Technical.pdf

Technical

Q: Recommend eliminating the 5-page limit across all 10 subfactors.

A: The government is not considering eliminating page counts.

Q: We think you should have some criteria that they can accomplish 50% of the work at the mission areas, each, and then 50% of the overall.

A: The government considers this criteria overly restrictive.

Q: In each of the 10 subfactor categories, recommend primes show project and program management.

A: Evaluation of past performance will reveal success of project and program management.

Q: Eval Criteria/Pass-Fail related to Technical. Where is the bar…specifics on what is acceptable for a pass vs. unacceptable. Is there any intent to try and make it more precisely defined? We are struggling without a specific task order sample. How do you make a determination that an offeror can support that mission?

A: The Government is looking for capability to provide services to support the mission areas.

Concerning Technical, prove to the evaluation team you can execute the mission area subfactor/sub elements. Sample task orders for each mission area have been posted to the

USAMS III pre-solicitation.

Q: Concern about downplaying the technical portion of the RFP, specifically pass/fail vs.

tradeoff. We thought that it should be most important.

A: Evaluation of past performance data will demonstrate the offerors capability to actually perform relevant work. The source selection team believes that the actual past performance is more important proposed technical performance for evaluation purposes.

Q: Key personnel…nothing in there that really talks about the key personnel….at minimum identified at the program management area.

A: Section M 3.1.3.1.1 has been updated to include: Provide resumes for key leaders to include

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

Q: Risk mitigation…maybe shown in program management…that you have a team that will help mitigate the risks.

A: All evaluation factors included in the RFP are considered critical for selecting the right offerors to mitigate risk.

Q: Recommend including trading technical as well.

A: We did go through that initially and could not clearly define the colors (see DoD Source

Selection Procedures for color reference.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf

Q: Define your reference to “size, scope and complexity.” Is this an evaluation criteria and how is it evaluated? For example, “the ability to provide a valid proposal on all task orders and manage multiple task orders simultaneously, with multiple teammates and subcontractors?”

A: Size, Scope and Complexity are defined in Section M, table 2 in relevance criteria. Yes it is an evaluation criteria, it will be used to determine relevancy of past performance references.

Q: The Government should ensure that to receive an “acceptable/pass” rating on technical criteria an offeror meets appropriately rigorous standards for technical approach, personnel, and facilities. Carefully drafting the technical factors/subfactors will ensure that only truly competent offerors are deemed “acceptable/pass” thus mitigating risk of unsuccessful performance under the contract.

A: Based on the award criteria, the source selection team has determined that the combined evaluation of technical subfactors and past performance will reduce the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Q: What is the government’s approach to define technical evaluation factors that are rigorously and precisely defined to ensure an offer is truly “acceptable”?

A: The source selection team has defined technical subfactors and correlating evaluation criteria focused on specific tasks within each mission areas as defined by the Unified Command Plan.

Q: Will contracting consider adding the Program Manager (resume) as an evaluated key position?

A Section M 3.1.3.1.1 has been updated to include: Provide resumes for key leaders to include

Q: It is our opinion that the current page allotment for management within the technical volume will not be sufficient for the government to distinguish between small businesses that can effectively manage an IDIQ of this scope and complexity. Will the government consider increasing allotted page count for management discussions to pages, and include subfactor (section L) on risk management, staffing and retention, transition management, and IDIQ/subcontractor management?

A: The source selection team is considering increasing the Program Management page count to

15 and including several of the areas mentioned.

Q: Technical Volume – A contract with the size and complexity of USAMS III (i.e. nine unique Mission Areas) should not be Pass/Fail. Offerors should have to demonstrate their http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf substantial knowledge of the USSTRATCOM customer and the Command’s unique mission areas. The Government will not be well served by small business primes not being intimately familiar with the USSTRATCOM mission areas and their unique requirements.

A: Primes will have to demonstrate knowledge and proven performance in mission areas through past performance references. Creating more robust technical criteria would significantly increase proposal and evaluation costs but not change the priority of award criteria.

Q: Recommend include Key Personnel as a part of “Technical Approach” evaluation for

PM and each Task Area. USAMS is about bringing talent to USSTRATCOM. For a small business, the PM will be a KSF for success and risk reduction.

Q: Key Personnel: Experience with USAMS has shown us that this is all about bringing talent to USSTRATCOM. For a Small Business the challenge is going to be managing the contract and task orders. The Program Manager position is going to be crucial and the

Offerors should have to clearly indicate their understanding of this necessity and have a highly qualified, competent and capable PM identified.

Q: What you are looking for is the teaming arrangement to meet each requirement? How are we going to manage this requirement? How you are going to get the talent, maintain the talent, replace the talent if necessary?

A: Yes. That will be more in the program management subfactor. But, primes must be able to complete at least 50% of the work.

Q: How will identification of technical shown in the technical spots going to be evaluated in the technical volume? Is it more of a checklist that yes they did that, no they didn’t do that?

Or, are you going to be doing more of a subjective?

A: The source selection team will evaluate “demonstrated capability” to perform the sub-elements for each technical Subfactor.

Q: Will there be a risk mitigation plan for transition required in the proposal?

A: Transition will take place at the task order level.

Q: We are very familiar with program management. How would the work differ from what we do in the program offices, on a technical basis? Will there be much in the line of systems engineering or IT work? Is there anything outside of the skill sets that you would normally find outside of program management?

A: Program management is important because you need to manage the task orders. But, the technical evaluation will identify which offerors have the required technical depth in the 9 mission areas of STRATCOM.

Q: Ensure a prime candidate demonstrates the ability to manage the volume of task orders to be competed during the peak (1st) year.

A: The source selection team intends to evaluate offerors capability to manage a high volume of task orders through their Program Management proposal and past performance references.

Q: Recommend the Government explicitly state how small business goals will be evaluated.

Evaluate over life of IDIQ, not over task order, and definitely not just over initial award period.

A: The USAMS III contract does not contain small business goals.

Q: We didn’t see much about key personnel in the RFP. Would encourage you to include key personnel as part of a threshold. If you do not ask for examples, you don’t know what you’ll get at the task order level. You could structure it towards each mission area and say that we have this person that is very competent in this area.

Q: Really take a look at who will be program manager.

Q. Have you considered an evaluation criteria based on IDIQ management? For example, number of Task Orders bid and managed in a year?

A: The source selection team intends to evaluate offerors capability to manage a high volume of task orders through their Program Management proposal and past performance references.

Q: At a minimum, we wish the RFP was a little more clear on what is required from the subs.

A: Primes will identify what is required from subs. The government is not privy to that relationship.

Q: Will you require base award primes to bid on every Task order? If a requirement, will it be a Past Performance evaluation criteria in the final RFP?

A: No, it is not a plan requirement for Primes to bid on all task orders.

Q: Obviously an unacceptable in one mission area makes you unacceptable in the entire technical.

A: Yes, focus on Sections L and M.

Q: A lot of my questions dance around the evaluation criteria which effectively allows you to see if a company can meet the technical portion, but does not make it easy for evaluators to ascertain whether a company can manage the task orders/IDIQ. Would you consider extending the page count allotted for the program management phase and including additional subfactors under program management such as transition mngmt, staffing, retention, transition, risk mngmt, subcontractor mngmt etc. Request expanding from 10 to

15 pages in program management.

A: The source selection team is considering increasing the Program Management page count to

15 and including several of the areas mentioned.