USAMS_III_Round_2_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

USAMS III DRFP Questions and Answers Round #2

Q: Can you please send me the USAMS III draft RFP in WORD?

A: The initial USAMS III RFP will be posted as a PDF document and a word document.

Q: Are subcontractors to submit a completed Attachment J-11?

A: DOL EEOC Clearance Request Information is only required from Prime.

Q: Is it possible to submit a proposal without having submitted a response to the original government RFI.

A: Yes.

Q: Reference PWS (Dec 2012) Section 1.5.9 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL).

Question: The CDRL List (A001 thru A007) and PWS internal references do not include

CDRL A008 which is in the RFP document, J-

Exhibit_A__CDRLS_A001_thru_A008_Template_for_Award. Please clarify whether

CDRL A008 is to be included in solicitation documentation.

A: CDRL A008 titled “Technical Report – Limitation on Subcontracting Report” is to be included in the solicitation document.

The following CDRLs are to be included:

A001 – Progress Report - Program Progress Report and Quarterly Program Management Review

A002 – Conference Minutes – Meeting Minutes and Trip Reports

A003 – Service Engineering Reports – Technical Reports

A004 – Funds and Man-Hours Expenditure Report

A005 – Presentation Material / Briefing Material

A006 – Manpower Reporting

A007 – Reserved

A008 – Technical Report – Limitation on Subcontracting Report

Q: Reference Sections L4.6 (Past Performance Questionnaire Tracking Record) and L4.11

(Performance Quality).

Question: Per the solicitation, “To avoid potential conflicts, Offerors are exempt from sending Past and Present Performance Questionnaires to other potential competitors of this acquisition”. However, the draft solicitation does not speak to the potential conflicts of interest when an Offeror has to send a questionnaire to a former USAMS II prime who has elected to be a subcontractor on a different USAMS III team than the Offeror’s team.

How will the Government mitigate this potential conflict of interest based on contrary business interests among the parties?

A: (L4.6) To avoid potential conflicts, Offerors are exempt from sending Past and Present

Performance Questionnaires to other potential competitors of this acquisition, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to find an alternative method of providing the Government the same or similar information.

Q: Reference Section L6.2.2 (Section B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES).

Question: The RFP directs offerors to submit Section B as part of Volume III, Price, but there are no instructions about how to complete Section B. Please clarify what information needs to be completed in Section B.

A: Section B instructions are included in the pricing model worksheet, Section J Attachment 03;

individual CLIN prices are not required.

Q: References: Sections L.3.3.2 – L.3.3.10 (The Nine USSTRATCOM Mission Areas) and

L.4.5 (Contractor’s Past/Present Information Documents).

Question: The technical subfactors emphasize demonstrated technical capability within the nine mission areas – in essence, the offeror’s corporate experience. The Past Performance requirements also instructs offerors to address their ability to perform within the nine mission areas. Much of the Small Business (SB) offerors’ technical capability and past performances within the nine USSTRATCOM mission areas may be based on subcontract work in support of the USAMS II Large Business (LB) primes’ Task Orders. However, under the USAMS III total set-aside acquisition strategy, the current USAMS II LB primes may continue their existing business relationships with SB offerors or act as subcontractors to other SB offerors. This may increase the potential for bias when a SB offeror asks the

USAMS II LB to complete a Past Performance Questionnaire addressing the quality of the

SB’s performance as a subcontractor on an USAMS II Task Order(s). How does the

Government intend to mitigate the high potential for bias as a consequence of potential business conflicts among the current LB primes and SB offerors?

A: (L4.6) To avoid potential conflicts, Offerors are exempt from sending Past and Present

Performance Questionnaires to other potential competitors of this acquisition, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to find an alternative method of providing the Government the same or similar information.

Q: Reference L6.3.1 (Other Proposal Information)

Question: Draft RFP directs offerors to “List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location”. Since the percentage of work to be completed at a given location will be Task Order dependent, how should an offeror complete this section of the proposal?

A: Paragraph L6.3.1 refers to the offeror’s Program Management performance location not the task order performance location.

Q: Reference Section L4.13 (Determination of Responsibility)

Question: If an offeror has a Certificate of Competency (COC) from the Small Business

Administration, should the COC be included in the proposal to satisfy the requirement that the offeror is a “Responsible Prospective Contractor”?

A: A Certificate of Competency (COC) will only be requested from the SBA if the contracting officer determines that an apparent successful small business offeror is nonresponsible.

Q: Reference Section M3.1.1 (Technical Evaluation Procedures).

Question: Per the Draft RFP “Offerors must pass all of the thresholds listed under each subfactor to receive an “Acceptable” rating for that subfactor”. Subfactors 2 through 10 list a “Standard” at the end of each subfactor, and there is no Standard for Subfactor 1.

The wording of the Standard is effectively the same for each subfactor. Without a specific

“threshold” for each of the Subfactors, it is not clear how the Government will determine an “Acceptable” grade for an offeror’s response to each Technical Subfactor. Will the

Government provide a clear threshold statement for each subfactor?

A: The Government does not intend to identify unique standards for each element of each subfactor. The current standards seek demonstrated ability which will be validated through review of past performance.

Q: Reference Section L6.2.3. (Section C – Description, Specifications, Performance Work

Statement)

Question: This Section states that “The Government has prepared, and included as attachment 01 in Section J, a Performance Work Statement’. This appears to be an incorrect reference.

A: The Performance Work Statement will not be an attachment, but rather it is found in the RFP under Section C – Descriptions and Specifications. Section L6.2.3. now reads “The Government has prepared and included a Performance Work Statement.”

Q: L2.0: In Table 2.0, no page limit is provided for Quality Awards under Volume II Past

Performance, is this unlimited?

A: There is a 5 page limit for Quality Awards.

Q: L4.2: The volume content table indicates that the Past Performance Volume shall contain a section for Quality Awards, but there is no corresponding paragraph that explains what information is to be provided for this item. Would you please clarify what you’re calling for in the Quality Awards 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.

Q: With the release of the USAMS III 2nd Draft RFP, the wording below was removed.

However this same wording is still present in Section L. Please clarify if removal is meant from Section M or if wording should also be removed from Section L as it pertains to past performance submissions.

Section M 3.2.2

For the purposes of the Past Performance evaluation, the term “offeror” includes the prime offeror and/or team members and major subcontractors performing 10% or more of the effort.

A: This wording is still present in Section M; however, it is located in paragraph 3.2.1 and not

3.2.2.

Q: The Past Performance Relevancy Ratings matrix (Section M, Table 2) calls for citations to show support “at multiple locations” in order for that citation to be rated Very Relevant or Relevant. Thus, any task, no matter how large and how relevant must have more than one location or it will only be found to be Somewhat Relevant. Is the intent that work must be at multiple locations to be considered relevant or somewhat relevant?

“Below the line discussion;” Very few tasks would meet the criteria for multiple locations.

Those that do, would most likely favor a current prime, who can claim all work at all locations, but disfavor subcontractors who may only have one or two positions, most likely at a single locations. This same argument could be made for the dollar values cited in the

Very Relevant and Relevant definitions. Current USAMS II subcontractors with only a few positions on a USAMS II task would not meet the $1.5M or greater criteria for Very

Relevant, favoring the current primes, who could cite the entire task order value in their citation. Additionally, a signification portion of the USAMS II task orders on the task order list issued 6 Dec 12 would not meet the dollar value requirement for Very Relevant as delineated in Table 2.

A: The wording in Section M Table 2 “multiple locations” was removed.

Q: What percentage of work on the USAMS III IDIQ is anticipated to be Non-A&AS support?

A: A very small percentage (less than 10%) will be Non-A&AS. Types of services are listed in the PWS. IT support at remote locations. For example, for DC2N, there are different areas where we could dispatch people out to perform maintenance. The Non-A&AS Support is not part of the technical evaluation criteria, but we wanted to make sure that it was within scope of the

PWS.

Q: The Past Performance Questionnaire and Evaluation Criteria do not specifically address Non-A&AS efforts. Is it the Government’s intent that Non-A&AS work will not be evaluated?

A: The Non-A&AS Support is not part of the technical evaluation criteria.

Q: PWS 1.5.10 levies overall management requirements; 1.5.10.2 levies specific requirements for workforce stability (b), and customer-oriented philosophy and environment that improves employee performance (c). What metrics are used to evaluate these criteria?

A: No metrics have been established for assessing this area. Section M3.1.3.1 details the criteria for evaluating Program Management approach.

Q: Section L, Table 2.0, page 5, last cell. Makes reference to due dates that have already passed.

A: When the Final RFP is issued, the due dates will be updated.

Q: Section L, L.2.2.7. Allows for a cross-reference matrix with no page limitation. Is the cross reference matrix considered to be part of the Technical Volume?

A: As described in L.2.2.7, the cross-reference matrix is not part of just the Technical Volume. It outlines cross-referencing within a volume or across volumes. Therefore, a cross-reference may be included in each volume as appropriate.

Q: There are four major task requirements: 1.5.1 Management and Professional Support

Services; 1.5.2 Studies Analysis and Evaluation Tasks; 1.5.3 Engineering and Technical

Services Tasks; and 1.5.4 O&M Services (tele).

o There seems to be some overlap in the allocation of subtasks among the four major tasks requirements. For example, 1.5.1.4 includes the requirement to

"Assist in the development of MOA(s) with DoD, external agencies, industry and allies" while 1.5.3.36 includes the requirement to "Collaborate with other unified commands, services, defense agencies, and national/federal communities of interest (CI) and law enforcement entities on CI support issues".

o In a similar vein, 1.5.3 Engineering and Technical Services Tasks, includes requirements for mission requirements (1.5.3.50), PPBE support

(1.5.3.61), CONOPS development (1.5.3.39) & Global Strike CONOPS development (1.5.3.57), and specialized studies and consultation (this includes Strategic Vision, long-range plans, CONOPS, assessment of

QDR, JCIDS support, etc. These activities could be construed as aligning more closely with 1.5.2 Studies and Analysis...

The presentation of the PWS by tasks/subtask taken together with the mandated proposal organization by criteria subfactors, leads to ambiguity over which tasks must be covered by which subfactors. It is apparent that not all tasks/subtasks apply to all subfactors.

Below the line: One potential option would be to specify which tasks must be covered by which subfactors and/or provide additional guidance so the contractor community can provide the most complete and accurate proposals possible.

A: Proposals shall comply with the instruction in Section L as currently structured. The see the original questions and answers provided under the topic “PWS”.

Q: Is FA4600-08-D-9005 still expected to expire on 07/31/2013?

Is FA4600-08-D-9004 still expected to expire on 07/31/2013?

Is FA4600-08-D-9003 still expected to expire on 07/31/2013?

Is FA4600-08-D-9002 still expected to expire on 07/31/2013?

Is FA4600-08-D-9001 still expected to expire on 07/31/2013?

Is FA4600-08-D-9000 still expected to expire on 07/31/2013?

A: The Ordering Period for USAMS II has been extended by 6 months from 07/31/2013 to

01/31/2014. All performance under USAMS II may continue until 09/30/2015.

Q: Where may I locate the solicitation for the follow-on discussed under FA4600-13-R-

0001?

A: USAMS III solicitation # FA4600-07-R-0005 is located on FBO, however the solicitation is still in draft status.

Q: USAMS III Presolicitation Notice, FA4600-13-R-0001. As referenced in Section M, M3.2.2.2 Relevancy - The Government may consider the offeror’s (including subcontractors) past performance in aggregate, rather than on an effort (contract) by effort basis. The section goes on to state, As a result of an integrated analysis of the offeror’s past efforts, each contract submitted for past performance purposes will receive

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. 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.

This limitation appears to present a risk for the prime since 9 missions area need to be addressed but only 10 citations can be accepted under the prime offerors response. Will the Government consider increasing the number of citations to 12 to eliminate any possible risk of multiple past performances being reviewed in aggregate?

A: The government intends to keep the references at 10.

Q: According to Table 2 in Section M of the Draft RFP, the Government states the rating of VERY RELEVANT Past Performance requires:

Past Performance effort involved in identifying and sourcing qualified personnel to support scope of effort identified in the USAMS 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.

With less than 21% of all task orders from the current USAMS II work involving more than $1.5M or greater annually and even fewer than that involving support at multiple locations, there are very few existing contracts that fulfill this requirement.

Further, less than 12% of all task orders from the current USAMS II work would provide opportunities for subcontractors to meet the $1.5M or greater annual threshold even if they were performing 50% of all work on the task order.

This situation means that any small business who chooses to prime this work will have an extreme reliance (possible ostensible subcontracting relationship) on their large subcontractor - given that only one current Prime is even eligible to compete as a Prime for a USAMS III seat.

Given that the key phrase of the evaluation criteria is focused on identifying and sourcing qualified personnel to scope of effort identified in USAMS PWS, will the Government consider allowing contractors to combine their USAMS II TOs to meet the criteria in a single PP submission? This will allow potential small businesses to better demonstrate their successful ability to identify, source, manage, and retain qualified personnel that directly support USSTRATCOM.

A: Combining task orders for a single PP submission is not acceptable.

Q: L2.0, L4.5, Atch J-8: In the DRFP, L2.0,Table 2.0, in reference to PPI Documents, states

“3 pages for each reference”. The 3-page sample format Attachment J-8, Item 14, states, “Insert additional page(s), if necessary.” DRFP L4.5 states, "Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance, but note the Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. Clearly link the past performance information to the technical subfactors stated in Section M. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort." Given these requirements, we recommend the government allow up to 5 pages total for each PPID to include the items in the 3 page sample format as well as to adequately address offeror's performance relationship to the

PWS and 10 subfactors to a degree which will provide adequate information for the government to determine offeror relevance.

A: The government does not intend to increase the page limit.

Q: L2.0: Section L, Table 2.0 lists no page requirements for “Quality Awards.” We recommend that Table 2.0 be modified to read that the Maximum Page Limit for quality awards be specific as "No Page Limit", to allow the explanation and inclusion or attachment of Award information in order to assess the relevance of award to USAMS III performance.

A: There is a 5 page limit for Quality Awards.

Q: L2.0, L4.9 to L4.10: Performance Volume (Vol 2) and also contains the table entry for

“Quality Awards.” However a description of “Quality Awards” is not found where one would expect it in Section L (e.g., following L4.9 that describes Organizational Structure

Change History). Recommend the Government provide guidance and a new section in L4 that states what is expected to be described for “Quality Awards”. We recommend

Section L instruct offerors to include “the type of award, the issuing organization, the award title and date, and the relevance to USAMS III performance roles regardless of date issued”. We recommend Section M require the relevancy to be clearly demonstrated and linked by the offeror for the government’s evaluation of USAMS III impact and relevance.

A: Section L of the RFP now contains a section for quality awards.

Q: M3.2.2.2 Table 2: Section M, Table 2 (p. 184) top right column defining Very RELEVANT (VR) states; “Offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate performance for USSTRATCOM as defined in PWS paragraph 1.3 or another COCOM of one or more of USSTRATCOM’s nine mission areas at multiple locations.” Recommend rewording for clarity to “ Offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate performance at multiple locations for USSTRATCOM or another COCOM of one or more of USSTRATCOM’s nine mission areas as defined in PWS paragraph 1.3.”

A: Concur, changed.

Q: L3.3.1.2 and M3.1.3.1.2, H-32, H-37, PWS 1.6.2, and 252.237-7023-7024 (page 134-136) - Section L states; “Explain how uninterrupted support for mission critical/mission essential tasks will be provided, if requested, during types of emergencies: labor strikes, surges, natural disasters, disruptive world events, pandemic outbreaks, terrorist attacks, and other emergencies.” Yet, according to Section M, the government only evaluates the following:

“Demonstrate ability to ensure continuity of services during personnel absences due to sickness, leave, and voluntary or involuntary termination from employment such that disruption to mission accomplishment is minimal.” Recommend the government focus L page-limited content requirements as stated in section M, having offerors address mission essential personnel and contingency plans at the task order level. Without task and labor specific scenarios, offerors have little factual basis to develop IDIQ-level “contingency plans” for un-specified mission essential elements described only in future individual task orders.

A: The government is seeking to evaluate the offerors ability to maintain continuity of services despite turn-over and emergencies, which is critical to A&AS performance. No changes will be made.

Q: M3.1.3.2 through M3.1.3.10 - In each of the Mission Area evaluation sections, the DRFP states; “Standard: Demonstrates an ability to effectively support the (xyz) mission area without introducing unacceptable risk, and provides appropriate insight, technical capabilities, and mitigation for continuity of operations.” For clarification purposes, does the government intend that offerors demonstrate mitigation for continuity of contractor support vice continuity of operations? Potential confusion stems from use of term continuity of operations, the doctrinal term found in JP-3-0 amongst other places. As currently worded, this may add other confusion since continuity of operations is further specified within aspects of select mission areas such as Strategic Deterrence. If agreed, could the government restate this standard for all subfactors: "Standard: Demonstrates an ability to effectively support the (xyz) mission area without introducing unacceptable risk, and provides appropriate insight, technical capabilities, and mitigation for continuity of contractor support."

A: Concur, change to “continuity of contractor support”

Q: L5.0-L5.5 and L6.2.2, M1.0 Step 3, M3.3.1 and Attachment J-04 Price Model:

Paragraph L.5.5 states: “The total evaluated price will be inclusive of all CLINs for the 12-month base period, four one year option periods, and the three years of task order performance beyond the last ordering date.” The Attachment 4 Price Model does not result in CLIN pricing requested in L6.2.2 which states; “To be submitted as part of the Price Volume. Submit Section B with Volume III, Price.” Is it the government’s intent to have the prime contractor’s complete the Section B CLINS? If so, request the government provide guidance for the breakout of labor categories to A&AS and non A&AS pricing for the

CLINS?

A: Contractors will fill in the Pricing Model for Section B evaluation and will not provide pricing for the Section B CLINs.

Q: L5.2.1 and attachment J-04: L5.2.1 states; “Proposed loaded hourly labor rates will be the maximum allowable rates used throughout the life of this contract for FFP and FFP- LOE task orders; however, the Contractor may offer discounts as part of individual task order proposals. The USAMS III Price Model (attachment 04) shall apply to services performed within the Omaha, NE metro area and hourly rates for CPFF Completion and Term, locations other than the Omaha, NE metro area, or any combination thereof, will be negotiated at the task order level, with the USAMS III Price Model hourly labor rates serving as the basis for negotiations. There is no guarantee that requirements will exist for all labor categories listed.” Does the government intend to specify, in the future, which labor categories are to be bid on any specific task order or will labor category selection be based on offeror approach and be left up to the offeror to choose?

A: For task orders, labor category selection will be based on offeror approach and left up to the offeror to choose the best fit - keeping in mind personnel/technical requirements of the PWS.

Labor Category descriptions may be found in the USAMS III Price Table (Section J - Attachment 3) - Tab “Labor Cat Description.”

Q: L5.3: L5.3 states, “The offeror and subcontractors shall provide in the USAMS III Price Model (Attachment J-04) the name, mailing address, telephone, fax number and branch codes of the cognizant DCAA / Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Office, as well as the status of Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRA).” The government indicated at industry-day and one-on-ones that only one Price Model (Attachment J-04) would be filled out by the offeror to include all subcontractors within the single price per labor category. In light of L5.3, does the government still request that only one Price Model (Attachment J-04) be completed for the entire team (i.e. the subcontractors would fall under the same set of rates proposed by the prime offeror)? Please clarify the specific form and content of all information required to be submitted by subcontractors. i.e.

compensation plans, etc., if any.

A: Yes only one price model. No specific format for information required.

Q: L5.5 and attachment J-04: The Benefits summary tab of the Price Model has rows for Salary and Salary Supporting data both of which indicate “see attached salary data sheet.”

There is not a salary data sheet provided. Shall the contractor use their own format for the requested information?

A: The salary and salary supporting data rows should initally be left blank to allow contractors to fill in. The price model attachment will be updated to remove the reference.

Q: PWS 1.8.2.1, DRFP: PWS 1.8.2.1 states; “As a minimum, key contractor personnel (Program Manager, Assistant Program Manager, and Facility Security Officer (FSO)) shall possess an active Top Secret clearance with Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 6/4 eligibility at time of contract award.” DoD Manual 5105.21 Volume 3, dated 19 Oct 2012, mandates that SCI adjudication for key personnel requires a specific contract activity with SCI billets and a verified need-to-know for SCI adjudication to occur.

Specifically, enclosure 2, para 5.a. states, “No personnel shall be deemed to have a need to know solely by virtue of rank, title, or position.” A clearly identified kneed to know is required for SCI adjudication. Please provide the required pre-award final IDIQ-level DD254 with SCI billets for key personnel submission of SCI eligibility and pre-award assignment to USAMS III IDIQ billets or change the requirement to read, “As a minimum, key contractor personnel (Program Manager, Assistant Program Manager, and Facility Security Officer (FSO)) shall possess an active Top Secret clearance meeting eligibility requirements for SCI adjudication submission upon award of USAMS III IDIQ SCI billets.

A: SCI positions are no longer billeted. To be “eligible” for SCI access the person must have a current Top Secret security clearance with SCI-DCID 6/4 access not more than 2 years old.

PWS wording will remain as is.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/contract_pricing_reference_guides.html

Q: Ref. Section L.3.3 Technical Subfactors. Discussion: Past versions of the draft RFP included a technical subfactor for OCONUS support. In the most recent version of the draft RFP released by the Government there is no longer references in the PWS or in

Section L and Section M regarding OCONUS support requirements.

Request for Clarification: Please provide clarification as to the extent of OCONUS performance and support required under the USAMS III IDIQ contract.

A: There will be very small if any OCONUS work. OCONUS work has involved COCOM liaison officer type support and exercise support.

Q: Is there a new estimated release date for the Final RFP?

A: The RFP is pending PEO approval.

Q: Section L4.5 states: “Past performance on ID/IQ type contracts should be submitted at the delivery/task order level, unless performance is only assessed for the ID/IQ contract as a whole. In that case, the offeror shall explain that performance on individual orders is not assessed and provide the using activity’s single point of contact that can verify the

Offeror’s performance. Even though individual task orders are not officially assessed, the offeror should present the dollar values of only the individual task order (versus the whole

ID/IQ contract.) Each delivery/task order submitted shall be counted as one contract.”

According to our interpretation of the above guidance, the Government requires any Past

Performance Information Documents we choose to submit on the USAMS II ID/IQ contract (which is only assessed at the ID/IQ level) be based on individual task orders and not on the overall ID/IQ contract. Is our interpretation correct? In other words, if we choose to submit a Past Performance Information Document (PPID) related to being a

USAMS II ID/IQ prime contractor, must we submit the PPID based on an individual task order?

A: Submitted by individual task order

Q: On Dec 06 2012 the Government Posted a list of task order awards for USAMS II as reference for USAMS III. Could the government provide an updated list of Task Order

Awards and values awarded since the initial listing was published?

A: The government will provide an updated list along with release of the RFP.

Q: Can you tell me if the Industry Day attendees list was posted and where I can find it.

A: The Industry Day Attendees list was posted on FBO 02/26/2013 under Solicitation #FA4600-

13-R-0001.

Q: As a result of economic conditions the last few years, many SBs, both locally and nationally, have failed. How does the Government plan to incorporate the L.4.13 requirement into the Section M Risk Assessment as an offeror's lack of financial solvency certainly represents potential risk to the Government?

A: Contractor responsibility shall be determined IAW FAR 9.1 and FAR 19.6 if required.

Q: One way other Government agencies have avoided the ostensible subcontractor issue on small business IDIQ solicitations is to require all offerors to obtain and submit a SBA certificate of competency and determination of responsibility as part of the solicitation deliverables. Has the Government considered requiring USAMS III offerors to submit a

SBA certificate of competency and determination of responsibility?

A: The contracting officer will determine responsibility of the offerors and seek a certificate of competency from SBA if needed.

Q: The latest USAMS III draft RFP, Section L4.5. (CONTRACTOR’S PAST/PRESENT

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION DOCUMENTS) states: “A sample format of the Past

Performance Information document is provided as Attachment 08 in Section J.”

Question: Since Attachment 08 in Section J. is referred to as a “sample format,” may the offeror develop and use a different format for its Past Performance Information documents as long as all the information requested in Attachment 08 is included?

A: Section L4.5 language has been adjusted. All offerors shall use the same format.

Q: Pricing Table

1st Calculation correction, Escalation applied only to base year: The government pricing template is not calculating the option period rates correctly as all years are pointing back to the base period to apply the escalation formula as opposed to applying escalation to the prior year.

2nd Calculation correction: There is no formula in cell C9 of the “PoP A” Tab.

3rd Calculation correction: For Tab “Table B-1”, the Option Year 4 Contractor Site Rate column formulas are calculating using the total as opposed to the hourly bill rate after the first entry which is using column h correctly, all others appear to be using column j (total).

A: All corrections have been made to the Pricing Table.

Q: Draft RFP M3.2.2.1 Factor Assessment/Recency: RFP states “performance of less than

1 year from the release date of the USAMS III solicitation will not be considered.” Will the

Government consider reducing the recency requirements to six months from time of submission? Strong small businesses add new relevant work to their portfolios throughout the year. Reducing the recency requirements to six months will benefit the Government by providing it the ability to assess performance, especially the very important transition plan execution performance, on relevant work to be considered for award. This will provide additional discriminators by providing a bona fide rating for past performance instead of a

“neutral/unknown confidence” rating.

A: Recency standards will remain unchanged.

Q: Question/Request: Government indicated they would publish their responses to 1 st round of draft documents. When will the Government be providing the responses to the questions provided on the first round of Draft document?

A: Q&A’s for the first round of questions on draft documents were posted to FBO on 03/26/2013.

Q: PWS paragraph 1.7.4 Administrative Support: Does the Prime Contractor need to have a Contractor furnished facility that is able to “produce both color and black and white PWS-related products at the task order level for unclassified, classified, and SCI level using appropriately cleared and approved personal computers?

A: If a Task Order requires production of unclassified, classified, and SCI level copies, then it should be in specified in the PWS. The task order awardee will provide the related products.

Q: PWS paragraph 1.8.1 Security Requirement: Please clarify what the Government means by “readily available” in the sentence “The contractor must have readily available access to DSS certified work locations for performing classified work up to and including TS/SCI at time of contract award.”

A: Must be able to have immediate access to a certified work location to perform the work.

Q: PWS paragraph 1.8.1 Security Requirement: How many task orders under USAMS III does the Government anticipate needing the requirements stated in PWS para 1.8.1?

A: Most of the services provided through task orders take place at a Government location. Task order proposal efforts may require the level of security outlined in PWS para 1.8.1.

Q: Section L paragraph L4.0 Volume II – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Rationale: Many potential Small Business Prime offerors for USAMS III performed as

Subcontractors and will not have the dollar level of relevance as stated in Section M but have performed very well on ID/IQ Task Order driven contracts. To ensure the

Government receives enough competitive proposals the dollar value relevance should be lowered.

Question/Request: The dollar value relevance should be lowered to reflect that USAMS III is a Total Small Business Set-Aside and Small Business companies performing as a

Subcontractor can be considered at the Relevant Level in Table 2 in Section M.

A: The dollar value relevancy ratings were determined on current and projected requirements.

Q: Section L paragraph L4.5. CONTRACTOR’S PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION DOCUMENTS

Rationale: The requirement for the Small Business Prime Offeror to have three (3)

Present/Past Performance reference documents is overly restrictive on who can Prime on

USAMS III. Many potential Small Business Prime offerors for USAMS III performed as

Subcontractors on USAMS II and don’t have enough Present/Past Performance at the

Relevance Levels in Section M, Table 2.

Question/Request: Will the Government reduce to two (2) the minimum number of reference documents the Prime Offeror is required to have?

A: The requirement for the Small Business Prime Offeror to have three (3) Present/Past

Performance reference documents will remain unchanged.

Q: Section L2.0 of the USAMS III draft RFP states each Past Performance citation is limited to 3 pages. Attachment J-8 is approximately 2 pages when populated with the required contract data information. This leaves approximately 1 page to address relevancy of the Past Performance to the USSTRATCOM Mission Area(s)--sections 12 and 13 in Attachment J-8.

Will the government consider increasing the page count to 5 per citation to allow enough space to address relevance across multiple Mission Areas, or keep the page count limit to 3 but allow the required contract data information be exempt from the page count?

A: Page counts will remain unchanged.

Q: On examination of Attachment J – 4, USAMS III Price Table it was noted that the formula for the Option Year 2 through PoP Year C government site rates (Column C) and contractor site rates (Column H) all applied escalation against the Base Year bill rate, rather than the bill rate of the preceding performance period. This negates the compounding effect of escalation of maximum bill rates for the last six (6) years of the contract. Is this a calculation error? If so, can the Government please provide a corrected version of the price table with the Final RFP?

A: This was a calculation error and a corrected version of the price table will be provided with the Final RFP.

Q: I wanted to check the status of FA4600-13-R-0001. Do you have a timeline for the release of the final RFP?

A: The RFP is pending PEO approval.

Q: Regarding Quality Awards, DRFP Table L2.0. Is it applicable to only the Prime or does it include our prospective subs? I recommend only the Prime as it is my responsibility to determine what a quality team looks like in order to win USAMS III. Is there a page limit?

A: 5 page limit, information should be from the Prime contractor

Q: One other suggestion after working extensively on our cost/price proposal:

We recommend that the education requirements for Level II personnel for each labor category require a minimum of a Bachelor's degree and not a Master's. Master's degree minimum requirements are more appropriate for Level III labor categories. As it stands right now, there is no specific labor category level (entry/junior, intermediate, or senior) that requires a minimum of a Bachelor's degree based on the current draft RFP.

A: Labor categories will not change.