Questions Answers dated 10 Feb 2020 (Solicitation No. FA330020R0004).pdf

Solicitation Questions & Answers

AFLOA Computer Assisted Legal Research (CALR)

Government Contracting Questions

(FA330020R0004)

10 Feb 20

QUESTION 1: The basis for contract award is Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT), with each proposal’s technical merit relegated to a pass/fail assessment. As the solicitation seeks a widely-available, commercial product regularly sold to public and private customers, it is likely that each qualified vendor will earn high ratings for past performance. And because the evaluation will not permit any considerations of technical proposals into its tradeoff analysis, the award decision will be based on price as the determinative factor. In practical effect, there is no meaningful tradeoff permitted in this tradeoff analysis. As a result, at its core this solicitation is another form of LPTA evaluation, even though it refrains from applying the LPTA label.

Implicit in this evaluation model (i.e., pass/fail for technical evaluation) is the determination that no additional value for the government can possibly be found in the technical proposals. Online research services are not commodities that are simply interchangeable between different providers, as offerors do not provide access to the exact same collection of databases, features, and services.

What is the contracting office’s basis for its “high degree of confidence that reviewing the technical proposals of all offerors would not result in the identification of characteristics that could provide value or benefit”? (Paraphrasing, for one example, a prerequisite for using an LPTA source selection process in

DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1)(iv))

ANSWER 1: The source selection method for this requirement is PPT, which is a recognized contracting method. This approach has recently been reviewed and approved by GAO. See Inserso

Corporation, B-417791 (Nov. 4, 2019). (PPTs are permissible, as PPTs are not the same as LPTAs).

QUESTION 2: To ensure that the Air Force procures the online research service that best meets the needs of its researchers, would Air Force please consider changing the basis of the award to include technical proposal merits in the tradeoff analysis?

ANSWER 2: The Contracting Officer is not considering a technical tradeoff source selection.

QUESTION 3: In order to best address the respective requirements and align offers for each of the user groups (i.e., AFLOA, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, DLA, DCMA, and DCAA), would the Air Force consider multiple awards, allowing user groups to exercise their own award decisions that best align to their specific research requirements?

ANSWER 3: No, reference Instructions to Offerors (ITO) Paragraph C.5. Addendum to 52.212-

1(h), Multiple Awards was deleted. To further clarify, the ITO and Basis for Award have been amended to identify that a single award will be made. (See Amendment 0001.)

QUESTION 4: Section 2.1.1. All Databases Menu states that "These databases shall include at a minimum the following:" followed by a detailed listing of content that is required. The section then states that “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.”

Could the Government clarify what the minimum standard is that vendors must meet to achieve a rating of “Acceptable” for the All Databases Menu. (i.e. is it the enumerated requirements, or does it vary by vendor based on what content that vendor may or may not provide at a fixed price to other agencies)?

As currently written, this requirement establishes a different minimum standard for different offerors.

Offerors are required to provide their most premium (and more costly) services, which creates a price disadvantage, without receiving higher Technical scores to offset the increased cost. If the Government does not wish to remove or clarify this requirement, we request the Government evaluate the Technical factor as part of the tradeoff analysis, rather than on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Doing so would allow vendors to offer exclusive/premiere databases AFJAG users value without being potentially disadvantaged in price.

ANSWER 4: Paragraph 2.1.1. of the Statement of Requirements (SOR) has been amended to clarify the minimum standards vendors must meet to achieve a rating of “Acceptable” for the All

Databases Menu (see Amendment 0001).

QUESTION 5: Does the Government intend to verify that vendors have met the requirement to include all databases that each vendor provides to other government agencies for unlimited usage at a fixed price?

If so, how?

ANSWER 5: See response to Question 4.

QUESTION 6: CLINs X006, X008, and X012: We understand that CLINs X006, X008, and X012 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. Are we correct in understanding that USMC

Legal does not wish to have access to the Transaction Priced Database Menu? Otherwise, please clarify.

ANSWER 6: You are correct; the USMC Legal does not wish to have access to the Transaction

Priced Database Menu.

QUESTION 7: FAR 52.212-5 (page 101): The RFP includes FAR 52.212-5 Contract Terms and

Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders – Commercial Items (2019-08). Under the current FAR, 52.212-5 has been updated (Jan 2020). Please clarify.

ANASWER 7: Clause updated in Amendment 0001.

QUESTION 8: AFFARS 5352.201-9101 (page 105): 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.

ANASWER 8: Clause updated in Amendment 0001.

QUESTION 9: FAR 52.204-24 (page 108): The RFP includes FAR 52.204-24 Representation Regarding

Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment (2019-08). Under the current FAR, 52.204-24 has been updated (Dec 2019). Please clarify.

ANSWER 9: Provision updated in Amendment 0001.

QUESTION 10: FAR 52.212-3 (page 109). The RFP includes FAR 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items (2018-10). Under the current FAR, 52.212-3 has been updated

(Dec 2019). Please clarify.

ANSWER 10: Provision updated in Amendment 0001.

QUESTION 11: Instructions to Offerors Paragraph D. Communications: The instructions include a URL for DROP SAFE, https://safe.apps.mil/about.php; however, when trying to access the site, we get a security notice. Please verify whether the URL is accurate.

ANSWER 11: Attachment 5, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph D. has been amended to update the URL (see Amendment 0001).

QUESTION 12: Instructions to Offerors Paragraph G. Representations and Certifications: The instructions require offerors to provide Reps and Certs. Should these be included in Part III – Price

Factor? If not, please clarify.

ANSWER 12: Attachment 5, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph G. has been amended to require submission of the file on CD-ROM with full proposal (see Amendment 0001).

QUESTION 13: Instructions to Offerors Paragraph H. Authorization Letter: The instructions require offerors to provide an authorization letter. Should this be included in Part III – Price Factor? If not, please clarify.

ANSWER 13: Attachment 5, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph H. has been amended to require

QUESTION 14: Instructions to Offerors Paragraph I. Joint Venture Agreement: The instructions require offerors to provide a copy of the joint venture agreement, if one exists. Should this be included in Part III

– Price Factor? If not, please clarify.

ANSWER 14: Attachment 5, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph I. has been amended to require

QUESTION 15: Instructions to Offerors Paragraph J. Responsibility Determination and Support

Documentation: The instructions require offerors to provide documentation to document offeror responsibility. Should this be included in Part III – Price Factor? If not, please clarify.

ANSWER 15: Attachment 5, Instructions to Offerors Paragraph J. has been amended to require

QUESTION 16: Instructions to Offerors Part III – Price Factor (b): Section B indicates that the offeror shall provide per user pricing for all CLINS except CLINS X005, X006, X008, X012, and X019. This offeror understands that CLINS X006, X008, and X012 are transactional CLINs so the per user pricing is not appropriate. If AFLOA is not seeking per user pricing for CLINS X005 and X019, can you please clarify what type of pricing that you are seeking?

ANSWER 16: The offeror shall price CLINs X005 and X019 on a monthly basis as required by the solicitation Price Schedule to allow for unlimited usage.

QUESTION 17: Statement of Requirements Section 1.1.2 Mission (page 1): Section 1.1.2 indicates that the online legal research is provided to approximately 15,000 users throughout the federal government.

When we review the Statement of Requirements, as well as Appendix 15 (Estimated Number of Users), it appears as though the projected number of users exceeds 18,000. Please clarify.

ANSWER 17: Attachment 1, Statement of Requirements, Section 1.1.2 has been updated to reflect approximately 18,000 users.

QUESTION 18: Statement of Requirements Section 1.2 Background and Objective (page 1): Section 1.2 provides the background on the CALR solicitation. What is the contract/task order/purchase order/delivery number of the current CALR contract?

ANSWER 18:

- Air Force: Currently there is a bridge contract in place, Purchase Order # FA3300-20-P-

0008.

- DLA: Contract Number – SP4705-14-C-0030

QUESTION 19: Statement of Requirements Section 1.2 Background and Objective (page 1): Section 1.2 provides the background on the CALR solicitation. When does the current CALR contract expire?

ANSWER 19:

- Air Force: The current CALR bridge contract was awarded with a two month base period, and three one-month option periods. The last option expires on 30 April 2020.

- DLA: Performance was through 30 Sep 2019 and has been bridged through 29 Feb 2020.

DLA is working to finalize bridge through the end of March 2020.

QUESTION 20: Statement of Requirements Section 1.2 Background and Objective (page 1): Section 1.2 provides the background on the CALR solicitation. What is the total annual value of the current CALR contract?

ANSWER 20:

- Air Force: The total value of the current bridge contract is $474,905.00 (base plus all options).

- DLA: The most recent 12 month period of performance annual amount was $109,824.00.

QUESTION 21: Statement of Requirements Section 2.1.1, All Databases Menu (page 4): 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 this 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 21: Attachment 1, Statement of Requirements, Section 2.1.1 has been amended to delete 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” (see Amendment 0001).

QUESTION 22: Statement of Requirements Section 2.1.4 United Kingdom Databases (page 4): The RFP includes considerably more content than in the 2014 RFP, stating that the databases “shall include at a minimum access to” and listing multiple titles that are proprietary to a single vendor. Please clarify.

ANSWER 22: Attachment 1, Statement of Requirements, has been amended to provide clarification (see Amendment 0001).

QUESTION 23: Statement of Requirements Section 2.2.1.1.i, AF Legal, Dockets (page 5): Tracking —

For the AF Legal users that require tracking capability, please provide the following information: 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)? 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? Please identify if there are any specific state courts of interest for docket tracks.

ANSWER 23: This information is not available.

QUESTION 24: Statement of Requirements Section 2.2.1.1.i, AF Legal, Dockets (page 5): Docket

PDFs/Images — For the AF Legal users that require access to PDFs, please provide the following information: Under the user group’s current subscription, what is its usage information with regard to

PDF usage (e.g., rough number, common courts)? Does the user group anticipate that future use of PDFs will be in line with current usage? Or is an increase in usage expected? Please identify if there are any specific state courts of interest for PDFs.

ANSWER 24: This information is not available.

QUESTION 25: Statement of Requirements Section 2.2.1.3, NonAF (page 6 and Definitions page 23):

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

Databases Menu.

ANSWER 25: Offices and entities in this user group will vary. The total number of users should not exceed 100, as reflected in Appendix 15. Attachment 1, Statement of Requirements, Section 2.2.1.3.

has been amended to reflect the approximate number of users.

QUESTION 26: Statement of Requirements 2.2.2.1.ii, Army Legal, Dockets (page 6):

Tracking — For the Army Legal users that require tracking capability, please provide the following information: 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)? 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? Please identify if there are any specific state courts of interest for docket tracks.

ANSWER 26: This information is not available.

QUESTION 27: Statement of Requirements 2.2.2.1.ii, Army Legal, Dockets (page 6):

Docket PDFs/Images — For the Army Legal users that require access to PDFs, please provide the following information: Under the user group’s current subscription, what is its usage information with regard to PDF usage (e.g., rough number, common courts)? Does the user group anticipate that future use of PDFs will be in line with current usage? Or is an increase in usage expected? Please identify if there are any specific state courts of interest for PDFs.

ANSWER 27: This information is not available.

QUESTION 28: Statement of Requirements Section 2.2.4.1 Navy Legal (page 6):

Dockets Tracking — For the Navy users that require tracking capability, please provide the following information: 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)? 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? Please identify if there are any specific state courts of interest for docket tracks.

ANSWER 28: This information is not available.

QUESTION 29: Statement of Requirements Section 2.2.4.1 Navy Legal (page 6):

Docket PDFs/Images — For the Navy users that require access to PDFs, please provide the following information: Under the user group’s current subscription, what is its usage information with regard to

PDF usage (e.g., rough number, common courts)? Does the user group anticipate that future use of PDFs will be in line with current usage? Or is an increase in usage expected? Please identify if there are any specific state courts of interest for PDFs.

ANSWER 29: This information is not available.

QUESTION 30: Statement of Requirements Section 2.2.6.1 DCMA (page 7): Tracking — For the

DCMA users that require tracking capability, please provide the following information: 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)? 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? Please identify if there are any specific state courts of interest for docket tracks.

ANSWER 30: This information is not available.

QUESTION 31: Statement of Requirements Section 2.2.6.1 DCMA (page 7): Docket PDFs/Images —

For the DCMA users that require access to PDFs, please provide the following information: Under the user group’s current subscription, what is its usage information with regard to PDF usage (e.g., rough number, common courts)? Does the user group anticipate that future use of PDFs will be in line with current usage? Or is an increase in usage expected? Please identify if there are any specific state courts of interest for PDFs.

ANSWER 31: This information is not available.

QUESTION 32: Statement of Requirements Section 4.4, Accounts, Invoices (page 19): Item 6 includes

SAF/GC, but this group is not mentioned in CLIN 0006. Please verify that SAF/GC is not part of the itemization for Transaction Priced Databases for AF Legal.

ANSWER 32: SAF/GC is not part of the itemization for Transaction Priced Databases for AF

Legal. The Statement of Requirements, Section 4.4, item 6 has been amended to remove “and

SAF/GC” (see Amendment 0001).

QUESTION 33: Statement of Requirements Section 4.4, Accounts, Invoices (page 19): Items 7 and 8 are listed separately but are combined in CLIN 0007. Please verify that the Army Legal Fixed Price All

Databases Menu and Army Legal Fixed Price ABA Law School Package are intended as a combined charge.

ANSWER 33: The Statement of Requirements Paragraph 4.4 has been amended to combine items seven (7) and eight (8) into seven (7) only. All subsequent items have been further updated to match the price schedule as appropriate.

QUESTION 34: Statement of Requirements Section 4.4, Accounts, Invoices (page 19): The itemized charges listed do not include CLINS 0016, 0017, and 0018. Please clarify whether charges for these items should be itemized or handled otherwise.

ANSWER 34: Attachment 1, Statement of Requirement, Section 4.4 has been updated to include

CLINS X016, X017 and X018.

QUESTION 34: Appendix 1: Definitions (pages 23-24): Appendix 1 provides helpful descriptions for offerors. Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Legal (page 23): We note that there is no definition for

DCAA Legal. Please provide a definition for DCAA.

ANSWER 34: Attachment 1, Statement of Requirement, Appendix 1 has been amended to add a definition for DCAA (see Amendment 0001).

QUESTION 35: Appendix 1: Definitions (pages 23-24): Appendix 1 provides helpful descriptions for offerors. Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Legal (page 23): We note that there is no definition for DCMA. Please provide a definition for DCMA.

ANSWER 35: Attachment 1, Statement of Requirement, Appendix 1 has been amended to add a definition for DCMA (see Amendment 0001).