Responses_to_Questions_-_RFP_-_20_Mar_17.pdf

Questions and Answers for

Request For Proposal Air Force Geospatial Support As of 20 March 2017

Q1. Para 3.1 (page 117) of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 states “Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with their proposal containing past performance information IAW the format contained in the Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) (Attachment 9). Your submissions will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors defined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items. This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposing to perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance.” Para 3.3 states “Submit information IAW the PPIS on no more than three recent contracts ……” If our team includes more than three members and only 3 entries are allowed, how will we meet the requirement of providing a PPIS for each member? Alternatively, are we allowed/required to submit no more than 3 PPIS entries per team member?"

A: To clarify, each offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner who is performing “aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to the overall successful performance” may submit no more than three PPISs. To reiterate, per paragraph 3.3, “There is no page limit per PPIS; however, the total Past Performance volume shall not exceed 30 pages.”

Q2. RFP References:

• The Final RFP, page 117, Section 3.3 Relevant Contracts, instructions for Volume II Past

Performance of the Seed Task Order, states: “Submit information in accordance with the PPIS (Attachment 9) on no more than three recent contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your or your subcontractor’s ability to perform the proposed effort.”

• The Final RFP, page 117, Section 3.1 General, states: “Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with their proposal containing past performance information IAW the format contained in the Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) (Attachment 9). Your submissions will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors defined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items. This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposing to perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance.

Questions:

• Could the Government please clarify whether offerors are required to provide a total of not more than three past performance descriptions for the entire team?

• Or, are offerors required to provide at least one, but not more than three past performance descriptions, for the prime as well as for each subcontractor/teaming partner?

A: To clarify, each offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner who is performing “aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to the overall successful performance” may submit no more than three PPISs. To reiterate, per paragraph 3.3, “There is no page limit per PPIS; however, the total Past Performance volume shall not exceed 30 pages.”

Q3. In the Official RFP, Section 3.3, Relevant Contracts, page 117, It is stated that, “There is no page limit per PPIS; however, the total Past Performance volume shall not exceed 30 pages. Submit information in accordance with the PPIS (Attachment 9) on no more than three recent contracts…” How would one even reach the 30-page maximum since Attachment 9 is only 4 pages long, and you can only submit on 3 projects which would equal 12 pages. Can the spaces and lines provided in Attachment 9 allow to be expanded upon to compensate for longer answers, thus equaling more pages (30 max)?

A: To clarify, each offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner who is performing “aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to the overall successful performance” may submit no more than three PPISs. To reiterate, per paragraph 3.3, “There is no page limit per PPIS; however, the total Past Performance volume shall not exceed 30 pages.”

While the template for the PPIS is four pages in length, it may be longer (or shorter) depending on the amount of information provided by the company completing it.

Q4. In the Official RFP, Section 4.2 Format and Specific Content & Attachment_8_- TO_Pricing_Worksheet:

a. Do we complete Attachment 8 by inserting 1,920 hours for each person we are proposing?

A: Offerors are to complete Attachment 8 by inserting the number of labor hours that they believe are required to complete the task(s) as set forth in the PWS.

b. Or do we complete Attachment 8 by following the information stated in the Official RFP, Evaluation Section 2.1.3 Factor 3 – Cost/Price, page 129: where it is stated that the “Workload Estimates” tab may be utilized to establish the level of effort. This “Workload Estimates” tab shows hours different than 1,920 for the proposal tasks.

A: Per Attachment 8, the “Workload Estimates” tab was provided as the government’s best estimate cross-walk level of effort in hours between similar historic work and this Task Order’s tasks.

All information herein is provided as a baseline to assist offerors however, offerors are ultimately responsible for proposing the rates they believe are necessary to accomplish the work set forth in the

AMC TO PWS.

Q5. Within the proposal instructions, there is no requirement to address the IDIQ or Seed Task Order PWS directly. Please confirm that the omission is intentional.

A: Per ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

1.0 General Instructions

a. The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by these instructions and must be submitted in accordance with (IAW) these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Non-conformance with these instructions may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

2.2.1.1 Subfactor 1 – Staffing and Management Approach

… Each offeror shall also provide an integrated solution to demonstrate their approach to meeting the overall Seed TO’s requirements and identify any best practices/innovations proposed.

Q6. Are contractors required to provide pricing for all of the labor categories in Attachment 2? If the answer is no will the evaluation be downgraded if pricing is not provided for all labor categories?

A: Offerors are required to provide pricing for all labor categories in Attachment 2.

Per ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

2.2 IDIQ Evaluation Factors

2.2.1 Factor 1 – Cost/Price:

…IAW Attachment 2 – IDIQ Pricing Worksheet, each offeror shall submit pricing for the base period and each subsequent ordering period. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The evaluation will consist of verification that the prices proposed for the labor categories used in the Seed TO proposal are consistent with those proposed under the IDIQ proposal. Those proposed prices for labor categories not utilized in the Seed TO proposal will then be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness as described below.

Q7. Are offerors required to assign a risk rating to their Technical Approach? In the past typically the government has evaluated the risk. It appears though that government wants the offerors to evaluate their risk also?

A: All offerors are required to assign a risk rating to their Technical Approach.

Per ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

2.2 Format and Specific Content

2.2.1 Technical/Technical Risk – Methodology 1 (Separate Technical/Technical Risk Rating Process) In the Technical/Technical Risk volume, address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor.

Address Technical Risk associated with those aspects of your proposed technical approach you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful TO performance. Classify each risk in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 2B, Technical Risk Rating. Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other TO requirements, whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Propose a realistic “work-around” or risk mitigators for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

Q8. Will the Subcontractor Consent Letters (Attachment 3) and Client Authorization Letters (Attachment

10) count towards the 30 page limit in the Past Performance Volume? If we have a large team this in itself could exceed thirty pages.

A: The Subcontractor Consent Letters (Attachment 3) and Client Authorization Letters (Attachment

10) will not count towards the 30 page limit in the Past Performance Volume.

In addition, the RFP, Section 3.3 will be amended to include this information.

Q9. Which volume does the information required in section 7.0 Other Information Required go in? Or is this a separate document?

A: Offerors may include “Other Information Required” (referenced in Section 7.0), in IDIQ Volume II – Contract Documentation and Price.

In addition, the RFP, Section 7.0 will be amended to include this information.

Q10. RFP Page 117, Section 3.1 of the Seed TO Instructions for Volume II, requires offerors to include signed Subcontractor Consent Letters (Attachment 3) and signed Client Authorization Letters for commercial customers (Attachment 10).

Will the signed Subcontractor Consent Letters and the signed Client Authorization Letters count toward the 30-page limit for Volume II of the Seed TO proposal?

A: The Subcontractor Consent Letters (Attachment 3) and Client Authorization Letters (Attachment

10) will not count towards the 30-page limit for the Past Performance Volume.

In addition, the RFP, Section 3.3 will be amended to include this information.

Q11. RFP Page 116, Section 2.2.1.2 Subfactor 2 – Mission Essential, requires offerors to provide a Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan in Volume I of the Seed Task Order proposal response.

Will the Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan count toward the 30-page limit for Volume I of the Seed TO proposal?

A: The Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan will count towards the 30-page limit for Volume I of the Seed TO proposal.

Q12. RFP, Pages 113 & 114, Section 1.2, Tables 1.2a and 1.2b, show that five (5) electronic copies on CD are required for each proposal submitted. That number was confirmed in the answers to questions (questions 7 and 8) posted by the Government on FedBizOpps on March 7, 2017.

RFP, Page 115, Section 1.4 Distribution, states that the “original” proposal shall be identified.

Should offerors mark one of the five proposal CDs as an “Original”? Or should we send 1 CD marked “Original” and five marked “Copy” for each proposal submitted?

A: Offerors shall mark one of the five proposal CDs as the “Original”.

Q13. RFP REFERENCES: The Draft RFP, Section 2.2.1.2 Subfactor 2 – Mission Essential, included a requirement for offerors to provide a QCP that would be incorporated by reference into the TO QASP;

however, this requirement appears to have been removed from the final RFP, Section 2.2.1.2 Subfactor 2

– Mission Essential, on pages 116 and 117.

QUESTIONS:

1. Will the Government require offerors to provide a Quality Control Plan (QCP) as part of the Seed Task Order proposal response?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is “yes,” in what proposal volume and section should the QCP be included?

A: The Government removed the requirement to provide a Quality Control Plan (QCP) as part of the Seed Task Order proposal submittal. Therefore, offerors are not required to provide a QCP as part of their proposal submission.

Q14. RFP paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the instructions for Seed TO Volume II – Past Performance require that the offeror submit Past Performance Information Sheets (Attachment 9) and Client Authorization Letter (Attachment 10). However, this same information is required to be submitted as exhibits per RFP paragraph 4.2.1.4 in Seed TO Volume III – Contract Documentation and Price. Moreover, the latter paragraph also requires submission of Attachment 11 – PPQ Cover Letter, and Attachment 12 – Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)—which are actually documents that offerors’ customers are supposed to return directly to the Government. Please clarify where Attachments 9 through 12 should be included in proposals.

A: Per ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 3.0, offerors are to complete Attachment 9 and Attachment 10 and submit these with their proposal in Seed TO Volume II – Past Performance.

Attachment 11 – PPQ Cover Letter is a document that offerors’ customers will receive with Attachment 12.

Attachment 12 – Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is a document that offerors’ customers will complete and return directly to the Government.

Q15. RFP paragraph 5.2.1.2, Attachments, of the instructions for IDIQ Volume I – Contract Documentation and Price suggests that Subcontractor Consent Letters (Attachment 3) are to be part of this volume. However, the instructions in RFP paragraph 3.1 for Seed TO Volume II – Past Performance states that Attachment3 is to be included in TO Seed Volume II. Please clarify.

A: The Government understands that by listing Attachment 3 – Subcontractor Consent Letter under paragraph 5.2.1.2, this may have caused confusion. However, the Government clarified in ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 3.0, that Subcontractor Consent Letters (Attachment 3) are to be submitted in the Seed TO Volume II – Past Performance volume.

Q16. RFP paragraph 2.1, General (page 116) states that offerors are to”… provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying the subfactors”. These subfactors are Staffing and Management Approach (SF#1) and Mission Essential (SF#2). The evaluation criteria for SF#1 (paragraph 2.1.1.1(2) Management Approach requires that offerors respond with their approaches for accomplishing only six specific PWS sections: 1.3.1.4, 1.3.1.1, 1.3.3.1, 1.3.5.2, 1.3.10.3, and 1.3.7.1. Is it correct that offerors will be evaluated on only their responses to these six sections, as opposed to addressing the entirety of the Seed TO PWS tasks?

A: Please note: The paragraph numbers referenced in the question above, appear to have been taken from the DRAFT Task Order (TO) PWS. Please refer to the TO PWS posted with the solicitation for correct paragraphs. The solicitation is posted under Solicitation: FA4452-17-R-0021.

Each offeror’s Management Approach will be evaluated in accordance with and detailed in:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items

2.1.1.1 Subfactor 1 – Staffing and Management Approach

Q17. Para 1.1.6 Amendments to Solicitation requires offerors to acknowledge receipt of any amendment to the RFP by the day and time specified in the amendment(s).

The Government changed the original RFP and posted this change on FedBizOpps on March 3, 2017, at 2:45 p.m. This revision removed the “Draft” watermark and revised the due date; however, the revised RFP was not marked as an “Amendment.”

The Government changed the RFP again on March 14, 2017, to revise the proposal instructions. The revised RFP was marked as an “Amendment.”

Questions: For the purposes of meeting the requirements in Para 1.1.6 Amendments to Solicitation, how many amendments has the Government officially issued for Solicitation FA4452-17-R-0021 and on what dates were they issued?

Should the amendment(s) be acknowledged on SF 1449 of the revised solicitation issued on March 3, 2017, at 2:45 p.m.?

A: The Government has issued only one amendment (Amendment 0001) to RFP FA4452-17-R-0021, Air Force Geospatial Support Services. This amendment was posted to FedBizOpps on 14 Mar 17.

Offerors must acknowledge receipt of RFP FA4452-17-R-0021, Amendment 0001 by completing Items 8 and 15 of the actual amendment (Standard Form 30 - Amendment of Solicitation/ Modification of Contract) and returning two copies of the amendment with their proposal.

FedBizOpps shows an Amendment 1 on 3 Mar 17. However, this was not an actual amendment to the RFP; it was an amendment to the “Posting”. The Amendment 1 on 3 Mar 17, which FedBizOpps displays, is the Official RFP FA4452-17-R-0021 that was posted without the “Draft” watermark.

Q18. “4.2.1.4 Complete attachments 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and submit with proposal in Volume III.

Please use the other attachments as references.”

Should the following attachments be included in the Seed TO Volume II, or is that an error in the above reference? Attachment 11 is a cover letter with nothing for the contractor to complete. Attachment 12 is to be completed by our customer and sent to the government.

Attachment 10 – Client Authorization Letter

Attachment 11 – PPQ Cover Letter

Attachment 12 – Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

Per ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 4.0, offerors are to complete Attachment 13 and submit with their proposal in Seed TO Volume III – Contract Documentation and Price.

Q19. Was the clause 52.219–23 (Subpart 19.11—Price Evaluation Adjustment for Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns) omitted intentionally?

A: Per the FAR, 52.219-23 and Subpart 19.11 are both [Reserved]

Q20. 2.2.1.1 Subfactor 1 – Staffing and Management Approach …Each offeror shall also provide an integrated solution to demonstrate their approach to meeting the overall Seed TO’s requirements and identify any best practices/innovations proposed.

Does this mean we should write to the Staffing and Management Approach that would apply to each Task, or should there be an individual write-up for each Task?

A: Offerors may utilize any format to produce their integrated solution to demonstrate their approach to meeting the overall Seed TO’s requirements and identify any best practices/innovations proposed.

However, they must address all Evaluation Factors outlined in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Evaluation – Commercial Items.

Q21. Paragraph 4.2.1.4 of ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 requires attachments 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 to be a part of Volume III Contract Documentation and Price. Attachments 9, 10, and 11 are also included in the Past Performance Volume. Attachment 12 was sent to our client and the completed form is sent to AMC. Are these attachments also required in Volume III? Also please verify in which volume is Attachment 13 required?

Per ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 4.0, offerors are to complete Attachment 13 and submit with their proposal in Seed TO Volume III – Contract Documentation and Price.

Q22. Paragraph’s 4.2.2 and 5.2.2 of ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 require pricing information to support the completeness and reasonableness of proposed pricing for all labor categories. Can you please provide more information for what the government is requiring? For the IDIQ pricing sheet, Attachment 2, the offerors are required to provide fully burdened labor rates. To verify completeness and reasonableness are you asking us to further breakdown those labor rates into basic labor, fringe, OH, G&A, and profit? Note that Attachment 8 for the Seed TO pricing already requires that breakdown so is there other completeness and reasonableness requirements for that pricing?

A: Offerors are asked to provide the pricing data as depicted in the attached pricing sheets to the RFP. No additional information beyond that requested in the RFP attachments is required.

Q23. If the answer to the above question is that cost breakdown beyond the fully burdened rates is required can there be provisions made for our subcontractors to submit their business sensitive pricing directly to the government?

A: Per the answer to question 22 above, this is not applicable.

Q24. Para 4.2.1.5 of ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 requires the offerors to fill out blocks 17 and 18 of all exhibits. It is difficult to estimate the price of most of the CDRL's without further information. For example CDRL 2 how many meetings can we expect, CDRL 3 how many requirements elicitations will there be, CDRL 4 how many Technical Reports will be required, etc.? If pricing for the CDRL's is required please provide additional metrics to allow the offerors to price these requirements.

A: Response Pending.

Q25. Paragraph 4.2 of the RFP requires, for the Seed Task Order, that offerors identify their proposed labor categories and hours for each task using Attachment 8, the TO Pricing Worksheet. This Attachment includes a Workload Estimate of 14,412 hours (7+ FTEs) but states that the TO is new work, and that there is no historical workload to establish an actual LOE.

Our analysis of the TO PWS indicates that it is highly unlikely that this work can be accomplished at this estimated level of effort over the period of performance. As a result, Offerors must guess at a realistic

LOE.

Assuming that other Offerors reach a similar conclusion, the Government can expect to receive Seed TO proposals with vastly different combinations and permutations of labor category mixes and levels of effort, making it difficult or impossible to realistically compare proposed pricing or to evaluate whether the labor mix is too little or too great to perform the work envisioned.

Request that the Government provide a standardized or baseline level of effort that reflects the true extent of the PWS work and have Offerors price to that LOE.

A: The Geospatial effort is performance based. The baseline data provided to the offerors in RFP Attachment 8 was simply provided as a guide and not based on historical data. This is a new effort and historical data is not available. Therefore, the Government is unable to provide a standardized or baseline level of effort that reflects the true extent of the PWS. It is up to each offeror to determine the level of effort required to complete this effort.

Q26. The following question was answered; however, 1.2.1 of the solicitation was never updated. Will this be updated?

Q45. Will the key personnel resumes required in Volume I of the Seed Task Order proposal count toward the volume’s 30-page limit?

A: Key personnel resumes required in Volume I of the Seed Task Order proposal are not counted toward the page limit.

A: An amendment to the solicitation is forthcoming.

Q27. Attachment 14, page 2, Box 1, asks for Total Contract Dollar Value and defines it as the “Total Evaluated Price of basic period plus all option years.”

Is the “Total Contract Dollar Value” in this instance the sum of all columns in Attachment 2, IDIQ Pricing Sheet?

A: For Attachment 14, page 2, Box 1, “Total Contract Dollar Value”, offerors should use the sum of the Base Period and all Option Periods in Attachment 8 – TO Pricing Sheet.

Note: In accordance with the RFP, section 2.1.3, Offerors will not be required to submit pricing for a six-month extension of services. The Government will develop a total evaluated price which will include this pricing, based on the offeror’s proposed option period four pricing.