Section_M.pdf

Section M

Q: Section M3.2.2.2 describes the Relevancy ratings for Past Performance. The criteria shown in Table 2 are highly detailed, inordinately restrictive and potentially favorable to current USAMS II incumbents, especially large business incumbents. In order to level the playing field for non-incumbents and to better reflect the nature of work performed by current small business bidder’s on USAMS II and other relevant vehicles, recommend the

Government implement the following changes to Past Performance Relevance:

a. Allow other COCOM support to count as VERY RELEVANT – this will allow non-USAMS II incumbents to be evaluated on equal footing with current USAMS II incumbents

b. Change current annual contract values to total contract values – this will better evaluate actual Small Business participation on the current USAMS II contract as well as other relevant contracts and will be evaluated in the same manner as the bidder’s library which lists task orders only by total value, not by annual value.

c. Remove the multiple location requirement from VERY RELEVANT and

RELEVANT – this requirement artificially penalizes small business partners who provide highly relevant support on large programs at only one location. If the Government wishes to understand a team’s ability to support multiple locations, recommend a criteria be added to Section L3.3.1.6 expanding the OCONUS support to Geographically Separated

United (GSU) support including OCONUS.

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

Q: M2.0 and M3.2.2.1 require consideration of past performance recency “only with performance ending on or after 1 January 2009.” Given the scope and breadth of the

USAMS III mission requirements, to include the need to be adaptable to requirements in mission areas “not yet identified,” will the Government consider expanding the past performance recency criteria beyond 1 Jan 09?

A: No.

Q: Reference Draft Section M, M3.1 Technical Evaluation and M3.1.3.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:….

In Subfactors 2-10, the offeror is asked to demonstrate Technical Capability to provide

Advisory and Assistance Services for Management and Professional Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and Engineering and Technical Services for the

Strategic Deterrence mission area in accordance with the PWS for each of these subfactors.

Without specific requirements such as contained in a task order RFP, how can we address subfactors 2-10? It seems that the past performance evaluation would address an offeror’s capability to perform in these specific areas? Could you also provide an example or better clarification on what the government is looking for concerning M3.1.3 technical evaluation requirements in subfactors 2-10/nine mission areas?

A: The government intends to evaluate the offerors approach and ability to team/perform technical functions in the technical subfactor areas where specific task areas are identified. Past

Performance will also evaluate performance of subfactors as defined in M3.2.2.2.1. Sample past task orders have been posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at www.fbo.gov to clarify sample work in mission areas.

Q: Draft Section M, M3.1 Technical Evaluation and M3.1.2.

The Technical evaluation will use the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table 1:

This offeror would like additional information on how meet the solicitation’s minimum requirements? For example, Subfactor 1—Program Management is well defined.

Subfactors 2-10/mission areas do not lead to understanding what minimal requirements we need to address?

A: The government intends to evaluate the offerors approach and ability to team/perform technical functions in the technical subfactor areas where specific task areas are identified. Past

Performance will also evaluate performance of subfactors as defined in M3.2.2.2.1. Sample past task orders have been posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at www.fbo.gov to clarify sample work in mission areas.

Q: Draft Section M, M3.2.2.2 Relevancy:

In order to be considered Relevant, the effort must have been performed by the same division or business unit that is being proposed to perform the USAMS III requirement.

Please clarify what is meant by must have been performed by the same division or business unit?

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: Draft Section M, M3.2.2.2 Relevancy:

Past performance effort involved in identifying and sourcing qualified personnel required to support the scope of effort identified in the USAMS III PWS for work performed on contracts $1.5M or greater annually. Offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate performance for

USSTRATCOM of one or more of USSTRATCOM’s nine mission areas at multiple locations.

Please help the offeror understand how to obtain a Very Relevant rating on Past

Performance References. Is the only way to receive a Very Relevant is to have performed work on a USSTRATCOM contract (not related work with another COCOM?)? And is that work only relevant to the nine mission areas, therefore you cannot receive a Very

Relevant for work accomplished in Subfactor 1? Could you also please provide an example or two to help clarify this point?

http://www.fbo.gov/

An offeror shall use the past performance questionnaire to identify what areas the past performance submission supports. It is possible to have a past performance submission cover more than one subfactor.

Q: Section M1.2 appears to have conflicting information. It states that an offeror can be rated “Unacceptable” under the Technical factor, yet still be in the competitive range. It later states that “Only offerors deemed “Acceptable” in all Technical subfactors are eligible for award.” This raises the following question: Why would an offeror that is ineligible for award be considered to be in the competitive range? Please clarify.

A: Based the evaluation process the contracting officer could determine the unacceptable offeror could be made acceptable through clarifications or discussions.

Q: Section M, paragraphs 1.0 and 2.0, indicate this is a best value award and that price is the least important evaluation factor. To streamline source selection and reduce DoD budgets, one DoD agency used source selection approach below for Professional

Acquisition Support Services (FA8721-11-R-0002):

Evaluation Process

In order to conduct an efficient competition, the PASS II solicitation will contain a multi-step evaluation process. The evaluation process will proceed as follows:

Step 1:

The Government will rank lowest to highest offers based on the Offeror’s Total Evaluated

Price (TEP) in accordance with Section 4.2 of this document. The Government will perform an initial assessment of the Offeror’s TEP to screen them for accuracy and completeness. The Government may make corrections to obvious mathematical errors, rounding errors or other minor adjustments for the purpose of initial screening.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine if they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced labor categories despite an acceptable TEP. An offer is unbalanced if it contains prices which are significantly overstated in some instances and significantly understated in others instances. Unbalanced pricing may cause the Offeror to be unawardable if the Government determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (FAR 15.404-

1(g)).

The Government will initially select the six (6) lowest TEP’s for further evaluation. The

Government reserves the right to select more than six (6) proposals for further evaluation if it is considered to be in the best interest of the Government; however if less than six (6) proposals are received, the Government will evaluate all offers. An Offeror that is found materially unbalanced during Step 1 may or may not be further evaluated under Step 2, in the sole discretion of the Government.

Step 2:

The Government will evaluate proposals selected from Step 1 for Technical and Past

Performance “Acceptability” in accordance with Sections M-2 and M-3 of this document.

If any proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating in either Technical or Past Performance, that proposal will be set aside and no longer be considered for award unless discussions are held. Provided there are additional proposals available, the Unacceptable proposal will be replaced with the next lowest TEP for further evaluation.

This part of the evaluation process will continue until the awardable pool of six (6) or more

Technical and Past Performance “Acceptable” proposals have been identified for award or until all proposals have been evaluated for acceptability. However, if the SSA determines discussions are necessary, all submitted proposals will be evaluated under Step 2.

The SSA has the discretion to make a competitive range determination following the initial proposal evaluation if it is determined to be in the best interests of the Government. The

SSA may limit the number of offerors in the competitive range for purposes of efficiency in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2) and FAR 52.215-1(f)(4).

A: Thank you.

Q6: Section M – General: Will the 55CONS request pre-award audits as part of the solicitation selection process?

A: CONS will not request pre-award audits.

Q: Section M1.0 states the Basis for Award and provides three steps to determine qualified bidders but provides no adjudication after Step 3 for weighing Past Performance

Confidence and Price. Please provide clarification for how “best value” will be determined after bidder’s are ranked by price in Step 3 of the Basis for Award.

A: This is a competitive trade-off source selection in which non-cost factors are more important than price considerations and Performance Price Tradeoff allows for SSA discretion in awarding to higher rated performers over lower rated performers if the price differential is warranted and considered to be best value. 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.

Q: Section M paragraph M3.2.2.2; Relevancy, Table 2, Past Performance Relevancy

Ratings

Question/Request: When using an overall IDIQ contract as a past performance reference can all the revenue for all the tasks orders awarded be combined to meet the annual revenue criteria as long as they meet the PWS and mission area requirements?

A: No, it is value per task order with an exception, if the offeror is using an IDIQ to address program management the aggregate task order value is appropriate.

Q: Section M paragraph M3.2.2.2; Relevancy, Table 2, Past Performance Relevancy

Ratings

Rationale: Many potential USAMS II Small Business Primes may have past performance where they performed as a subcontractor that are highly relevant to USAMS III but do not meet the annual revenue criteria as currently specified in Table 2.

Question/Request: Will the Government reduce the annual revenue criteria specified in

Table 2; Past Performance Relevancy Ratings by 50% to enable more SBs to qualify as

Very Relevant or Relevant and therefore increase competition?

A: The relevancy criteria is based on past and projected requirements. In order to manage risk, the government does not intend to lower evaluation standards.

Q2: Ref. Section M, Table 2, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings.

Discussion: As the mission states, “USSTRATCOM conducts global operations in coordination with other Combatant Commands, Services, and appropriate U.S.

Government agencies to deter and detect strategic attacks against the U.S. and its allies, and is prepared to defend the nation as directed.” USSTRATCOM is a combatant command that most work together with DoD commands, service branches, and independent DoD agencies to meet its daily mission. A&AS type support for independent

DoD agencies, the service branches, and other COCOMs such as the Defense Threat

Reduction Agency, Defense Information Systems Agency, and Air Force Space Command are integrated components that assist in nuclear deterrence, building cyberspace capability and capacity, and operating the Defense Department's Global Information Grid; and providing space and cyberspace forces for USSTRATCOM. As such, we think similar support of the nine mission areas in any DoD organization should be rated as Very

Relevant if it has a value of more than $1.5M or greater annually.

Recommendation: Change the relevancy rating for “Very Relevant” to best reflect the importance of the daily mission of the Service Components, independent DoD agencies, and other COCOMS that play critical roles with USSTRATCOM. Recommend the “Very

Relevant” rating be changed to read:

“Past performance effort involved in identifying and sourcing qualified personnel required to support the scope of effort identified in the USAMSIII PWS for work performed on contracts $1.5M or greater annually. Offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate performance for

USSTRATCOM of one or more of USSTRATCOM’s nine mission areas at multiple locations, or like work at other COCOMs, Service Branches, and independent DoD agencies.”

Q: Please confirm that M.3.2.2.2.2 as well as M.3.2.2.2.1.2 through M3.2.2.2.1.10 where the last sentences read “which is similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts performed for the USAMS III acquisition” in fact is referring to table 2 (e.g. the dollar values etc are as specified in Table 2 for relevancy versus the overall projected ceiling value for USAMS III).

A: Yes, $1.5 M annually is the correct value for very relevant.

Q: As a follow up to the above question, why does M.3.2.2.2.1 Program Management not have any reference to dollar values, similar contract type, and complexity? Does this mean that ANY small business prime capable of submitting three past performance references in the other nine mission areas (and use subcontractors’ past performance for the remaining six mission areas), needs to show no dollar value relevancy in managing large value IDIQ contracts? For clarity, small business primes must submit 3 (recent/relevant) performance citations to be determined “very relevant” (even for Program Management) they must be

>$1.5 annually in support of USSTRATCOM?

A: Yes, program management should be $1.5 M as well.

Q: In Section M relevancy, when you say division or business unit are you looking for that as STRATCOM.

Q: Ref: M.3.2.1 - Would the Government consider requiring a prime to have past performance in managing a Multiple Award IDIQ contract, managing multiple subs, and competing for task orders of similar size, scope and magnitude? Didn’t quite see anything specific about prime showing they have run an IDIQ in a task order environment. Would you consider adding the language with having the experience on managing the IDIQ?

Language in there but did not think it was stated very clearly. We have seen scenarios where a small was not ready for an abundance of task orders to drop. If they don’t have a structure built within their office, it is going to be very difficult for them.

A: M3.2.2.2.1 states that the determination of relevancy is contingent on an assessment of tasks performed, contract type, dollar value, complexity and other similarities. With a C-type contract you can have the same type of environment. If they say they can manage a C-type contract valued at $50M, then they are saying they can do similar type of work. Don’t want to exclude them just because they did not have the IDIQ/TO experience.

Q: RFP Section M 3.2.2.2 – The definition of relevant past work is very specific to

USSTRATCOM work; to allow for a fair and balanced competition between incumbents and non-incumbents, would the government consider broadening this definition to include similar performed work to be deemed as ‘very relevant’ or ‘relevant’?

Q: Section M Relevancy: In order to be relevant, must have performed by same division or business unit that is being proposed. Is that the mission areas and similar COCOM or

STRATCOM?

Q: Per Section M3.2.2.2 the assessment of relevancy focuses on criteria relevant to the

USAMS 3 technical subfactors and will be given a relevancy rating on the subfactor level.

The draft PWS does not currently provide detailed USAMS 3 requirements at the subfactor level for each mission area. Will the final PWS include detailed USAMS 3 requirements for each mission areas at the subfactor level to provide a basis for determining the relevancy of past performances submissions? It leaves interpretation on what is more relevant…which might open companies to protesting if they feel they were relevant.

A: Relevancy Section M, Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS. The final PWS will not provide any additional details as they are included in individual task orders.

Sample past task orders have been posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at www.fbo.gov to clarify sample work in mission areas.