Past_Performance.pdf

Past Performance

Number of PP Submissions:

Q: So you do not have to send in 10 past performances if you can cover more areas with 1 pp, etc.

A: Ten (10) is the maximum number of Past Performance Information Documents that are allowed. Review the Past Performance instructions in section L and evaluation language in section M.

Q: Past performance piece: 10 are required-3 from prime. Contract mentioned $1.5M would be relevant. Would the company need to be performing all the work, or just a portion of the $1.5M?

allowed. If the Past Performance Information Document identifies the concern as a subcontractor, only the value of the subcontract shall be reviewed against the dollar values listed in Section M3.2.2.2 and Table 2.

Q: There are 10 subfactors listed in the PP, is that right? Was that your intention?

A: The Prime Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) references addressing three (3) separate mission areas. The Prime Offeror shall submit a reference addressing the Program

Management subfactor either as a standalone reference or in combination with a reference also addressing a USSTRATCOM mission area. Past performance in all nine (9) mission areas shall be provided. Ten (10) is the maximum number of Past Performance Information Documents that are allowed. Review the Past Performance instructions in section L and evaluation language in

Q: We would like you to relieve the requirement of 3 past performance submissions from the prime and allow that the subs to make up the 10 submissions.

Management subfactor either as a standalone reference or in combination with a reference also addressing a USSTRATCOM mission area. Past performance in all nine (9) mission areas shall be provided. Ten (10) is the maximum number of Past Performance Information Documents that

Q: Will Gov’t require that sb prime submit the majority of pp?

Management subfactor either as a standalone reference or in combination with a reference also addressing a USSTRATCOM mission area. Past performance in all nine (9) mission areas shall be provided. Ten (10) is the maximum number of Past Performance Information Documents that are allowed. The Prime Offeror shall submit a reference addressing the Program Management subfactor either as a standalone reference or in combination with a reference also addressing a

USSTRATCOM mission area. Additional references may be on the Prime, teaming partner, joint venture partner or subcontractor deemed major or critical to the performance of this contract.

Prime Offeror references are considered more relevant than teaming partners. Review the Past

Performance instructions in section L and evaluation language in section M.

Q: Why 10 past performances?

section M. There are 10 subfactors; program management and nine (9) mission areas. Offerors can address each subfactor individual or may use combinations but allowing ten (10) past performance documents provides the offerors with that flexibility.

Q: Will the government require that the small business prime offeror submit the majority of past performance references (i.e. 3 out of 5)?

A: The prime contractor will be required to provide three (3) past performance documents supporting three (3) different mission areas. Past performance in all nine (9) mission areas shall be provided. Prime Offeror references are considered more relevant than teaming partners. Ten

(10) is the maximum number of Past Performance Information Documents that are allowed.

Review the Past Performance instructions in section L and evaluation language in section M.

Q: There are 10 subfactors listed, yet only 9 of the mission areas need to be addressed per

Pg. 9 of Section M. Does this mean that past performance for the program management subfactor is not required?

A: Section M 3.2.2.2 has been updated to read:

“The Prime Offeror, to include their teaming arrangements or joint ventures, may only submit a maximum number of ten (10). In order to receive relevancy ratings addressing all nine (9)

USSTRATCOM mission areas, the Offeror must submit information applicable to all nine (9) missions areas within the maximum number of past performance information documents allowed. The Prime Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) references addressing three (3) separate mission areas. The Prime Offeror shall submit a reference addressing the Program addressing a USSTRATCOM mission area.”

Q: In light of the broad scope of mission areas that need to be addressed in our past performance, would the government consider expanding the number of past performance citations from 10 to 15-18?

Q: Would there be consideration about increasing the number from 10 past performance submissions to a couple more?

Q: Would the government consider reducing the mandatory minimum amount of prime past performance submission from 3 to allow for better representation of the total team’s capability/experience?

A: The prime contractor will be required to provide three (3) past performance documents supporting three (3) different mission areas. Past performance in all nine (9) mission areas shall be provided. Ten (10) is the maximum number of Past Performance Information Documents that

Q: Based on the F&O USAMS II PP requirements, why is the Government requiring the

SB Prime on USAMS III to have 3 of the 10 PPs?

A: Any small business responding to the USAMS III RFP must be able to defend against the ostensible subcontractor rule. The small business set-aside as well as other Air Force source selection best practices has lead to the decision to require the prime contractor provide three (3) past performance documents.

Q: Are you pretty well committed to just 10 submissions? Have you considered 15?

Q: With past performance volume, we’re recommending that you bump up the submissions to 5-8 requirements. I think that is a risk that you need to consider. If you have a JV and the managing partner is not doing the amount of required portion, do you have a way of measuring that?

A: Three (3) past performance documents supporting three (3) different mission areas is the minimum requirement in addition to program management. Section M 3.2.2.2 also states: “Prime

Offeror references are considered more relevant than teaming partners”. Monthly, quarterly and annual surveillance is documents and reported to the AFPEO/CM for this program. Any prime contractor to include a Joint Venture not performing in accordance with the contract may prompt the Government to off ramp the contractor or not exercise an option.

Q: In order to reduce risk to the customer, would the gov’t consider increasing the number of past performances from the prime? Rationale, prime must perform 50% of the work.

A: The USAMS III acquisition is a trade-off between past performance and price. Section M

3.2.2.2 also states: “Prime Offeror references are considered more relevant than teaming partners”. Prime contractors must perform 50% of the work, however the work is not distributed evenly across all the mission areas, and not all contractors will win task orders for every single mission area. By simply requiring that 50% of the past performance documents come from the prime contractor doesn’t equate to primes proving they are performing 50% of the work.

Through other government channels of discussion, it was deemed that more than three (3) submissions may be too restrictive.

Q: If it is determined that task orders are individual contract actions, would the government consider increasing the max number of citations to 15? The limitation of ten is really constraining to small businesses, especially considering the number of areas that must be covered.

A: Task Orders are individual contract actions. Ten (10) is the maximum number of Past

Performance Information Documents that are allowed. Review the Past Performance instructions in section L and evaluation language in section M.

Q: Will the government consider limiting the number of past performance citations a single subcontractor can contribute to the proposal submission for evaluation? The purpose being to ensure a team with partners and not one super subcontractor that may possibly have considerable influence and control over the SB prime.

A: Limits will not be added however any small business responding to the USAMS III RFP must be able to defend against the ostensible subcontractor rule.

PP Recency & Relevancy and General Questions regarding requirements on PP submissions:

Q: 3 Past Performances for Primes: What areas must they cover for relevant or better?

A: It is each company’s decision on which of the mission areas it chooses to include in its 3 submissions. Section M 3.2.2.2 has been updated to read:

USSTRATCOM mission areas, the Offeror must submit information applicable to all nine (9) missions areas within the maximum number of past performance information documents allowed. The Prime Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) references addressing three (3) separate mission areas. The Prime Offeror shall submit a reference addressing the Program

Q: How will Government score past performances for relevancy related to USSTRATCOM support? USSTRATCOM support would appear more relevant for USAMS than for performing contracts like ITCC.

A: Section M, Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS details the relevancy ratings.

Q: Past performance relevancy criteria stipulates demonstrated performance for

USSTRATCOM in order to be rated very relevant. We believe this heavily favors USAMS

II incumbents. Would the government consider re-phrasing the criterion to include support to similar missions at other COCOMS, service components and service

MAJCOMs.

A: Section M, Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS has been updated.

Q: We should shoot for the highest past performance with the most recent and relevant information then?

A: Yes.

Q: The FAR allows individual Past Performance in the case of a small business. Will the 55

CONS accept them as relevant if recency requirements are met?

A: Section M, Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS details the relevancy ratings.

Q: Have you put the past performance construct in stone or are you willing to make adjustments to how you are looking at past performance? We think it is a difficult past performance for a group of new companies coming in and there is a bias towards

STRATCOM. One of the things that we see is highly relevant is only relevant with

STRATCOM or entities and yet there may be some groups above STRATCOM where just doing the type of work would be deemed highly relevant vs. just relevant.

Q: If you receive a CPARS only at the IDIQ contract level, please confirm that the entire contract can be submitted relevant as a past performance in the citation header. However, the body of the 3 page citation must be an individual task order under the IDIQ contract?

Does a component command meet 1.5 M annually with USSTRATCOM?

A: The only services applied to an IDIQ are program management. If the past performance submission was for program management using the IDIQ would be appropriate. If the CPARS are only conducted at the IDIQ level the past performance submission should note that CPARS are only assessed at the IDIQ level. However the past performance submission should be at the task order level because that is where the services are provided. Referencing an IDIQ is misleading because not all prime contractors win task orders covering the full IDIQ mission and the values of the task orders awarded don’t equal the total IDIQ value.

Section M, Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS has been updated.

Q: Past Performance: We have folks at NORTHCOM, TRANSCOM, PATCOM, CENTCOM, etc. and the way the relevancy is keyed up, the one that is the most relevant is with STRATCOM.

Q: 3 past performances for prime: Which areas would we need to be relevant in for the prime’s past performance submissions? You would be looking for one past performance in program management from a prime, correct?

A: It is each company’s decision on which of the mission areas it chooses to include in its 3 submissions. Section M 3.2.2.2 has been updated to read:

USSTRATCOM mission areas, the Offeror must submit information applicable to all nine (9) missions areas within the maximum number of past performance information documents allowed. The Prime Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) references addressing three (3) separate mission areas. The Prime Offeror shall submit a reference addressing the Program

Q: Past Performance: To get a relevant we would need to submit 3 and not two in the same mission area, correct?

USSTRATCOM mission areas, the Offeror must submit information applicable to all nine (9) missions areas within the maximum number of past performance information documents allowed. The Prime Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) references addressing three (3) separate mission areas. The Prime Offeror shall submit a reference addressing the Program

Q: Past Performance: say for instance that the prime has 2 really good solid combating wmd past performances to submit and then the rest of the team can cover the other 9 areas.

Does only 1 of those 2 past performances in combating wmb count? Is it OK that 2 are the same sub-factor towards the required minimum of 3?

USSTRATCOM mission areas, the Offeror must submit information applicable to all nine (9) missions areas within the maximum number of past performance information documents allowed. The Prime Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) references addressing three (3) separate mission areas. The Prime Offeror shall submit a reference addressing the Program

Offerors are not prohibited from submitting multiple past performance documents supporting a mission area(s) however all Offerors shall comply with Section M 3.2.2.2.

Q: If only 1 of the 2 count, is this a situation where the highest relevancy rating counts if we did not exceed 10?

A: All past performance submissions provided will be included in the overall performance confidence assessment. If more than ten (10) past performance documents are submitted the documents above the max allowed will not be reviewed or evaluated. Offerors shall comply with

Section M 3.2.2.2.

Q: Interested in understanding the thought process behind the past performance relevancy.

Looks like it really has to be done for STRATCOM to get the highest relevancy; whereas there are other areas that are very similar and really are very relevant but would not be considered under these existing criteria.

Q: Past Performance: Is the gov’t going to identify a more specific ranking system for the past performance evaluation ranking STRATCOM past performance higher than a similar past performance supporting another DoD customer? Will mission relevant past performance from a supporting command be rated as high as direct STRATCOM past performance?

Q: Highly Relevant - focused very much on STRATCOM. Putting a lot of partiality towards awarding to companies that are currently doing STRATCOM work.

Q: 1 January 2009, the contract has to have ended or be in progress at that date on past performance to be considered recent?

A. Contracts ending prior to 1 January 2009 will not be considered recent.

Q: Do you anticipate any changes to the relevancy dates indicated in paragraph M3.2.1 based on the new timeline briefed during Industry Day

A. No, contracts ending prior to 1 January 2009 will not be considered recent.

Q: The industry day briefing talked about identifying and demonstrating talent as relevant to the sub areas of the factors, how do you expect to do this? Resumes? Demonstrating talent as relevant? Are you looking for us to show you that we have someone in our database to show you?

A: Reference Section M 3.2.2.2.1.1.

Q: Managing a large amount of work as a sub is relevant?

A: Yes, it can be if relevant in accordance with Section 3.2.2.2 and Section M, Table 2 - PAST

PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS (has been updated).

Q: Because Army Space and Missile Defense Command is a component command to

USSTRATCOM, would a contract supporting SMDC potentially be considered as very relevant in accordance with Section M, table 2? Or, because such a contract is not directly performed “for USSTRATCOM” and is not “like work at other COCOM,” would it automatically be relegated to where its highest potential relevancy category would be

“somewhat relevant” IAW table 2?

A: Based on the dollar value this submission has the potential for a “Very Relevant” Rating.

Section M, Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS (has been updated).

Q: Can the pp submissions be as a subcontractor?

A: Yes, however the subcontract value shall be reported. The prime contractor shall address program management, see updated Section M 3.2.2.2.

Q: For pp will there be a size minimum for the pp?

A: Yes, see Section M, Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS.

Q: Is it ok to use a multiple award IDIQ task order vehicle, like USAMS II, as a single past performance write up, summarizing 2 or 3 task orders to cover one or more mission areas?

A: No, the only services applied to an IDIQ are program management. If the past performance are only conducted at the IDIQ level the past performance submission should note that CPARS are only assessed at the IDIQ level. However the past performance submission should be at the task order level because that is where the services are provided. Referencing an IDIQ is misleading because not all prime contractors win task orders covering the full IDIQ mission and the values of the task orders awarded don’t equal the total IDIQ value. For example USAMS II is a $900M program ceiling but none of the primes actually perform $900M of services.

Q: Are SB prime offerors permitted to submit past performance references in which they served as a subcontractor?

A: Yes, however the subcontract value shall be reported. The prime contractor shall address program management, see updated Section M 3.2.2.2.

Q: Will the government weigh past performance support to USSTRATCOM equal to performance in support of any of USSTRATCOM’s 9 mission areas, but on behalf of another DoD/IC partner organization?

Q: Is it acceptable to use a single IDIQ MAC with multiple task orders to cover multiple subfactors, given the limits on past performance citations?

are only conducted at the IDIQ level the past performance submission should note that CPARS are only assessed at the IDIQ level. However the past performance submission should be at the task order level because that is where the services are provided. Referencing an IDIQ is

Q: For Past Performance: To include that a small business would have that same average dollar level seems a very high restriction.

A: The average dollar amounts are appropriate based on actual USAMS task order value and market research indicates small businesses have the past performance to respond at this level.

Q: Past Performance: Is it okay to use a multiple award IDIQ vehicle like USAMS II, summarizing two or three task orders?

are only conducted at the IDIQ level the past performance submission should note that CPARS

Q: If we had a past performance with one of our teammates that covered four of the mission areas that would be okay?

A: Yes, on the past performance questionnaire you would check off which mission areas you want to cover with that submission and what dollar value applies to each mission.

Q: Past Performance area: IDIQ citations that one could use an IDIQ aggregate citation if the task orders were not judged in any way…would gov’t expect to see IDIQ task orders listed or the IDIQ task orders in the aggregate.

submission was for program management using the IDIQ would be appropriate but a list of all task orders is not expected. If the CPARS are only conducted at the IDIQ level the past performance submission should note that CPARS are only assessed at the IDIQ level. However the past performance submission should be at the task order level because that is where the services are provided. Referencing an IDIQ is misleading because not all prime contractors win task orders covering the full IDIQ mission and the values of the task orders awarded don’t equal the total IDIQ value.

Q: Obviously, we will try and fulfill 3 mission areas in the Past Performance. More than 3 mission areas will make us more attractive, right?

A: Past Performance is the most important factor in the USAMS III RFP. Section M 3.2.2.2 states: “Prime Offeror references are considered more relevant than teaming partners”. Review the Past Performance instructions in section L and evaluation language in section M. Relevancy is defined in RFP Section M3.2.2.2 and Table 2.

Q: Will you consider adding the program manager resume as part of the prime’s submission?

A: Section M 3.1.3.1.1 added this requirement: Provide resumes for key leaders to include

Program Manager (PM), Deputy Program Manager and Facility Security Officer (FSO).

Q: We are on an IDIQ and we also have under that IDIQ some task orders. Will it cause any difficulties if I use the IDIQ and then roll in a task order under the IDIQ for a mission area? We are using the IDIQ to show program management.

are only conducted at the IDIQ level the past performance submission should note that CPARS

Q: Given this procurement is a SB set aside; does the minimum threshold of $1.5M seem appropriate as a limitation for a ‘very relevant’ evaluation since a small business may have very relevant experience that falls under that monetary threshold?

A: The average dollar amounts are appropriate based on actual USAMS task order value and market research indicates small businesses have the past performance to respond at this level.

Q: What is the rationale for placing specific monetary values against the Past Performance relevancy criteria?

A: Section M3.2.2.2.1 identifies the variables determining relevancy and dollar value is among them. The average dollar amounts are appropriate based on actual USAMS task order value.

Q: Will you consider changing the wording for Past Performance Relevancy Ratings from

“Performance for USSTRATCOM” to “Performance for USSTRATCOM, its sub-unified command, and its components”?

Q: Will the Government consider allowing a SB to consolidate several task orders performance citations from 1 IDIQ to meet the $1.5M threshold for ‘very relevant’ and provide verification of requested capabilities in a specific functional area? Our desire is to consolidate directly relevant task orders awarded under a GWAC/MAC/IDIQ/BPA, etc., demonstrating our capabilities for a single customer that issued multiple task orders. As such, we will sum the total task order award values and cite each task order under one Past

Performance submission. Is this acceptable?

A: Consolidation of contracts, delivery orders or task orders is not permitted. The only services applied to an IDIQ are program management. If the past performance submission was for program management using the IDIQ would be appropriate. If the CPARS are only conducted at the IDIQ level the past performance submission should note that CPARS are only assessed at the

IDIQ level. However the past performance submission should be at the task order level because that is where the services are provided. Referencing an IDIQ is misleading because not all prime contractors win task orders covering the full IDIQ mission and the values of the task orders awarded don’t equal the total IDIQ value.

Miscellaneous Questions/Concerns/ Recommendations on Past Performance:

Q: What is the cost/price (tradeoff) variance between a past performance rating of

“substantial confidence” versus an offeror determined to provide “satisfactory confidence?”

A: Section M 1.3 details the trade-off process:

To arrive at a source selection decision, the Government will evaluate the factors, subfactors

(described below), and proposed price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective. The Government may award to a higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the

Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. In addition, the Government may award to a lower priced, lower rated offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the lower price outweighs the rating difference.

Q: From a past performance perspective, many potential small business bidders have mostly subcontracting vs. prime contracting past performance. How will the government take this into consideration when comparing otherwise equal technical & pricing data from competing bidders?

A: When applying a performance confidence assessment all the past performance documents are rolled up into a single overall assessment, see Section M 3.2.2.4. The past performance documents submitted will contain many variables to analyze, one of those variables relates to subcontracting vs. prime contracting. Reference Section M 1.0 regarding the Governments three

(3) step evaluation process.

Q: Recommend past performance indicate how many personnel would be available for a

USAMS task order. USAMS is about talent; should few people transfer USSTRATCOM not likely to benefit; precedents.

A: Each task order is solicited as its own requirement. Task order specific FTE counts will not be included as a requirement for the USAMS III IDIQ source selection.

Q: How will Government score past performances vs. PWS task areas given the nature of

USAMS? Coverage of all task areas would appear more important than breadth of any particular PP.

A: The government will evaluate the factors and subfactors identified in accordance sections L and M.

Q: Because Past Performance is organized by mission area, that construct may not cover all the capabilities that have been required in the past (e.g., USAMS II Task Order listing).

A single company with strong experience in a geographic command J3 could ostensibly cover all mission areas, but they would not make a good contractor, since they would not have other functions covered, such as IT, modeling and simulation, intelligence and safety.

Would it make more sense to organize Past Performance by function?

A: When competing an IDIQ contract not all potential capabilities will undergo evaluation at the prime contract level. When developing criteria for evaluation the Government focused on the subfactors that were the most important. Because this is a Multiple Award IDIQ the functional evaluation you mention will take place at the task order level. Within the ten (10) past performance submissions any contractor should have enough opportunity to provide past performance addressing each mission area.

Q: So let's say we bring a current USAMS II Prime to our team. That Prime will, of course, have the USAMS II IDIQ as Past Performance. But how would that fit? I mean, the vehicle itself consists of Tasks, which is where the work is done. Some it seems to me that the Task Orders a Prime has won make sense for Past Performance items, but the

IDIQ itself only does as much as the TOs awarded to that Prime.

To clarify, I am curious as to whether a USAMS II Prime could "claim" ALL mission areas as Past Performance since the USAMS II IDIQ "covers" all of them, even if that

Prime never won a Task Order related to several mission areas.

are only conducted at the IDIQ level the past performance submission should note that CPARS are only assessed at the IDIQ level. However the past performance submission should be at the task order level because that is where the services are provided. Referencing an IDIQ is misleading because not all prime contractors win task orders covering the full IDIQ mission and the values of the task orders awarded don’t equal the total IDIQ value. For example USAMS II is a $900M program ceiling but none of the primes actually perform $900M of services.

Q: Is it fair to ask you how you will evaluate Past Performance. Do you all do a past performance background to ensure that the submissions are accurate?

A: Absolutely. Section L4 and Section M3.2.1 identify the sources the Government may use in evaluating past performance.

Q: Is the Offeror exempt from sending the past performance questionnaire to a USAMS II

Prime who is now a sub to another small business that is priming USAMS III (ref L.4.6)?

A: Yes, Section L 4.6 states: To avoid potential conflicts, Offerors are exempt from sending Past and Present Performance Questionnaires to other potential competitors of this acquisition. In this situation, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to find an alternative method of providing the

Government the same or similar information.

Q: Past Performance: To what degree have you heard questions about past performance and have you had any other questions about past performance in this forum?

A: Past performance has been important to each company.

Q: Is there any difficulty in us submitting all of our past performance? 3 lines of business all want to participate on USAMS 3, and all 3 bring something to the table that

STRATCOM will value. In order to be considered, it has to be within the same division of the business unit. Can we use all of our company’s past performance as we start calling the list?

A: Need past performance related to that business unit. One unit doing targeting, one doing nuclear deterrence, etc. We need past performance on targeting from the targeting unit.

Q: Past Performance: Biggest thing from SB stand point is trying to get in to the market.

From the Past Performance, it seems like USAMS III is a little bit more restrictive than

USAMS II on past performance. We could have some difficulty meeting 3 past performance submittals for a prime with the assumption that all 3 would not be on program management. How will the Government take ways to level the playing field as far as those primes not resident on USAMS II vs. those introducing back in to this market?

A: First step was to update Section M, Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

RATINGS. Any small business responding to the USAMS III RFP must be able to defend against the ostensible subcontractor rule. The small business set-aside as well as other Air Force source selection best practices has lead to the decision to require the prime contractor provide three (3) past performance documents. The average dollar amounts are appropriate based on actual USAMS task order value and market research indicates small businesses have the past performance to respond.

Q: Evaluation criteria: For the disqualifications for not enough past performance if a small business comes to the table and doesn’t have past performance, they are basically put as a neutral and then as a pass. How will you handle that? No pp = neutral but cannot show they can cover it.

A: Section M3.2.2.6 addresses a neutral rating.

Q: If you have a company or team really big in the J3 organization, in every part of the J3 they do all the mission areas. They are able to write that yes, I do work in all 9 mission areas, but it is not necessarily the type of mission area work you are wanting. Are you willing to look at getting past performance along functions (J2, J3, 6, 7, etc.)?

A: Section M 3.2.2.2 details all the variables and standards regarding past performance evaluation. For example tasks performed is a variable as is dollar type. Past Performance evaluation will focus on the subfactors as outlined in section M 3.2.2.2.

Q: In Past Performance volume, recommend you look at a multi-step process to help you have as much latitude before you get to price. Does the prime have experience handling large IDIQs and large volumes, etc.

A: Past performance evaluation is conducted separately from price. Ref. Section M 1.0 for the mutli-step process. Past performance relevancy is referenced in Section M 3.2.2.2.

Q: Past Performance: should include the type of personnel along with the tasks that were covered. I could provide a sample acquisition where they did this.

A: Actual services are performed at the task order level and that type of details is requested then.

Section M 3.1.3.1.1 requires the following: Provide resumes for key leaders to include Program

Manager (PM), Deputy Program Manager and Facility Security Officer (FSO).

Q: Given that technical is a threshold/gate, since there is a chance for low balling on price, you want to really increase the past performance. How can we can we get the most granularity on the past performance? If you have differences in price between small businesses could be due to risk or performance.

A: Ref. Section M 1.0 for the mutli-step process. Past performance evaluation is conducted separately from price. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with Section M 3.2.

Section M 3.2.1 states: In evaluating past performance, information may be obtained through the

Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRs), similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with program managers and contracting officers and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by each offeror and data obtained from other sources. Price will be evaluated in accordance with Section M 3.3.

Q: Industry shows that firms that have worked together and develop habitual relationships are more likely to work together successfully in the future. As we look at past performance, does the government see that as a factor and how will you evaluate this potential success and risk reduction factor? Recommend it in the program management piece, which will roll up to the technical piece that is pass or fail. Suggest you look in past performances and the ones that have worked together, the risk will be less.

A: Successful performance shall be included in past performance document submissions.

Section M 3.2, Factor 2: Past Performance Evaluation Procedures describes how the Government will evaluate past performance.

Q: How will the Government determine whether a newly formed joint venture composed of two small businesses is a responsible bidder? How will the gov’t assess past performance for this joint venture, excluding past performance. Our concern is that they are a brand new joint venture.

A: Past Performance submissions would be allowed by the companies forming the joint venture.

Example if Firm A and Firm B create a joint venture the Government will accept past performance documents from those Firms and assess them as part of the prime offerors response.

If required the Government will solicit the services of the Small Business Administration if assistance is needed in determining responsibility. A lot depends on how firms structure the joint venture. How a joint venture is structured will really determine how it gets reviewed.

Q: Past Performance, special access programs: Will the gov’t be willing to extend a gov’t to gov’t questionnaire when evaluating submitted past performances that are not specifically detailed in a CPAR evaluation or PPQ due to its classification?

A: The Government evaluation process for USAMS III is not set up to support evaluation of classified past performance submissions.

Q: Past Performance: It says to similar size, scope and complexity; small businesses don’t normally have the same size and scope on something of this size.

A: Review Section M, Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Q: Noticed that the resumes were not necessarily requested, but there was the opportunity to provide a key resume on the areas where you will be submitting past performance. Does

Gov’t require the resumes at the task order level?

A: Section M 3.1.3.1.1 was updated: Provide resumes for key leaders to include Program

When soliciting task orders under the USAMS IDIQ, the standard proposal request does include the technical requirement and the personnel qualification summaries.

Q: Past Performance Relevancy - use a price/past performance tradeoff. Have you determined a cost/price value for that tradeoff?

A: Section M 1.3 details the trade-off process:

To arrive at a source selection decision, the Government will evaluate the factors, subfactors

(described below), and proposed price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective. The Government may award to a higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the

Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. In addition, the Government may award to a lower priced, lower rated offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the lower price outweighs the rating difference.

Q: Do you consider successful response, execution, and management of the task order process, post-base award, a risk factor by small businesses lacking similar scope and size

IDIQ MAC prime management experience? Will you mitigate this by including evaluation factors that address this specific past performance risk? What do you envision the post based contract-award task order environment to be (TO schedule, management, etc.). On other IDIQs that we have participated in, it has always been a required feature.

A: Section M 3.1.3.1.1 was updated: Provide resumes for key leaders to include Program

Section M 3.2.2.2 was updated: The Prime Offeror shall submit a reference addressing the

Program Management subfactor either as a standalone reference or in combination with a reference also addressing a USSTRATCOM mission area.

Q: Is the confidence rating going to be in line with the past performance rating? Could a company submit a past performance that was somewhat relevant, but overall from the management and other areas is it potential to have a higher confidence rating on that submission?

A: When assigning a performance confidence assessment all the past performance documents are rolled up into a single overall assessment, see Section M 3.2.2.4.

Q: As written in the DRFP, it will be extremely challenging for Small businesses to possess the level of Past Performance currently sought in specificity and breadth at STRATCOM – clearly the incumbent workforce has a clear advantage. Is the Government considering ways to ‘level the playing field’ or truly attract best-of-breed performers?

A: The USSTRATCOM mission areas are themselves challenging and the criteria is set up to select the best demonstrated performers. Past Performance is the most important factor in the

USAMS III RFP and the thresholds for relevancy mitigate performance risk.

Q: Past Performance seems to be heavily related to experience in the mission areas. What are you looking for in past performance area? It seems to me size, scope, and has technically met all subfactors.

A: Past Performance in program management and the USSTRATCOM mission areas are the focus. Review Section M 3.2 for specific past performance evaluation details.

Q: We thought maybe one Past performance submitted would have to be directly for only program management.

A: Section M 3.2.2.2 has been updated to address this question.

The Prime Offeror shall submit a reference addressing the Program Management subfactor either as a standalone reference or in combination with a reference also addressing a USSTRATCOM mission area.

Q: Are you expecting PP against the first of the technical areas, which is program management?

A: Section M 3.2.2.2 has been updated to address this question.

The Prime Offeror shall submit a reference addressing the Program Management subfactor either as a standalone reference or in combination with a reference also addressing a USSTRATCOM mission area.

Q: If you look at a matrix for A&AS work, 3 areas, and 9 mission areas and program management. You have 20+ squares to fill in 10 citations. Are you considering increasing the number of citations or are you allowing them to fill some of the mission areas but in these mission areas, you performed 3 of the A&AS work. In the pp questionnaire - the T areas. Will we get downgraded for not having all 3 areas of A&AS?

A: Section M 3.2.2.2.1.3-10 has been updated to allow one of the three A&AS references and the past performance questionnaire has been updated to match that language. You don’t have to do each type of A&AS work for each square. A single contract isn’t going to cover every single element of A&AS as the A&AS categories are broad. You will not get downgraded for not having all 3 areas of A&AS in that one mission area.

Q: We have heard from other contractors that you will not be looked upon favorably from the contracting squadron because we have never primed on something of this size. Will you rank us lower?

A: Reference Section 3.2.2.2.2 for relevancy definition and criteria.

Q: A&AS in sentence where it says similar in size, scope, and type, we read type as FFP, CPFF, etc.

A: “Type” is in reference to different contract types. See FAR Part 16 for full list of contract types.

Q: Would it be a disqualification if no one on the team has one of the mission areas, but as a sb, they are rated neutral?

A: Sections M 3.2.2.4, M 3.2.2.5 and M 3.2.2.6 address neutral ratings and the Performance

Confidence Assessment

Q: How will pp be judged for a JV?

A: Past Performance submissions would be allowed by the companies forming the joint venture.

Example if Firm A and Firm B create a joint venture the Government will accept past performance documents from those Firms and assess them as part of the prime offerors response.

If required the Government will solicit the services of the Small Business Administration if assistance is needed in determining responsibility. A lot depends on how firms structure the joint venture. How a joint venture is structured will really determine how it gets reviewed.

Q: Do you foresee awarding contracts to those that have satisfactory confidence?

A: Reference Section M 1.3.

Q: Recommend task performance abstract that task order performance should have a higher rating than a non-task order performance.

A: Services provided under a “C” type contract do not equal lower performance outcomes when compared to task orders. The contract type is only one variable when determining relevancy.

See Section M 3.2.2.2.1.

Q: 10% of USAMS III effort anticipated to occur off station. Even if not a JFCC, it appears more performance risk with off-site rather than on-site. If that is true, how is that evaluated in the proposal? If dealing with a small business that does not have resources at each area, how will you evaluate that type of risk?

A: The estimated 10% of task order performance locations other than Offutt AFB for under

USAMS III is based on the number of task orders and not based the dollars obligated or based on the specific task requirements at locations other than Offutt AFB. The USAMS III RFP allows an offeror to address working at multiple performance locations as defined in Section M, TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS. A contractors’ ability to recruit, hire and retain skills sets necessary to support the USAMS missions may also be addressed under the subfactor one, program management. Section L 5.2.1 has been updated to address this topic.

Q: Several current USAMS II small businesses priming USAMS III are likely going to want to use their USAMS II Past Performance for USAMS III. How does the government envision dealing with the likely case that the small businesses former Prime contractor is teamed with a different small business prime for USAMS III? This looks like an OCI condition when the Small Business has to go to a competitor (their former prime contractor) for a favorable write-up?

A: Section L 4.6 states: To avoid potential conflicts, Offerors are exempt from sending Past and

Present Performance Questionnaires to other potential competitors of this acquisition. In this situation, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to find an alternative method of providing the

Government the same or similar information.

Q: Does the fact that we don’t currently work in the market going to be a factor on whether or not we get evaluated? Is that going to be graded against us?

A: Past Performance is the most important factor in the USAMS III RFP. Review the Past

Performance instructions in section L and evaluation language in section M. Relevancy is defined in RFP Section M3.2.2.2 and Table 2.

Q: Can you provide a detailed explanation of the scope and components within the

Strategic Deterrence mission area? Unlike the other mission areas, Strategic Deterrence is not as precisely defined and scoped in terms of USAMS III requirements. The sub-factor tasks for Strategic Deterrence in Section M are clear. However, for past performance the term Strategic Deterrence can be narrowed to higher level staff process and products, such as strategy development, planning, analysis, communications, messaging, etc. The term can be significantly expanded to include a range of engineering, maintenance, modernization, planning and operating requirements for all nuclear-unique forces and supporting mission systems.

A: Recommend focusing past performance on subfactor criteria as stated in Section M

3.2.2.2.1.2.

Q: Advisory and Assistance Services have three components as identified in all past performance relevancy criteria (Para 3.2.2.2.1). What is to be accomplished when the government requires all three components in all mission areas? When a company performs services in the area of Studies, Analyses and Evaluations in, say three mission areas, it demonstrates its ability to perform those services in support of any mission.

Would it make more sense to require each of the three components to be addressed in a certain number of mission areas like 5 of 9?

A: Only one of the three need to be cited on a past performance document. The past performance questionnaire and Sections L and M have also been updated to reflect that only one of the main three A&AS categories is reported. Some past performance submissions may hit more than one, in such an instance indicate what categories on the past performance questionnaire.

Q: Section M3.2.2.2 indicates that past performance must have been performed by the same division or business unit in order to be considered relevant. In light of the wide variety of organizational structures and differing relationship within a company, how will this criterion be applied and evaluated?

A: Need past performance related to that business unit. One unit doing targeting, one doing nuclear deterrence, etc. We need past performance on targeting from the targeting unit.