Responses_to_Questions_-_RFP_-_30_Mar_17.pdf

Questions and Answers for

Request For Proposal Air Force Geospatial Support As of 30 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: CDRLs are Not Separately Priced (NSP). Offerors are to insert “Group IV” in Block 17 of the CDRLs and insert NSP in Block 18 of the CDRLs.

This revision was issued in RFP Amendment 0002.

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: RFP Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 1.2.1 Page Limitation, last sentence was revised to read: “Each page shall be counted except the following: blank pages, cover pages, table of contents, tabs, indexed lists of tables and figures, glossaries, labor category position descriptions of all personnel, organization structure change history, quality control plan, key personnel resumes, and those noted in the Proposal Organization Tables (Table 1.2a and 1.2b) as unlimited.”

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.

Q28. Paragraph 5.2.1.2, pages 120 and 121 of the RFP, lists RFP attachments 1, 2, 3, 4.

Question: Are these listed for reference only or are offerors expected to include these attachments in IDIQ Volume I?

A: Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4 are for reference only.

Q29. Paragraph 4.2.1.5, page 119 of the RFP, directs offerors to complete block 17 & 18 of all Exhibits

(CDRLS).

Question: For CDRL # 0009 Digital Imaging, could you please provide a copy of the Data Item Description DI-MISC-81579?

A: DI-MISC-81579 can be accessed at https://assist.dla.mil. Select “Quick Search”, insert DI-MISC- 81579 in the “Document ID:” field. The base document is listed under “Revision History”.

Q30. Please clarify the discrepancy regarding organization of the IDIQ proposal volumes. Table 1.2a found on Page 113, Section 1.2 (Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits) of the RFP states that the IDIQ Proposal shall be organized in two Volumes – Volume 1, Small Business Participation and Volume II – Contract Documentation and Price; however, the instructions on Page 120, Section 5.0, indicate that IDIQ Volume I is the Contract Documentation and Price volume, and Page 121, Section 6.0, lists IDIQ Volume II as the Small Business Participation Plan. Which is correct?

A: The referenced discrepancies were corrected in Amendment 0001 to the RFP and were posted to FBO on 14 Mar 17.

Q31. Page 117, Section 2.3 – Teaming Matrix states that “A Teaming Matrix (if applicable) shall be submitted with the Volume I.” Where (in what section) should the Teaming Matrix be included?

A: The Teaming Matrix shall be submitted in Seed TO Volume I.

RFP Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 2.3 Teaming Matrix, first sentence was revised to read:

“A Teaming Matrix (if applicable) shall be submitted with the Seed TO Volume I.”

https://assist.dla.mil/

Q32. Page 119, Section 4.2.1.4 Instructs Offerors to “Complete Attachments 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and submit with proposal in Volume III.” Yet, Attachments 9, 10, 11, and 12 are required to be submitted in Seed TO Volume II – Past Performance (Page 117, Section 3.1 – General, and Section 3.2 – Early Proposal Information). Is it the Government’s intent to have Offerors submit Attachments 9, 10, 11, and 12 in both Proposal Volumes II and III?

Q33. Will the government accept CPARS instead of the PPQ?

A: No. Per 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 3.2 Early Proposal Information, Each offeror is requested to submit the information shown in the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 12), for each relevant contract 10 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals.

Q34. Will the government considering changing the NAICS code from 541370 to 541511 or 541519 (Computer Services) to open the solicitation to additional consultants?

A: The Government will not consider changing the NAICS code. NAICS 541370, Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services, is the NAICS which most appropriately fits the characteristics of the requirements within the PWSs.

Q35. Are Resumes included in the Page count?

A: Key personnel resumes required in Volume I of the Seed Task Order proposal are not included in the page count.

RFP Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 1.2.1 Page Limitation, last sentence was revised to read:

“Each page shall be counted except the following: blank pages, cover pages, table of contents, tabs, indexed lists of tables and figures, glossaries, labor category position descriptions of all personnel, organization structure change history, quality control plan, key personnel resumes, and those noted in the Proposal Organization Tables (Table 1.2a and 1.2b) as unlimited.”

Q36. Regarding past performance:

a. If a company is proposing as prime and has a team member that is a Joint Venture/Mentor Protégé where the proposing prime is the Mentor, can the JV/MP submit past performance that was executed by the proposing prime?

b. Can the PPIS template be formatted differently than how they are presented in Attachment 9, if it includes all of the required information?

A: Past Performance Questionnaires are to be completed by current or former customers and submitted directly to the Government. They are not to be completed by prime offerors.

The PPIS template shall not be formatted differently.

Q37. Pg 96 subsection (m) Subcontracts: Does the government intend for this requirement (252.204- 7012) to be a flow-down to subcontractors?

A: Yes.

Q38. Please clarify, in the section shown below listed in Attachment 9, should that refer to 2.1.2 Section

(2) b, instead of 2.2.2? In Section 2.1.2 Factor 2 – Past Performance, there are two sub-paragraphs both labeled with “(1)”; is the document missing section (2)b ?

Attachment 9 – G. Considering the relevancy definitions listed in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items, paragraph 2.2.2, section (2)b, illustrate how your work on this reference contract/program is relevant in regards to the Geospatial Integration Program Support acquisition.

A: RFP section 2.1.2 Factor 2 – Past Performance, paragraph “(1) Evaluation Process” has been revised to read, “(2) Evaluation Process”.

Q39. In reviewing DFAR clause 252.204-7012 regarding the Safeguarding of Defense information: Item B, page 94 states that a request to vary from NIST SP 800-171 can be made in writing to the Contracting Officer for consideration.

If a waiver is granted would this waiver be for the duration of the IDIQ awarded contract or, per item

A, the contractor would still be required to implement NIST SP 800-171 by 12/31/17?

If a waiver was granted would it also apply to subcontractors?

A: If a waiver is granted, it would be granted on a case by case basis for each TO. In addition, prime contractors and subcontractors are treated independently with regard to the waiver process.

Q40. Given the number and nature of questions submitted and our goal to provide the most complete and compliant response to the government, would the government consider an extension to the due date to ensure industry has the opportunity to present the highest quality proposals possible?

A: The RFP due date has been extended to 7 April 2017 with the issuance of RFP Amendment 0002.

Q41. Paragraph 1.2.8, Task 8, Assessment and Authorization, states that “Contractor personnel performing Task 8 MUST possess an IAM Level II certification IAW DoD 8570.01-M and AFMAN 33- 285 prior to full contract performance start on 31 March, 2017.”

Questions: Must contractor personnel performing Task 8 still possess IAM Level II certification by 31 March, 2017? If not 31 March, 2017, what is the date required for IAM Level II certification?

A: Contractor personnel performing Task 8 must possess an IAM Level II certification IAW DoD 8570.01-M and AFMAN 33-285 prior to full contract performance start.

A search for “31 March 2017” was conducted within the TO PWS and four occurrences were found.

Therefore, the TO PWS was revised to remove “on 31 March 2017” in the following paragraphs:

1.2.7; 1.2.8; 1.2.10; and 1.5.4.

Q42. Seed Task Order PWS/Task Requirements, 1.2.7 Task 7 – Geospatial IT System Support and Management

Questions: In order to ensure all offerors fully understand the requirements and are able to accurately estimate both the level of effort and skill sets required to support and manage the Geospatial IT Systems, we respectfully request the Government provide details regarding the systems that will be marinated under Task 1.2.7 (i.e. Hardware, Software including Operating System, installed COTS or GOTS applications, miscellaneous components, etc.)?

A: "AMC.maps" is the name of the AMC GIO's existing geospatial IT platform. This is currently a NIPRNet-based, .mil accessible website and capability. Access to the end-user website is also restricted to those DoD-affiliated personnel possessing a DoD Common Access Card (CAC) with DoD Information Network access. The website contains basic information pages but also currently includes interactive mapping capabilities powered by ESRI's ArcGIS Server software platform as well as Oracle 11. The server platform is fully virtualized on a virtual host environment (physical hardware is maintained by the AF Communications Network Operations elements) using VMWare and Windows 2008, but moving to Windows 2012.

Q43. Seed Task Order PWS/Task Requirements, 1.2.7 Task 7 - Geospatial IT System Support and

Questions: Do the systems that will be supported and managed under Task 1.2.7 have a documented, implemented, and tested COOP plan already in place or is it expected that bidders will develop, implement, and test the COOP plan(s) as part of their execution of requirements under Task 1.2.7?

A: The existing AMC geospatial IT system ("AMC.maps") currently possesses an approved DIACAP Authority to Operate (ATO) and continues to work on a future Risk Management Framework (RMF) submission. Most, if not all, of the COOP requirements are generally documented as part of the ATO package. The contractor will be expected to help manage and sustain the AMC geospatial system's ATO package and the associated activities such as COOP documentation, testing, etc. (See Task 1.2.8).

Q44. Seed Task Order PWS/Task Requirements, 1.2.10 Task 10 – Application, Development, Modernization and Sustainment

Questions: Please describe the existing development, testing, and integration environments and any tools required for configuration management, requirements tracking and version control available to complete the development activities required under TO PWS 1.2.10?

A: The existing AMC geospatial IT system ("AMC.maps") currently possesses modest development, testing, and production environments. The Government continues to pursue additional, more mature, and robust platforms and capabilities to make the most of our modest program budget.

Q45. Seed Task Order PWS/Task Requirements, 1.5.17.1 Transition-In

Questions: Attachment 8 includes a single row entitled “Transition” which does not identify the anticipated transition period of performance, include rows/columns to identify Labor Category, FTEs, estimated hours, etc. 1) We request the Government provide the anticipated period of performance for the Seed TO Transition-In period. 2) Are offerors required to utilize IDIQ proposed Labor Category rates in generating pricing for the Seed TO Transition period? 2) If offerors are required to utilize IDIQ Labor Category rates in developing pricing for the Seed TO transition activities, where should this information be provided?

A: The Period of Performance for the Seed TO Phase-In is 1 Dec – 31 Dec 2017. Offerors should use their proposed TO Labor Category rates to generate pricing for the Seed TO Phase-In Period.

Q46. Seed Task Order PWS/Task Requirements, 1.2.1.5 Geospatial Portfolio (Inventory) Management Support

Questions: Does the Government currently own/operate an inventory system that meets the requirements contained in PWS 1.2.1.5.1, 1.2.1.5.2, 1.2.5.1.3, and/or 2.1.1.5.4?

A: Section 1.2.1.5 states that the "...contractor shall design, develop, implement, manage, and sustain geospatial resource portfolios (inventories)..." The government (the AMC Geo Integration Office) has had some of these inventories (e.g., ESRI Software Inventory) in the past but they've been modest. For those instances, the government is looking for efficient repairs/improvements in the data, tools, and/or processes.

Q47. Seed Task Order PWS/Task Requirements, 1.2.7.3 Database Administration/Maintenance

Questions: The Seed Order PWS states: “Contractor shall also provide remote technical support/administration of AMC installation-level databases consistent with USAF and AMC policy and implementation guidance.” 1) We request the Government to provide a list of the installations that will receive remote technical support/administration. 2) Are there currently established remote access connections and permissions to installations to be supported remotely or will offerors be required to establish and maintain remote connections and permissions? 3) From what location(s) will remote technical support/administration to installations be initiated?

A: At this time, AMC installations supported by the AMC Geo Integration Office include Joint Base Charleston, Dover AFB, Fairchild AFB, Grand Forks AFB, Little Rock AFB, MacDill AFB, McConnell AFB, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, Scott AFB, and Travis AFB. The AMC GIO currently has remote access connections and permissions to the above-listed AMC installation's "GeoBase" servers.

Q48. Seed Task Order PWS/Task Requirements, 1.2.9 Task 9 – IT Portfolio Management Activities

Questions: Please provide the current compliance status of the 6 management areas as specified in

1.2.9.1.1 – 1.2.9.1.6?

A: Response pending.

Q49. Seed Task Order PWS/Task Requirements, 1.2.5.1.2 Vector Data Editing and Maintenance

Questions: Please specify what types of database formats must be configured and maintained in PWS Section 1.2.5.1.2?

A: This activity often involves, but may not be limited to, handling data that is not compliant with the latest applicable version of the SDSFIE data standard. This activity may involve "crosswalking" data between two or more different data standards and/or models. It may also involve handling data from RDBMS platforms other than Oracle. It may also involve data that isn't natively geospatial in nature but can be associated with geospatial data features or otherwise geo-referenced.

Q50. Seed Task Order PWS/Task Requirements, 1.2.7 Task 7 – Geospatial IT System Support and

Questions: Please provide the current system outage metrics to in relation to TO 1.2.7 and any existing service level agreements in place with regards to in place systems?

A: Current system outage metrics are not available. This is part of the reason for the PWS task to "…develop a documented strategy for limiting outages...". The existing AMC geospatial IT system ("AMC.maps") is currently a Mission Assurance Category - 3 (MAC-III) system which also implies system outage tolerance levels. The AMC Geospatial Integration Office has an existing Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the "AMC.maps" system with the host infrastructure management office but is not prepared to provide a copy at this time.

Q51. Seed Task Order PWS/Task Requirements, 1.2.7.4 Web

Questions: We respectfully request the Government describe the “other systems or external data sources” we are expected to integrate in relation to TO PWS section 1.2.7.4?

A: Geospatial integration and/or geo-enabling data from internal and external data sources is a primary reason for program existence. The Government is not able to predict with certainty any specific emerging mission requirements or opportunities for geospatial integration and/or geo-enablement. Historic examples have involved connecting with AF-owned facility information systems and an AMC-owned aircraft maintenance information system to portray aircraft location and status. Another example is simple REST end-point consumption from public Internet feeds such as a Doppler weather radar feed from Iowa State University.

Q52. Seed Task Order PWS/Task Requirements, 1.2.8 Task 8 – Assessment and Authorization

Questions: Please provide the status of recertification activities for “AMC.maps” ATO?

A: The AMC.maps ATO (DIACAP) currently expires on 18 Aug 17. The program office is currently pursuing a new RMF-based ATO. Current DoD policy directs that ATOs expire every three (3) years. The contractor is expected to fully understand DoD Assessment and Authorization policies and procedures as explained in Section 1.2.8 and support the AMC GIO accordingly.

Q53. RFP/IDIQ PWS/Multiple Sections

Questions: Multiple sections within “Official RFP FA4452-17-R-0021” and “Attachment 1 – IDIQ PWS” documents state that Seed TO pricing should be based on the ID/IQ labor categories and rates. However, Attachment 8 requires the offeror to provide a labor rate build up that details all cost elements used in developing the proposed TO labor rates and that the TO rates “shall be equal to or less than rates proposed as part of the ID/IQ solicitation and included in the based ID/IQ award.” Since it is the Government’s intent that the IDIQ rates are to be used for future TOs and the IDIQ labor rate build up details are to be provided IAW RFP Section 5.2.2, we request that Attachment 8 be revised to remove the requirement for a full labor rate build up. Instead of the TO labor rates build up requirement, we request that Attachment 8 reflects the proposed labor categories, proposed IDIQ labor rate (discounted if applicable) and proposed hours for a total proposed labor TO price.

A: Offerors are asked to provide the pricing data as depicted in the attached pricing sheets to the RFP. The Government will not consider revising Attachment 8.

Q54. RFP/Format and Specific Content, 4.2.1.1 Fill-ins

Questions: Section 4.2.1.1 under the Seed TO Volume III states “Complete…all CLINS on the SF 1449.”

However, page 121, Section 5.2.2 under the IDIQ Volume I – Contract Documentation and Price section states, “Information shall also be segregated by the ordering periods and a total price for each CLIN as specified in the solicitation.” We request that the Government please clarify whether or not offerors are required to submit a total price by PWS, we request the Government provide clarification regarding submission requirements for the proposed hours/price for the IDIQ.

A: The Government requests that offerors submit a total price by each Labor Category at the Task Order level in accordance with Attachment 8. Offerors are providing pre-negotiated labor rates for the IDIQ contract in accordance with Attachment 2 – IDIQ Pricing Sheet.

RFP Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.2.2 Price, fourth sentence was revised to read:

“Information shall also be segregated by the ordering periods.” This revision was included in RFP Amendment 0002.

Q55. Task Order PWS/Attachment 5, Section 1.5.9

Questions: Seed TO PWS Section 1.5.9, Table 3: Forecasted Travel provides the forecasted travel for each period of performance. However, Attachment 8 (TO Pricing Worksheet) includes a pre-populated amount of $1000 for Travel. Should offerors assume that $1000 is considered a RFP NTE amount or should offerors develop a proposed cost based on the forecasted travel detailed in Seed TO PWS Section 1.5.9?

A: The pre-populated amounts have been updated in Attachment 8 (TO Pricing Worksheet) to reflect the annual NTE travel amount.

Q56. IDIQ Pricing Sheet, Attachment 2

Questions: The IDIQ Pricing Sheet (Attachment 2) automatically calculates the sum of our proposed labor rates to reflect a “Summary Total”. We request that the Government clarify the purpose of the labor rate Summary Total and how or if the Summary Total will be evaluated.

A: The Individual Labor Category Rates will be evaluated. The Summary Total will not be used or evaluated and therefore, can be disregarded.

Q57. IDIQ PWS/Task Order Requirements, 1.7.2 Task Order Proposal

Questions: IDIQ PWS (Attachment 1), Section 1.7.2 states, “If the TO for Surge support, the CO may award a Cost Task Order.” The contract type identified for CLIN xx12, Contingency Support is FFP.

Please verify the appropriate contract type for CLIN xx12, Surge/Contingency support.

A: The labor rates used for the Contingency CLIN will be the rates awarded with the TO and a Level of Effort will be negotiated at time of need.

Q58. Attachment 8, Task Order Pricing Sheet

Questions: The Task Order Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 8) instructions state: “Material and Travel Handling Rates: Insert percentages in cells highlighted in blue for each TO performance year. These shall be equal to or less than the rates proposed as part of the ID/IQ RFP and subsequent award.” The ID/IQ pricing sheet and instructions do not require a proposed Material or Travel handling rate. We request that the government remove the instructions regarding handling rates that are “equal to or less than the rates proposed as part of the ID/IQ RFP”.

A: Material, Material Handling Rate and Travel Handling Rate have been removed from the Seed TO Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 8).

Q59. Attachment 8, Task Order Pricing Sheet

Questions: The Seed TO Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 8) includes a pre-populated amount of $1000 for Material costs. Should offerors assume that $1000 is considered an RFP NTE amount, or should offerors propose an estimated amount to support required ODCs in support of the Seed Task Order?

A: Material, Material Handling Rate and Travel Handling Rate have been removed from the Seed TO Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 8).

Q60. Attachment 1, IDIQ PWS, Section 1.10.14 Data Rights and Non-Commercial Computer Software

Questions: Attachment 1, IDIQ PWS, Section 1.10.14 AND Attachment 5, TO PWS, Section 1.5.10, Data Rights and Non-Commercial Computer Software both state: “In order to implement the provision at DFARS 252.227-7013 (b) and (e) and clause DFARS 252.227-7014 (b) and (e) and DFARS 252.227- 7017…”, however these clauses are not included in Section I of the RFP. We assume this was an inadvertent omission and that these clauses will be incorporated into the solicitation via a future modification. We respectfully request the Government verify the accuracy of this assumption.

A: The Government recognizes that these clauses were inadvertently omitted and therefore, added them to the RFP with the issuance of Amendment 0002.

Q61. Task Order PWS 1.2.11 Task 11 – Helpdesk Services and Customer Support Services

Questions: Please clarify what tools are currently used for tracking service requests/trouble tickets from creation to resolution. Also, what COTS/GOTS tool(s) are used for storing and maintaining requests on “government-owned IT infrastructure.”

A: Section 1.2.11 states that the "Contractor shall implement and sustain an AMC GIO Support Request Log. Support requests must be logged, tracked, and reported using professional digital tools, techniques, and procedures. Support request digital data shall be stored and maintained on government-owned IT infrastructure. At a minimum, support request records shall include customer name and contact information, date received, issue description, assigned technician name, closure date, and disposition." Existing tools and processes may not be sufficient, optimal, or efficient. The AMC GIO currently has access to Microsoft Excel and the AMC enterprise SharePoint platform which could serve as an example of an existing tool for tracking service requests/trouble tickets.

Q62. IDIQ PWS/Task Order Requirements, 1.7.8 Place of Performance

Questions: Does the Government anticipate a future Task Order being released where the sole place of performance would be OCNUS? If yes, please identify anticipated place of performance.

A: This requirement is an enterprise-wide geospatial contract serving both CONUS and OCONUS locations. Future Task Order place of performance has the ability to be conducted solely OCONUS.

However, the Government does not know at this time, which locations will require Task Orders.

Q63. RFP/Clauses Incorporated by Reference/DFARS 252.211-7002 ‘Availability for Examination of Specifications, Standards, Plans, Drawings, Data Item Descriptions, and Other Pertinent Documents’

Questions: This clause requires a fill-in for an address but it was left blank in the RFP. Please verify the applicability of the clause; if it is not applicable, will the Government be deleting this clause in a future Amendment to the RFP?

A: This clause is applicable. Therefore, DFARS 252.211-7002 Availability for Examination of Specifications, Standards, Plans, Drawings, Data Item Descriptions, and Other Pertinent Documents was revised to include the following Internet address (https://assist.dla.mil) in order to access Data Item Descriptions.

Q64. RFP/Clauses Incorporated by Reference/DFARS 252.25-7039 ‘Defense Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the US’

Questions: Predicated on the prescription for DFARS 252.225-7039 and the requirements as defined in both the IDIQ and Seed Task Order PWS, this clause does not appear to be applicable. 1) Please verify the applicability of the clause. 2) If this clause is not applicable, will the Government be deleting this clause in a future Amendment to the RFP?

A: The Government recognizes that this clause is not applicable and removed it from the RFP with the issuance of Amendment 0002.

https://assist.dla.mil/

Q65. RFP/Clauses Incorporated by Reference/DFARS 252.225-7999 ‘Taxes – Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan’

Questions: Predicated upon the requirements of the IDIQ and Seed Task Order PWS, this clause does not appear to be applicable. 1) Please verify the applicability of this clause. 2) If this clause is not applicable, will the Government be deleting this clause in a future Amendment to the RFP?

A: The Government recognizes that DFARS 252.229-7999 is not applicable and removed it from the RFP with the issuance of Amendment 0002.

Q66. RFP/Clauses Incorporated by Reference/DFARS 252.225-7002 ‘Qualifying Country Sources as Subcontractors’

Questions: Predicated on the prescription for DFARS 252.225-7002 and the requirement as defined in both the IDIQ and Seed Task Order PWS, this clause does not appear to be applicable. 1) Please verify the applicability of the clause. 2) If this clause is not applicable, will the Government be deleting this clause in a future Amendment to the RFP?

A: The Government believes this clause is applicable to the IDIQ contract. Therefore, it will remain.

Q67. Reference(s):

1) FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (Oct 2014) states, in part “The Government will evaluate IDIQ based on Small Business Participation, and Price for the Labor Categories.”

2) Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items, 1.1 Bases for Award states: “The

Government intends to award to up three IDIQ Contracts and one Seed TO from the Solicitation…”

3) Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items, 2.1.1 states: “The Government will evaluate (but not rate) each offeror’s price proposal for IDIQ award purposes…the offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine completeness and reasonableness, as defined

4) Addendum to FAR…