SEMS_III_Q A__9_on_RFP _15_May_2013.docx

SEMS III RFP# FA4600-12-R-0013

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS #9

1. Question: Reference RFP Section L3.3.2.6. “Include a listing of key position descriptions (e.g., leads and deputy leads) responsible for key processes such as system engineering, program and system management, and system sustainment. Offerors will include a listing of key personnel and include qualification summaries, as they relate to the proposed positions and provide letters of intent.” This was an addition to the Final RFP which was not a requirement stated previously. Can the Government provide clarification as to why this requirement was added and does this requirement include all positions to include complex positions which offerors normally meet with short term staffing?

ANSWER: The inclusion in the final RFP of the “Identification of Key Staff” in the evaluation process was based on a suggestion by the Air Combat Command/Multi-functional Independent Review Team. It is actually a common practice in Government solicitations for service contracts to require information on key personnel in an offeror’s proposal. The Government is requesting this information ONLY for “Key” personnel as described in Section L and M, not all personnel. Paragraph L3.3.2.6. will be revised in an upcoming amendment to further emphasize this point. In addition, Section H-33, Key Contractor Personnel has been in both draft RFP’s along with the final RFP.

2. Question: Reference RFP Section M3.2.2.2.3 Past Performance Relevancy Criteria. It appears the overall past performance relevancy evaluation leans heavily on relevance as measured across twenty-three criteria specific to the AFWA environment. Is the intent of the Government to weigh AFWA experiences more heavily than non-AFWA past performance experience?

ANSWER: It is not the Government’s intent to weight AFWA experience more heavily than non-AFWA past performance experience. The 23 criteria listed under M3.2.2.2.3. (M3.2.2.2. 3.1. through M3.2.2.2.3.5.3.) were phrased generically for each category to allow all offerors who have accomplished the type(s) of tasks performed, contract type, dollar value, complexity, and other similarities on the contract being reviewed to those of the SEMS III requirements (reference M3.2.2.2.3.) to have relevant or very relevant past performance. The Government does not require any AFWA unique experience in the past performance criteria.

3. Question: Reference Section J, Attachment 11, Paragraph I “Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this program and are proposed to support the instant acquisition. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions.” A review of RFP Paragraph M3.2 does not indicate evaluation criteria for this information. Can the Government clarify the intent to evaluate?

ANSWER: Section J, Attachment 11 is for the offeror to provide information as to why they feel a contract reference they provide is relevant—the contractor’s own input is only a portion of the information the Government looks at during the assessment of past performance. The Government will also use Present and Past Performance Questionnaires, Past Performance Information Retrieval System, etc. as explained under M3.2.1. in the past performance evaluation. Please note that the “Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this program and are proposed to support the instant acquisition” verbiage is standard from a prior Government Past Performance Evaluation Guide so it is nothing new in the acquisition arena. However, the Government determined an amendment will be issued to delete paragraph I from Attachment 11 since key personnel is addressed in the Technical volume.

4. Question: Reference RFP paragraph M1.0 and M2.0, “Past performance is significantly more important than price.” The Government’s original draft RFP indicated that past performance was “more important” than price. Can the Government clarify why the change to past performance being “significantly” more important than cost?

ANSWER: The addition of the word “significantly” to sections M1.0 and M2.0 of the final RFP was made at the request of the Air Force Program Executive Officer for Combat and Mission Support to be in compliance with FAR 15.101-1(b)(2), which indicates the solicitation shall state: “…are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.” This addition of “significantly” is not additional weighting from the original verbiage of “past performance is more important than price.” “More important than price” is not a choice under FAR 15.101-1(b)(2).

5. Question: Reference, RFP Paragraph L5.0, Government populated amounts. A very large percentage of the solicitations cost/price are “plug numbers” which the Government has populated. The Final RFP level of effort (LOE) was further reduced by approximately 30,000 hours. This limits the ability of offerors to differentiate the price as a percentage of the total evaluated price which includes all CLINS. We submit the following questions for consideration: (1) Can the Government clarify the reduction in LOE in the Final RFP? (2) Can the Government revisit the amount of LOE which is proposed to by the offerors?

ANSWER:

(1) The Government was required to reduce and/or remove requirements due to AFWA changes and funding reductions which occurred over the period of preparing and coordinating the RFP. These included removing the systems engineering subject matter support to Government sustained software baselines which were no longer required and, in the option periods, removing incremental improvements under annual sustainment due to funding reductions. These changes were beyond the control of program personnel and ensure an accurate presentation of Government requirements in the solicitation. These changes were reflected in the Section J, Attachment 23 – Workload Estimates and in Attachment 19 – Annual sustainment Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS) of the final RFP package.

(2) SEMS III is an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract and the Government is competing those efforts with known and definable requirements. The “plug numbers” are Government populated CLINs based on estimates of future needs over the life of the contract and could not be priced by offerors since the requirements cannot be defined at this time.

6. Question: Reference Section J, Attachment 17, SEMS III Cost Price Model. It is very difficult to impossible to secure renewal pricing of the software licenses using the information listed in the CLIN 1013 Tab of the Cost Price Model. Renewal pricing is handled differently by most major software vendors (e.g. HP, DELL, Quantum, IBM, Red Hat) than purchasing new licensing and the prices can be significantly different. The incumbent, if submitting a proposal, has a significant price advantage over other offerors in their ability to secure renewal pricing. Would the Government consider removing this requirement from the solicitation?

ANSWER: The Government conducted reviews for CLIN 1013 prior to release of the RFP. The Government contacted several vendors, and although each vendor requires different information, the Government determined that the descriptions provided in Section J, Attachment 17 – CLIN 1013 tab of the final RFP were sufficient to allow an offeror to obtain a quote for the software licenses. When the Government conducted their own analysis, the information provided was adequate to receive a quote from the vendors contacted.

7. Question: Reference RFP Paragraph L5.6 Transition (CLIN 0011/FFP). The incumbent, if submitting a proposal, has a significantly lower transitions cost and therefore a cost advantage over other offerors. Would the Government consider removing this requirement from the solicitation?

ANSWER: A transition period has been determined to be required and beneficial for both the new contractor and the Government for this acquisition. It is a business decision how the Transition CLIN is priced.