Goverment Responses to Industry Questions - 19 Nov 10.docx

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY QUESTIONS – 19 Nov 10 SOLICITATION No. FA4890-10-R-0001, Contracted Advisory and Assistance Services IV (CAAS IV)

We are getting an error while trying to use the Past Performance tool. Specifically, it says "Your EZSource database or project contains a missing reference to the file 'MSCALC.OCX' version 7.0". We are using Microsoft Access 2010.

Are others reporting a similar error? Is there a fix action planned?

No others have experienced this issue. You will need to use Microsoft Access 2007 or lower when completing your Past Performance Information to submit to the Government.

Rating/ Definition VR: “F&O and SB offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate the ability to perform work at multiple DoD locations simultaneously” Relevant: “F&O and SB offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate the ability to perform work at DoD locations simultaneously”

For “Relevant”, does the absence of the word “multiple” mean that the contractor needs only to perform work at a single location, or at multiple locations as mentioned in VR definition? In both cases, the definition includes “DoD locations” (plural) The discriminators between the portions of the Very Relevant and Relevant definitions addressed are the words ‘multiple’ and ‘simultaneously’ (‘simultaneously’ is not found in the Relevant definition as stated in your question):

Very Relevant: “F&O and SB offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate the ability to perform work at multiple DoD locations simultaneously” Relevant: “F&O and SB offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate the ability to perform work at DoD locations simultaneously”.

Subfactor 5: SB Subcontracting Plan is required by “Large Business Primes Only” per paragraph L-7.4.1.5. Should sub of the large business indicate “N/A” for SF 5 for PP responses?

The quoted reference from L-8.1.2.5 says to address each of the five technical subfactors, “as applicable”.

Do all areas of the subfactors need to be address, specifically the org chat that shows mgmt structure detailed in L-7.4.1.1.1 or is it acceptable to reference the similarity or differences with respect to what is being proposed.

See response to question # 3.

Please validate if the key personnel section should address resumes or position descriptions.

Please propose as you see fit to meet the identified requirement.

Department of Defense (DoD) 4500.54-G, DoD Foreign Clearance Guide was cancelled 2009 December per Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 4500.54-E. What alternate procedure should be followed, or is there a new DoDD that will be used/issued?

The PWS has been updated to reflect the following statement:

“The Electronic Foreign Clearance Guide at https://www.fcg.pentagon.mil/fcg.cfm states the requirements for travel to specific countries.”

Also in the Business relationship screen it ask for the % of work for each sub and states that it must equal 100%. However we are only use a few of our 14 partners past performance and since this is and IDIQ the % work will change based on the TO. Do I leave this field blank for my subcontractors?

I am bidding in the small business pool and have put 51% in for my company.

Question 1: We have put out a blank Past Performance Information Tool that should alleviate any issues with the ‘PMI Contractors’ in the sample.

Question 2: The total must equal 100% to complete the tool. Submit percentages only on the Prime and any partners for which you are submitting Past Performance Information IAW L-8.1.2.

Discussion: H-2 provides the definition of Cross Teaming and defines government expectations relative to the disclosure and handling of Cross Teaming relationships. SOW paragraph 1.2.1.9 states “The Cross-Teaming Mitigation Plan shall address separate physical locations, separate work forces, separate management, separate computer systems, and a representation that there will be no “cross-talk” or information shared between the two affiliates in connection with all TOs.”

Assume a company is a Prime in the F&O Pool with exclusive teammates and is also an exclusive subcontractor on a SB team bidding in the SB pool. Likewise, the SB prime is on the LB team as an exclusive subcontractor. Assume also that the SB will not bid in the F&O pool.

Question 1A: In this scenario, will the Government allow the offeror to set up a single CAAS IV Program Management Office with oversight for both the large business contract and any work performed on the small business team, providing all actual task order work is separately managed with a separate TO PM, separate workforce, separate locations, etc?

Question 1B: In this scenario, does the Government consider this Cross Teaming?

Based on the information provided, this scenario appears to meet the definition of Cross-Teaming as identified in H-2. See PWS Paragraph 1.2.1.9 and RFP Paragraph H-3, for the documentation required for the OCI Plan.

Section H-3 requires the contractor to maintain an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan to reduce the likelihood of an actual or perceived OCI. PWS 1.2.1.9 requires the contractor provide a Mitigation Plan for detecting, disclosing, avoiding and mitigating OCI.

Federal guidance, FAR Subpart 9.505, lists mitigation as one of three possible OCI resolution options once a potential or actual OCI is identified. Resolution may be achieved through avoidance, neutralization (limitations on future contracting), or mitigation. A mitigation plan is generally a formal document negotiated between the contractor and the Government and approved by the Contracting Officer prior to execution. Requiring a mitigation plan prior to actually identifying an OCI does not seem to align with Federal guidance.

Question: Assuming the offeror has identified no potential or actual OCI at the IDIQ level, is it the Government’s intent that the offeror provide their detailed approach/strategy for detecting, disclosing, avoiding, and mitigating OCI IAW section L and M; or does the Government require a formal Mitigation Plan as required by H-3 and the PWS?

All references to ‘OCI Mitigation Plan’ have been changed to ‘OCI Plan’ to allow Offerors to propose their plans for addressing OCI (recognizing the options for resolution other than mitigation). The words “a summary outline that identifies offeror’s approach for OCI issues/risks” have been added to L-7.4.1.2 to clarify that the summary of the OCI Plan will be considered as part of technical evaluation. The Government will require a formal OCI Plan as a post-award deliverable IAW Paragraph H-3 and the PWS. The PWS now includes the OCI Plan as a deliverable under Paragraph 1.2.4.

Question: If the offeror provides the appropriate contact information and receives COR acknowledgement that they will discuss this contract, will the Government accept this submittal as one of the eight required PPIs?

Based on the discussion provided, if information is deemed “not releasable,” it should not be submitted as Past Performance Information.

RFP Section L-7.4.1.5 FAR Part 19 Section H-5 states that For large businesses in the F&O Competition Pool, the Contractor’s small business subcontracting plan shall ensure a minimum of 23% of the total annual awarded contract value is subcontracted to small businesses. Section L-7.4.1.5 states that offerors Identify the percentage of intended business with each of the following small business socioeconomic categories: Small Disadvantaged, Women-Owned, HUBZone, and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned. FAR Part 19 goes beyond these requirements and requires total dollars planned to be subcontracted for an individual contract plan; and requires goals, expressed in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars, for the use of veteran-owned small business, in addition to the socio economic groups listed in the RFP.

Please confirm that you want offerors to provide the information requested in FAR part 19 and the RFP. It is difficult to express the goals in terms of dollars in an IDIQ RFP.

Offerors shall submit their small business subcontracting plan as described in H-5 and L-7.4.1.5 per the Department of Defense Small Business Subcontracting Goals and shall submit those goals in terms of percentages not dollar values. The Small Business Socioeconomic categories specified in H-5 and L-7.4.1.5 are areas for which DoD has identified specific goals. When you prepare your subcontracting plan you should show how you will meet the intent of Clause 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan which is included in the Solicitation.

May we provide the required information only for task orders going back no more than three years, as some contracts go back many years and have potentially dozens or even hundreds of task orders?

For the required attached list, include what you deem appropriate to demonstrate recency and relevancy in accordance with RFP Section L, Paragraphs L-8.1.2.4 and L-8.1.2.5.

Page 18 of 81, Clauses Incorporated by Full Text – 52.246-4 (b) The referenced clause states the following:

“The Contractor shall provide and maintain an inspection system acceptable to the Government covering the services under this contract.”

Will the Government be providing guidelines stating what is acceptable?

The Performance Plan posted on FedBizOpps on 29 Oct 10 should provide insight into the Government’s surveillance expectations.

The referenced section states the following:

“Contractor performance is subject to Government QAE surveillance to ensure PWS compliance.”

Does this mean the QAE guidelines will remain the same as the “shall comply” requirements 1.4.3.1 through 1.4.3.2.2 at the task order level as in the solicited PWS?

The parameters in Paragraph 1.4.3 will apply at the ID/IQ level. Each TO PWS will document the performance evaluation criteria specific to that requirement.

RFP Section L-8.2, Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 3) states that Offeror’s send PPQs to each of the Points of Contact identified on the Offeror’s PPI sheet.

Does the Offeror need to send Questionnaires to all three POCS (PM, CO & Admin POC) that they provide information on in Attachment 1/Past Performance Information Sheet?

Or, may the Offeror just send one contact the Questionnaire?

IAW L-8.2, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to send, “…PPQs with attached PPQ cover letter at Attachment 4 to each of the Points of Contact (POC) identified on the offeror’s PPI sheet(s) in the Past Performance Volume.”

See letter signed by CO posted to FedBizOpps on 20 Oct 10; there is no advantage for Small Business.

In the PPI tool, specifically the Business Relationship Tab, the “Offeror’s Name” does not change to the prime listed in the group when the list is completed. Can the Government provide guidance on how to change the “Offeror’s Name” to our team’s prime and remove “PMI Contractors” as the “Offeror”?

See response to ‘question 1’ of question #7.

Per answers to questions posted to FedBizOpps on 29 Oct 10, “Only the Prime’s NAICS is considered.”

I downloaded the EZ Source Past Performance Information tool from FedBizOpps, and when I tried to open it in Microsoft Access, I got an error message:

Have you seen this message before? Can you please e-mail me the file so I can try it that way?

See response to question #1.

Item number 7 of the GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY QUESTIONS & RFP CHANGE MATRIX – 29 Oct 10, indicates a solution of “In “Set Up Business Relationships,” select any item(s) that do not pertain to your proposal (e.g., PMI Contractors) and delete. Select “New” and create inputs related to your proposal.”

This does not work. Please provide additional directions on changing “Offeror’s Name.”

See response to ‘question 1’ of question #7.

The FAR 52.215-1 says in part, “Restriction on disclosure and use of data. Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall --

(1) Mark the title page with the following legend:

This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government … The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]; and

(2) Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.”

Clarification requested: The Past Performance tool does not allow offerors to insert the FAR-required nondisclosure of data statement or provide it directly on each sheet as part of the printed output. Is information submitted using the past performance tool protected as proprietary information and protected from disclosure outside the source selection evaluation process for this instant procurement?

See answer to question #29.

I have a systems question regarding the CAAS IV proposal. The following clauses are shaded, but not checked in the electronic version of the RFP. I just want to confirm that these clauses do not need to be completed.

----(i) 52.219-19, Small Business Concern Representation for the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program.

----(ii) 52.219-21, Small Business Size Representation for Targeted Industry Categories Under the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program.

----(iii) 52.219-22, Small Disadvantaged Business Status.

----(A) Basic.

----(B) Alternate I.

----(iv) 52.222-18, Cert Regarding Knowledge of Child Labor for Listed End Products.

----(v) 52.222-48, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Act to Contracts for Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain Equipment Certification.

----(vi) 52.222-52 Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Act to Contracts for Certain Services--Certification.

----(vii) 52.223-9, with its Alternate I, Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA-Designated Products (Alternate I only).

----(viii) 52.223-13, Certification of Toxic Chemical Release Reporting.

----(ix) 52.227-6, Royalty Information.

---- (A) Basic.

---- (B) Alternate I.

----(x) 52.227-15, Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software.

You are correct, these are (fill-ins) that would be marked by a Contracting Officer if they applied.

Reference - Attachment 1 to Section L / Past Performance Information (PPI). In the Program Details Tab, the government requests that Offeror’s, “identify whether a subcontracting plan was required by the contract you are submitting. If one was required, identify in percentage terms the planned versus achieved goals during contract performance. Explain why goals were not met, if applicable.” Furthermore, the instructions require Offerors to, “attach a copy of your most recently submitted ISR (formerly SF294),” if a subcontracting plan was required for the provided Past Performance contract. Due to the teaming arrangements for procurement of this size and scope, we will be submitting subcontractor/teaming partner past performance information as part of our proposal. Do the subcontractors/teaming partners submitting PPI need to submit LSR (SF294) documentation with this proposal? Or, is this information only required for any PPI submitted by the Prime Contractor on the proposal?

See responses to questions 11 and 37.

RATING DEFINITION VERY RELEVANT Past performance effort involved in identifying and sourcing qualified personnel required to support the scope of effort identified in the CAAS IV 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).

For F&O teams, must small business subcontractor work performed on contracts be $1M or greater annually to be rated Very Relevant as a PPI reference?

For F&O offerors, all Past Performance Information references must meet the F&O relevancy criteria.

“This information is required on offerors, subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners considered critical to overall successful performance. Offerors shall submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of eight (8) contract references.”

Section L-8.1.2.3 states “Offerors shall submit their Past Performance Information Sheets using the past performance information tool, which offerors shall download from the CAAS IV RFP posting to Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) at https://www.fbo.gov. “ In Step 1 - Business Relationships, The performance information tool (EZSource) requires that the prime and all subcontractors percent work total to 100%. If the prime is not using a past performance from all subcontractors, how can the true %work be entered. Does the contractor need to provide information on each of its team mates regardless of whether past performance information is being submitted for them?

See response to ‘question 2’ of question #7.

Independently, the first two actions spanned 14 months (running concurrently) and had a total value in excess of $965K, but neither averages over $500k/annum.

The third action is a 12-month agreement valued at over $700k.

As you can see, taken together, this “body of work” would meet your Very Relevant criteria under the terms of the CAAS IV solicitation.

Given that the body of work is all for the same customer (it would be one set of PP Questionnaires for PM, CO, and QAE that would be submitted for all the work), can we submit it as a single citation / questionnaire?

See L-8.1.2.2.

If this will cause any problem at all for you, please let me know – and we certainly do not want to put ourselves out of compliance by doing this!

Yes, per L-5.3.2.