Section_L.pdf

Section L

Q: In the Organization of Proposals section L2.0, it is stated that the Past Performance volume will have a section called “quality Awards,” but later in the descriptions of the section, it is described as L.4.11 Performance Quality. Please clarify the requirement for this section.

A: The “Quality Awards” section in L.2.0 allows for offerors to submit any awards they have received for the quality of their work. Section L.4.11 Performance Quality, discusses what specific information will be evaluated as described in section M.3.2.

Q: Volume I, Section L.3.3.1.4, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan requires the offeror to describe its approach for detecting, disclosing, avoiding, and mitigating OCI issues/risks. Volume IV, Section L.6.3.3. requires the offeror to submit an OCI Plan which will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 9.5. As noted in Section M, the Government shall evaluate the OCI Plan as part of the evaluation of Volume I, Subfactor I, Program

Management. Should the offeror include the OCI Plan in Volume I versus Volume IV.

A: Offerors should submit the OCI Plan in Volume I and provide the disclosures required by section H paragraph “Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Avoidance” in L.6.3.3.

Paragraph L.6.3.3. will be edited to remove the successful offeror preparation of an OCI mitigation plan language.

Q: Given that Industry Day is scheduled for 12 February is it correct to assume the due dates in Section L.2.0 shall be revised? If so, what are the anticipated dates?

A: Yes, dates will be revised. The government projects the proposals will be due on 12 June

2013.

Q: With respect to Volume III, given the proprietary nature of the information required in

Section L.5.3, are subcontractors permitted to provide this information in sealed packages for submission with the prime’s proposal?

A: Subcontractors can provide the latest FPRA approved by DCAA in sealed packages, but request the contact information for DCAA/DCMA offices for prime and subs be in the pricing model.

Q: The Draft states, in section L2.0. Organization of Proposals, that Past Performance

Tracking Records are due 1 March 2013; however, it also says that all documents are due by 2PM local time on 12 March 2013. Please clarify.

A: Dates will be revised. The government projects the proposals will be due on 12 June 2013.

Q: In reference to Volume III, Section L.5.5, does the Government require the submission of the major subcontractor’s total compensation plan(s)?

A: Yes.

Q: Section L2.0 – Table 2.0 – Technical page 4: Vendor requests the government to add 10 additional pages to total page limitation to cover general PWS requirements.

A: We are considering increasing the page limit for the Technical Proposals.

Q: Section L.4.5 – Page 13: DRFP states: A Past Performance Document is required on the

Prime Offeror or joint venture, and subcontractors or teaming partners that will perform

10% or more of this acquisition. Please clarify if there is a difference between a

“subcontractor” and a “teaming partner” by your definition.

A: No difference for our evaluation purposes unless specified by the offeror, the Joint Venture agreement or other documentation.

Q: Section L3.1 – page 7: DRFP states: “At a minimum, the Technical proposal shall consist of the following sections:” Can unused pages within the provided maximums on page 4 be used to create a response section not currently listed?

A: The source selection team will evaluate according to section M. Additional information will not be evaluated.

Q: Sections L2.0 and L4.2 reference “Quality Awards”. In Section L2.0, Table 2, the reference does not include a page limit. In addition, Section L does not provide an accompanying explanation of what this reference means or what the offeror is expected to provide to satisfy the requirement. Please clarify.

A: “Quality Awards” include any awards the awards the company has won for work performance.

Q: Sections L4.10.1 and M3.2.2.1 state, “In determining recency, the Government will only consider contracts with performance ending on or after 1 January 2009, …”. As the

USAMS III solicitation is a small business set-aside, suggest the Government revise the performance end date to 1 January 2008.

A: The government is not considering expanding the timeline.

Q: Section L2.0 shows 58 pages as the maximum page limit for Volume I – Technical but the Executive Summary (3 pages) is not page counted per the sub-note within Table 2.0.

Please clarify if the proper page count for Volume I should be 55 or 58 due to this.

A: The Executive Summary is not included in the page count. We are considering increasing the total page count to 60, increasing the Program Management section by 5 pages to a total of 15 pages.

Q: Section L2.0 states that all documents, including Volume II – Past Performance are due

12 March 2013 but the subnote *** states that the Past Performance Tracking Record

(electronic copy) is due by 1 March 2013. Please clarify if the Tracking Record is due early and if so, would the Government be amenable to changing the date to 12 March 2013 to synchronize with the Past Performance Volume to allow bidder’s the opportunity to ensure

Questionnaires are sent for all final, submitted citations instead of interim citations that may be modified between 1 March and 12 March.

Q: Section L3.1 shows the current Subfactors that are later described in sections L.3.3.2 –

L.3.3.10. These mission areas are extremely broad and are constrained to 5 pages on a

PASS/FAIL basis leaving the Government open to in-depth qualitative analysis and potential protest dangers of bidder’s excluded from the competitive range. In order to reduce this risk and to ensure all bidder’s have an equal access of information, recommend the Government provide an overview of each mission area during Industry Day so incumbents and non-incumbents share the same understanding of RFP requirements.

A: The government briefed the mission areas on industry day and has posted a sample task order for each of the nine mission areas.

Q: Section L.3.3.1.4 states the need for an OCI plan within Subfactor 1 page count of 10 pages. Most industry-standard OCI plans are well over 20 pages long and would not fit within the current Subfactor 1 page count. Recommend the Government allow bidder’s to provide a thorough and FAR 9.5 and 9.6 compliant OCI Mitigation Plan as a non-page counted Attachment to Volume I – Technical in order to ensure complete assessment and mitigation of OCIs at the contract and task order level.

A: Yes, Section L table 2.0 has been updated.

Q: Section L paragraph L4.10.1 and Section M paragraph M3.2.2.1; Recency:

Rationale: Many potential USAMS II Small Business Primes may have IDIQ type prime contracts that are highly relevant to USMAS III but have not reached the 1 year performance criteria.

Question/Request: In light of USAMS III being a Total Small Business Set Aside will the

Government consider a past performance reference that has been performed on for more than 10 months but less than 12 months?

A: No.

Q: Section L paragraph L4.6; Past Performance Questionnaire Tracking Record:

Rationale: Many potential USAMS II Small Business Primes will have performed in a

Subcontractor role to a large business supporting mission areas relevant to USAMS III.

Question/Request: How will the Government evaluate the past performance submitted?

if a questionnaire is not returned by the large business that may be teaming on USAMS

III but on another Prime team and therefore reluctant to provide a questionnaire?

A: Section L 24.6 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: Ref. Section L, page 5. The Government indicates that all proposal documents are due

12 March 2013. Is this the Government’s planned/expected date for proposal submission?

When is the Government planning to release the solicitation?

Q: Section L paragraph L2.0, Table 2.0, Notes at end of table: With the Industry Day occurring on 12 February and one-one ones afterwards, will the Government adjust the proposal and Past Performance Tracking Record due dates to ensure adequate time for proposal development?

Q: Section L paragraph L4.5:

Rationale: Compared to the Full & Open USAMS II Past/Present Performance requirements the requirements for the Total Small Business Set Aside USAMS III are much more restrictive as far as the Prime’s requirements and could limit competition.

Since this is a total SB set aside the primary past performance the Prime should show is the ability to management large task order driven IDIQ type contracts.

Question: Will the Government reduce the Prime’s requirement for past performance to one showing emphasis on the ability to management task order driven

IDIQ type contract and teammates?

Q: Section L paragraph L4.5 and Section M paragraph M3.2.2.2; Relevancy: Do the 3 past performances for the Prime have to on contracts where the Prime performed as the prime?

Q: The Exec Summary is not part of Volume 1 page count, but appears it is part of the 58 page count in Table 2 of Section L?

A: The Executive Summary is not included in the page count. We are considering increasing the total page count to 60, increasing the Program Management section by 5 pages to a total of 15 pages.

Q: (Ref. L2.2.7) Can we cross reference processes between mission areas within the technical volume or will each mission area be evaluated by a different person?

A: All technical evaluators will evaluate each mission area.

Q: Reference Draft L4.5 CONTRACTOR’S PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION DOCUMENTS

Three (3) of the references provided shall be on the Prime.

Can Subfactor 1, Program Management count into the three references or do all three references have to be directly related to nine mission areas to receive a Relevant or above rating?

A: Section L 4.5 has been updated.

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.

Q: “Price Reasonableness” is referred to in paragraph L.1.2. Assuming there is additional information required to prove price reasonableness, how long will the 55th CONS allow the potential contractor to provide that information?

A: The government anticipates adequate competition to support price reasonableness. If the government determines that it needs additional time it will define an adequate time for contractors to respond.

Q: In reference to the subject solicitation, would the government consider including Section L language similar to that found below? This language comes from a large, multi-award ID/IQ that went SBSA wherein the government wanted to evaluate the SB primes (including JVs) ability to manage the ID/IQ:

L-8.6.3. IDIQ Management

Provide the Prime offeror’s (to include Joint Ventures) approach to manage the ATEP II

IDIQ contract (approximately $120M awarded and 65 Task Order RFPs annually) within the Wright Patterson Air Force Base local area. Cite specific experience or staff qualifications as appropriate to substantiate Prime offeror’s capability to maintain continuity of mission support during transition following award and successfully manage the ATEP II IDIQ contract.

A: Similar information is detailed in Section L and Section M.

Q: PP, ref section L4.6: Will the gov’t consider accepting a recent CPAR only from a customer as a form of official validation? It is not uncommon for a customer to only issue

CPARS as required and not respond to PPQ’s. You perform on the IDIQ and a paragraph on the box for every task order you perform on….this includes space for comments and they are conducted bi-annually. One informal and one official. Our CO stance is I am doing CPARS as required and am doing a thorough job…bog down contracting office by having them fill out PPQ’s.

A: In this case a company would include the CO’s statement regarding past performance questionnaires. A company would complete the PPQ without grading it and identify that the grading was done via CPAR and provide the contract number. Section L 4.1 states: The sources may include, but are not limited to, the Past Performance Information Documents submitted, Past

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRs), questionnaires, and interviews.

Q: Past Performance Volume – Section L4.1 state: “….the term “offeror” includes the prime offeror and/or team members and major subcontractors performing 10% or more of the effort.”

Past Performance Volume – Section L4.5 states: “A Past Performance Information

Document is required on the Prime Offeror or joint venture, and subcontractors or teaming partners that will perform 10% or more of the acquisition.” The same paragraph also states: “Three of the references shall be on the Prime.”

Recommendation: Change the word “Prime” to just “Offeror.”

Recommendation: When scoring Past Performance write-ups emphasis should also be placed on how the USSTRATCOM key mission area/critical sub-factors (i.e. Strategic

Deterrence) are covered in the context of all the write-ups provided. In other words we recommend scoring the columns and not just the rows.

Recommendation: Past Performance on USSTRATCOM support should be graded with greater relevancy.

A: Thank you