Dockets (page 3): Tracking — For the Army Legal users that require tracking capability, please provide the following information:

o Under the user group’s current subscription, what is its usage information with respect to tracking of dockets (e.g., rough number and common courts)?

Answer: The information requested is not available.

o Does the user group anticipate that future use of tracking dockets will be in line with current usage? Or is an increase in usage expected?

Answer: The information requested is not available.

o Please identify if there are any specific state courts of interest for docket tracks.

Answer: The information requested is not available.

20. Question for Docket PDFs/Images — For the Army Legal users that require access to PDFs, please provide the following information:

o Under the user group’s current subscription, what is its usage information with regard to PDF usage (e.g., rough number, common courts)?

Answer: The information requested is not available.

o Does the user group anticipate that future use of PDFs will be in line with current usage? Or is an increase in usage expected?

Answer: The information requested is not available.

o Please identify if there are any specific state courts of interest for PDFs.

Answer: The information requested is not available.

21. Section 2.6.7, DCAA (page 11): Section 2.6.7 provides Password/User ID Management information for DCAA. It appears as though there was a “cut and paste error” from Section 2.6.6. Please confirm that Sub-sections 2.6.7.5 and 2.6.7.6 are mis-numbered as

2.6.6.5 and 2.6.6.6.

Answer: Sub-paragraphs are mis-numbered and have been updated to reflect the following, “2.6.7.5 and 2.6.7.6.” See Amendment 0002.

22. Section 4.4, Accounts, Invoices (page 14): The itemized charges listed do not include CLINS 0017, 0018, 0019, 0020. Please clarify whether charges for these items should be itemized or handled otherwise.

Answer: The Government has changed the following language in Section 4.4, Accounts, Invoices, “AFLOA/JAS will process payment for all charges under this contract and all invoices shall be sent electronically to Wide Area Work Flow (https://wawf.eb.mil) with a paper copy to AFLOA/JASR, 551 E. Maxwell Blvd., Bldg 500, Maxwell AFB, Alabama 36112-6418.” See Amendment 0002.

23. Appendix 1: Definitions (pages 18-19): Appendix 1 provides helpful descriptions for offerors.

a. Air Force Legal (page 18): The Definition provides that “In February 2014, there were approximately 4,500 users.” Please confirm that 4,500 is an accurate number of approximate users in October 2019.

Answer: The Government has modified the following language to read from, “In February 2014, there were approximately 4,500 users,” to, “There are approximately 4,500 users.” See Amendment 0002.

b. Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Legal (page 18): We note that DCMA is listed, but no definition is included. Please provide a definition for

DCMA.

Answer: DCMA Legal refers to Defense Contract Management Agency Legal Enterprise. User locations are listed in Appendix 13.

c. Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Legal (page 18): We note that there is no reference to or definition for DCAA Legal. Please provide a definition for

DCAA.

Answer: DCAA Legal refers to the Defense Contract Audit Agency Legal Enterprise. User locations are listed in Appendix 14.

d. SAF/GC (page 18): The Definition provides that “In August 2013, there were approximately 100 users.” Please confirm that 100 is an accurate number of approximate users in October 2019.

Answer: The Government has modified the following language to read from, “In August 2013, there were approximately 100 users,” to, “There are approximately 100 users.” See Amendment 0002.

e. TJAGCLS (pages 18-19): The Definition indicates 100 staff and faculty users and a variable number for students. However, CLINs X008, SOR Section 2.2.2.1.i, and Appendix 15 respectively indicate a total of 400 users and a breakdown of 150 staff and faculty and 250 stationed students. Please confirm that the Definitions need to be updated to reflect 400 total users in TJAGCLS.

Answer: The Government has modified the following language to read from, “Approximate number of users is 150 staff and faculty and 250 stationed students (OBC/Grad Course),” to, “There are approximately 400 users (150 staff and faculty and 250 stationed students).” See Amendment 0002.

f. USMC/Marine Legal (page 19): The definition indicates “approximately 980 users.” This appears to be outdated information as CLINs X010, SOR Section 2.2.3.1, and Appendix 15 indicate approximately 1,100 users. Please confirm that the Definition section should be updated to 1,100 users.

Answer: The Government confirms the approximate number of users is 1,100.

24. Question: At page 140 of the Solicitation, you state that the small business approach will be evaluated Acceptable/Unacceptable as follows: “"Acceptable" means proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

"Unacceptable" means proposal does not meet small business objectives.”

a. Can you please clarify what an “adequate approach and understanding” means?

Answer: Reference Basis for Contract Award, Subfactor 1. An "adequate approach and understanding” means the offeror’s small business participation plan contain all the elements required by FAR 19.704(a), and the percentages listed below are met.

Of the total amount the offeror plans to subcontract for this contract, minimum percentages shall be as follows:

21% to small business 5 % to Small Disadvantaged Business 5 % to Women-Owned Small Business 3 % to HUBZone Small Business 3 % to Serviced Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business

b. Specifically, is a Small Business Participation Plan required for acceptability given the above quote? For context, in the previous solicitation in 2014, the SBPP was eventually removed as a requirement.

Answer: See 24a above.