CAAS IV Update to Industry Letter 3 Jun 10.docx

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR COMBAT COMMAND

ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION CENTER

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, VIRGINIA

3 June 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR POTENTIAL OFFERORS

FROM: ACC AMIC/DRA

SUBJECT: Contracted Advisory and Assistance Services (CAAS) IV, FA4890-10-R-0001, Responses to Industry Questions

1. Attached please find the Government’s responses to the most recent round of questions received in response to the draft CAAS IV solicitation, to include the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and PWS Appendixes A-D posted to FedBizOpps on 21 April 2010. We do not intend to post updated documents until release of the final solicitation, which we still anticipate occurring by early August, at the latest. We will continue to keep industry posted on any changes as we become aware of them.

2. Please continue to provide feedback as industry input is critical to a successful program. As previously advised, please send any comments/inquiries to caasivprogram.office@langley.af.mil. Offerors are reminded that the government requests written questions and email is the preferred method. Thank you for your continued interest and input.

//Signed//3 Jun 10//

STEVEN F. PILLO

Contracting Officer

Attachment:

Government Responses to Industry Questions 3 Jun 10

Government Responses 3 Jun 10

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY QUESTIONS

SOLICITATION No. FA4890-10-R-0001, Contracted Advisory and Assistance Services IV (CAAS IV)

No

DOCUMENT

COMMENT/QUESTION

RESPONSE

Section L-5.3.5. Pages Not Included in Page Count.

L-4.1.1.2 Human Resources. Identify any key management personnel with applicable experience and qualification summaries

Request the Government consider adding Qualification Summaries to the list of pages not to be included in the page count.

The Government considered this request and we think the page count is sufficient to include Qualification Summaries.

Section L-8.1.2. Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheet. , Page 54. Sentence: Each PPI shall cover actual work performed and not overarching contracts, such as ID/IQ basic contracts, Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA), etc. (i.e., each PPI shall only address one performance effort such as a TO for an ID/IQ basic contract, a call order off of a BPA, or delivery order).

Would the Government provide clarification on why it is excluding overarching ID/IQ and BPA contracts that are MOST relevant to the proposed effort – CAAS IV? We are interpreting the “proposed effort” phrase used throughout Section L and Section M to mean CAAS IV: an overarching, Multiple Award, ID/IQ, competitive task order contract, providing A&AS, performed at multiple DoD locations with a $4.6B ceiling.

Changed verbiage in L-8.1.2 to read (see text in italics), “Each contract reference shall be submitted on a separate PPI Sheet (Attachment 1). Each PPI shall only address one performance effort. If a PPI references an overarching ID/IQ or Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), the Government will not assess performance on the individual underlying task orders, call orders, etc. If the offeror would like assessment of the task order or call order, the offeror shall submit that as a separate reference on a separate PPI.” Also added the following note to PPQ, Section 1, Item D, “If the referenced contract is an overarching ID/IQ or BPA, the Government will not assess performance on the individual underlying task orders, call orders, etc. If the offeror would like assessment of the task order or call order, the offeror shall submit that as a separate reference.”

Section L-8.1.2. Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheet. , Page 54. Sentence: Each PPI shall cover actual work performed and not overarching contracts, such as ID/IQ basic contracts, Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA), etc. (i.e., each PPI shall only address one performance effort such as a TO for an ID/IQ basic contract, a call order off of a BPA, or delivery order).

Request the Government provide a definition of “Proposed Effort” phrase used throughout Section L and Section M when comparing past performance information to the “proposed effort”. Rationale: The use of the term “proposed effort” is confusing when comparing single-scope contracts and single task orders – they are not similar to the scope, complexity and magnitude of the overarching CAAS IV ID/IQ. The ability to manage and compete within the CAAS IV overarching ID/IQ environment is altogether different than success in managing, providing personnel, and performing at the single-scope contract or single task order level.

See above. Allowed for inclusion of ID/IQ contracts or other overarching multiple award vehicles for consideration.

The proposed effort is the ID/IQ level work. However, some offerors may not have overarching multiple award, ID/IQ experience, but may have contracts requiring work at multiple locations for which they need to provide qualified personnel. The key is that an offeror demonstrate the ability to successfully perform on any contract vehicle.

L-8.1.2.2. Relevant Contracts. Offerors shall submit information on contracts deemed relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform Advisory and Assistance Services and explain how/why the referenced contracts are relevant to the proposed effort, by each of the four technical subfactors shown in paragraph L-7.4.1, as appropriate.

M-3.3.1.2 VERY RELEVANT. Past performance effort involved in identifying and sourcing qualified personnel required to support the scope of effort identified in the PWS for work performed on contracts $1M or greater annually for F&O; and $500K or greater annually for SB. F&O and SB offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate the ability to perform work at multiple DoD locations simultaneously (includes off-site work for DoD).

Request the Government review and provide clarification between L-8.1.2.2 and the Section M-3.3.1.2 requirements and definitions of relevancy. Rationale: Section L reference addresses relevancy by the four subfactors which includes subfactor 4 OCONUS; however, the Section M relevancy definition does not mention OCONUS as part definition. Section L criteria would lead offerors to believe that PPIs submitted must show CONUS and OCONUS work.

The relevancy definitions in Section M, paragraph M-3.3.1.2 refer to, “the scope of effort identified in the CAAS IV PWS,” which includes the potential for OCONUS work. L-8.1.2.2 now states, “As applicable, address how the proposed effort relates to each of the four technical subfactors shown in paragraph L-7.4.1.” because we understand offerors may not have experience doing OCONUS work, and the references provided my not include work related to all four technical subfactors.

M-3.3.1.2 VERY RELEVANT. Past performance effort involved in identifying and sourcing qualified personnel required to support the scope of effort identified in the PWS for work performed on contracts $1M or greater annually for F&O; and $500K or greater annually for SB. F&O and SB offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate the ability to perform work at multiple DoD locations simultaneously (includes off-site work for DoD).

To obtain a PPI rating of VERY RELEVANT, does the government require that a contract that is not an overarching ID/IQ or BPA to be performed at multiple DoD locations?

Yes, to obtain a VERY RELEVANT rating any PPI must meet all of the criteria in the VERY RELEVANT definition.

M-3.3.1.2 VERY RELEVANT. Past performance effort involved in identifying and sourcing qualified personnel required to support the scope of effort identified in the PWS for work performed on contracts $1M or greater annually for F&O; and $500K or greater annually for SB. F&O and SB offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate the ability to perform work at multiple DoD locations simultaneously (includes off-site work for DoD).

To obtain a PPI rating of VERY RELEVANT, does the government require a contract that is not an overarching ID/IQ or BPA to include all areas of A&AS performance as described in the PWS (e.g. Management and Professional Services, Studies and Analyses and Evaluations; and Engineering and Technical Services)?

We recognize that PPIs that are not an overarching ID/IQ or BPA may not have A&AS work in all areas; however, the relevancy rating the source selection evaluation team assigns to a PPI must meet the relevancy definitions to receive the rating.

M-3.3.1.2 VERY RELEVANT. Past performance effort involved in identifying and sourcing qualified personnel required to support the scope of effort identified in the PWS for work performed on contracts $1M or greater annually for F&O; and $500K or greater annually for SB. F&O and SB offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate the ability to perform work at multiple DoD locations simultaneously (includes off-site work for DoD).

Will the Government assign relevance to each individual PPI or assign relevance to the group of PPIs submitted?

The Government will assign a relevancy rating to each individual contract reference. M-3.3.1.2 references “individual contracts.” We also do an overall performance relevancy rating for each offeror, which is part of the overall confidence assessment.

N/A

Do you have a projected timeframe when RFQ will be released for CASS IV?

For your planning purposes, we do not anticipate posting the final solicitation until early August (see 21 Apr letter on FedBizOpps at: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=90bbbeb7ac68719a3a31c08404461065&_cview=0

Reference Section L-9.3.4:

Does a small business subcontractor need to be included in the OFCCP National Pre-award Registry prior to joining in a Prime response to the RFP? Does a small business Prime need to be included in this registry prior to submitting a response to the RFP as a Prime?

No, businesses are not required to be in the registry, and this only applies to Primes. Updated L-9.3.4 (see text in italics) to read, “In accordance with FAR Part 22.805, the Contracting Officer must request pre-award clearance on Prime contractors or Teaming Partners (not subcontractors) from the appropriate Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) regional office. If an offeror is listed in OFCCP’s National Pre-award Registry (http://www.dol-esa.gov/preaward/pa_reg.html), offerors shall provide the Contracting Officer a copy of the database registration for Government verification as part of the proposal submission. If an offeror is not listed in the registry, the Contracting Officer will request an EEOC review”.

Reference Draft CAAS IV Appendix D, TO Proposal Process 21 Apr 10

In “2.1 All Contractor personnel assigned to TOs under CAAS IV must, as a minimum, have either a high diploma or a General Equivalency Diploma.” Suggest “high school diploma”.

Updated as suggested.

Reference H-5

Must 23% of the contracted value be awarded to small businesses or must 23% of the subcontracted value be awarded to small businesses?

23% of the contracted value.

Reference H-3, Organizational Conflicts of Interest

The clause states that "Contractors who manufacture Air Force weapon systems or subsystems shall not be allowed to submit proposals on any A&AS task orders that involve, impact, or relate to those weapon systems or related subsystems". As written, as an example, OEM A could provide A&AS support on their competitor OEM B's system which would could lead to impaired objectivity. Suggest the clause be stated "Contractors who manufacture Air Force weapon systems or subsystems shall not be allowed to submit proposals on any A&AS task orders that involve, impact, or relate to weapon systems or related subsystems".

Offerors who propose for CAAS IV A&AS work on another prime’s weapon system or related subsystem must have a Contracting Officer accepted OCI plan that addresses detecting, disclosing, avoiding, and mitigating any OCI issues/risks associated with the applicable effort.

Reference Attachment 1, Section L, Past Performance Information Sheet

To save space, may we reformat the Past Performance Information sheet as long as all the information requested is provided? As examples, the CAGE Code and DUNS Number could both be on the same line and the contract number and Task/Call Order Number could both be on the same line. Likewise, the Primary Customer Points of Contact could also be slightly reformatted to save space and still provide the requested information.

Used suggestions to reformat RFP Section L, Attachment 1, Past Performance Information Sheet. As a result, offerors may NOT reformat the PPI upon submittal.

Reference H-5 SB Subcontract Goals:

We have had difficulty identifying a number of qualified HUBZone companies who have the qualifications to perform the CAAS IV efforts. We suspect that there have been cases where the 3% HUBZone goals have been successfully removed based on the fact that there are not many HUBZone companies in the technical areas of performance. Suggest the HUBZone goal be deleted.

We understand the difficulty in identifying HUBZone companies with qualifications to perform CAAS IV efforts. However, the 3% HUBZone goal required by regulation will not be deleted or reduced. Post award, CAAS IV contractors shall still report actual and may provide a rationale for why the goal is not met.

Reference Section I, FAR 52.217-9(c):

The total duration of the contract is specified as “five years.” Please clarify as H-13 states performance could potentially go up to 30 Nov 2019 (eight years, 6 months).

The ID/IQ contract (ordering period) will be five years (1 June 2011 through 31 May 2016) as specified in RFP Section H, paragraph H-13. A task order with a one year base and two option years could be issued close to the end of the five year period and run to 2019 (but not to exceed 30 November 2019 with worst case scenario of base plus two options plus six month extension).

Reference PWS 1.2.1.10

Does the CO approval of a subcontract, via the Subcontractor List, constitute consent in accordance with FAR 52.244-2?

FAR Clause 52.244-2 is no longer part of the CAAS IV solicitation (and therefore follow-on contract). We changed the PWS, Section 1.0, paragraph 1.2.1.10 to read, “Subcontractor List. Disclose new teaming partners/subcontractors prior to that entity’s participation in response to a TO solicitation. The Contractor shall receive CO acceptance prior to adding or deleting subcontractors from the prime’s subcontractor list. The Contractor shall provide timely notification to the CO of any acquisitions or mergers that impact this contract. If a subcontractor is contracted to perform the work on a CAAS IV requirement, a DD Form 254 between the primary contractor and subcontractor must be signed and provided to Government CO before the subcontractor begins performance on any CAAS IV TO, unless otherwise approved in writing by the CO.” This changes CO approval to CO acceptance.

Reference PWS 1.2.3.1

Billing for a single trip shall not be broken out into various component billings spread across multiple invoices.” There are rare cases when an expense item is late in coming in and is missed in the original invoicing of the trip (such as airline fee, etc.). Assuming the expense is an allowable item under FAR, how are we to invoice it given this statement?

Edited PWS Section 1.0, paragraph 1.2.3.1 to state (see text in italics), “Billing for a single trip shall not be broken out into various component billings spread across multiple invoices, unless otherwise approved, in writing, by the Contracting Officer for extenuating circumstances.”

H-3

It is stated that “Contractors who manufacture Air Force weapon systems or subsystems shall not be allowed to submit proposals on any A&AS task orders that involve, impact, or relate to those weapon systems or related subsystems”. Does this preclude contractors who are manufacturers of unrelated systems or subsystems from participating as a subcontractor to another prime if the prime and the referenced subcontractor each have Govt- approved OCI mitigation plans?

No, it does not preclude contractors who are manufacturers of unrelated systems or subsystems from participating as a subcontractor to another CAAS IV prime if the prime and the referenced subcontractor each have a Government- approved OCI mitigation plan.

H-3 third Paragraph - sixth line - “ . . . .contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or consultant) in any task order that would design, develop, implement, operate, . . . .” do the words “any task order” also apply to a broader context to include any contract work?

This statement only applies to task order work on CAAS IV.

Attachment 6 Table B-1:

Are the formulas associated with spreadsheet row 33 correct? It appears they are tied to multiplier value of row 32.

Fixed row 33. Also added the following at the end of L-9.1 (see text in italics), “Table B-1, Pricing Schedule. Offerors shall provide the following in the format specified in Section B, Table B-1 (the table is provided as a template for submission; the burden of providing mathematically accurate and complete pricing proposals (total overall evaluated price) using the format provided in Section B, Table B-1 rests with each offeror):”

Regarding relevancy of past performance

Will Air Force or Langley specific past performance be considered more relevant than past performance for other military services (Army, Navy, etc.)?

Past performance relevancy ratings will be applied based on the relevancy definitions provided at M-3.3.1.2.

Regarding relevancy of past performance

It identifies Very Relevant as being “contracts $1M or greater annually for F&O; and $500K or greater annually for SB”. Is a significantly larger contract (say $10M+ annually) considered relatively more relevant than a smaller contract above the threshold (say $1.5M annually)? Or would those past performance citations be considered equal against the dollar value aspect of the evaluation?

Past performance relevancy ratings will be applied based on the relevancy definitions provided at M-3.3.1.2. There is no further delineation among the relevancy ratings.

Referencing Attachment 5 of Section L (“Small Business Choice of Competition.”

There is an option for a Small Business team to compete in both the Small Business and Full and Open. Additionally, in Section M-3.1.3.1 (Evaluation Factors and Methodology, SB Competition Pool), it states that any F&O award to a SB will not impact the 6 F&O awards. Here is our question: Should we choose to compete for a F&O award as a SB team, are there any teaming or OCI issues with having a vendor (subcontractor) on our SB team that is also competing directly as Prime in the F&O?

RFP Section L, Attachment 5, Small Business Choice of Competition does and always has allowed the option for offerors to compete in both the SB and S&O competition pools. This attachment was simplified for easier reading/application.

RFP Section M. paragraph M-3.1.3.1 was updated to clarify that those SBs that elect to compete in and win a SB award with option to compete in both pools will not impact the six (6) awards in the F&O competition pool to make it clear that they will not also win a F&O award.

RFP Section H, paragraph H-2 specifically addresses Cross-teaming. The Government does not intend to limit any cross-teaming opportunities; however, RFP Section H, paragraph H-3 addresses OCI. It is up to the offeror(s) to comply with the terms and conditions of the CAAS IV solicitation.

How did the government arrive at the target of 12 SB awards? Do you see any challenges with that approach?

The decision was based on industry feedback and historical information based on the AFDW and CAAS III workload.

Based on historic TO awards and the SB set-aside thresholds and rules for CAAS IV, what would you anticipate that the split (% of total dollar value over the CAAS IV contract) would be between SB and F&O?

The SB competition pool ceiling will be 40% ($1.9B) of the total CAAS IV contact value and the F&O competition pool ceiling will be 60% ($2.8B) of the total CAAS IV contract value. See RFP Section H, paragraph H-1.

PWS 1.2.2.2 states the contractor is to “Ensure continuation of services during personnel absences due to sickness, leave, and voluntary or involuntary termination from employment such that impact to the Government is minimal.”

Comment: Page 15, Table 1, Services Summary, Effectively Replaces Substitutes Personnel – does not require this continuity of service during illness or leave in order to attain “acceptable” performance threshold.

The Services Summary captures the most critical performance issues. However, the CO may address any degradation in contractor performance that affects mission, even if it is not addressed in the Services Summary (i.e., impact to mission due to illness or leave). Thus, issues such as mission impact due to leave or illness may still be addressed and are more appropriate to handle on a case-by-case basis, so will not be included in the Services Summary.

PWS 1.2.2.2.1 Replacement/Substitution states: “Prior to replacing/substituting personnel performing on TOs under this contract, the Contractor shall provide a sufficiently detailed qualification summary/resume of proposed personnel for Government coordination. This paragraph shall also apply when, at or prior to the start of TO performance, the Contractor provides personnel for work who were not part of or who replace any personnel submitted and evaluated as part of a TO proposal.

Comment: This statement appears to require this for ALL replacements/substitutions rather than for only KEY personnel. I would note that it falls short of requiring Gov approval of such replacement/substitution; but rather merely asks that the contractor provide the qualification summary/resume to the Gov prior to the replacing/substituting.

Changed paragraph to read (see text in italics), “Replacement/Substitution. Prior to replacing/substituting key personnel performing on TOs under this contract, the Contractor shall provide a sufficiently detailed qualification summary/resume of proposed key personnel for Government coordination. The Government may request coordination of qualification summaries/resumes on proposed replacement/substitution personnel for non-key positions. This paragraph shall also apply when, at or prior to the start of TO performance, the Contractor provides any personnel for work who were not part of or who replace any personnel submitted and evaluated as part of a TO proposal.”

PWS Para 1.2.4.1 states that there is a “target 18 contractors (target of 12 in the Small Business competition pool and target of six (6) in the Full and Open competition pool)” and RFP Attachment 5 Section L states by simply checking a box the Small Business competition may also compete in the full and open. Then RFP M 1-1 states: Those in the SB pool may also elect to participate in the F&O pool. SB offerors will be placed into competition pool(s) based on the offeror’s submission of Section L, Attachment 5, “Choice of Competition”. Those that qualify will earn the right to compete for requirements in the F&O competition pool; however, those SBs with the right to compete in the F&O competition pool will not count against the six (6) awards in the F&O competition pool.”

Comment: As written it appears to be mathematically possible for there to be 18 F&O awards and 12 Small Business Awards for a total of 30 Awards. While it is understandable to set aside work for Small Business, is it appropriate to allow an unrestricted number of Small Businesses to receive a F&O award?

Small Businesses that elect to compete in both pools, meet the award criteria for both pools and are among the target of 12 awards in the SB competition pool will only win an award in the SB competition pool, not the F&O competition pool. The SB award will be with the option to compete in both competition pools (see updates to RFP Section M, paragraph M-3.1.3.1 addressed in question #23).

PWS 1.3.2.2 states: For official MAJCOM family days, holidays granted by Executive Order, the Government is not liable for the Contractor’s costs incurred for work at the locale affected by the shutdown on other than Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts.

Comment: For contractors’ planning purposes.. What number of MAJCOM family days are anticipated? If precise numbers are not known, then can at least a not to exceed number be established by the Gov?

MAJCOM family days can vary from year to year and are often different for each MAJCOM (ACC and AFDW). Typical ACC family days are in conjunction with holidays such as Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, and Thanksgiving. In 2010 there is also an ACC military family day in conjunction with Christmas. Please be aware that this is for information only as family days are implemented by the current commander and are always subject to change, elimination etc. Therefore, we will not state the family days as part of this requirement.

PWS 1.3.3 states: The specific place(s) of performance will be identified in each TO PWS.

Comment: Recommend adding “which may include authorized performance at contractor locations” to this sentence.

Done as requested.

RFP H-1 states: Any task order with an annual estimated value at or below $1M will be set-aside for award in the SB competition pool.

Comment: What is the historical performance of CAAS I-III for task orders awarded with an estimated value at or below $1M?

We don’t have the numbers for CAAS I; 67% of CAAS II TOs had an annual estimated value of $1M or less; 31% of CAAS III TOs in the analyzed data had an annual estimated value at or below $1M.

RFP H-1 indicates that the ceiling for the ID/IQ is $4.6B. The solicitation posted at https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fcb826cf9c7f9d9d1 <https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fcb826cf9c7f9d9d1> indicates the ceiling is $7B.

Comment: What is the ceiling and if $7B, then what portion of it will be set aside for Small Business?

The sources sought synopsis posted on 16 Sept 09 had an estimated ceiling of $7B. On 17 Nov 09, it was briefed that the estimated ceiling was $5.6B. Since then the estimated ceiling has decreased to $4.7B, as shown in the draft solicitation, H-1 (see documents dated 21 Apr 10). With that estimate, $1.9B is set-aside for the SB competition pool and $2.8B is set-aside for the F&O competition pool. As always, the final solicitation documents posted will take precedence over all previous draft versions, notices, etc.

We are receiving conflicting information as to whether the ECAS requirements will be kept in or taken out of CAAS IV.

The CAAS IV ceiling includes workload for A&AS work that was previously covered by the ECAS contract. It does not include all requirements previously covered by ECAS.

image1.png image2.emf