Government Responses to Industry - 1 Dec 10.docx

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY QUESTIONS – 1 Dec 10 SOLICITATION No. FA4890-10-R-0001, Contracted Advisory and Assistance Services IV (CAAS IV)

The requirement for a DD 254 does not necessarily equate to a CLASSIFIED program or requirement. It may only identify that contractors performing under the contract will be exposed to or handle CLASSIFIED documents, and thus does not infer that the entire contract or program is CLASSIFIED.

The Defense Acquisition Regulation Council is currently reviewing this clause for more direct interpretation. Until that time, specific enforcement under CAAS IV will be made at the task order level. Contractors will only be determined exempt from the requirements of 52.204-10 if the overall program or task order itself is determined CLASSIFIED. Task orders that involve only contractor exposure to or handling of classified documents will not be exempt.

Will the Government consider changing the wording of M-1.1 to make this a traditional PPT with a full trade-off between performance and price? This would allow an award to a higher priced bidder with a higher performance confidence assessment.

We appreciate your feedback, but we intend to evaluate proposals as further refined in the RFP.

Section L-5.3.2 States that “Offerors shall NOT submit any documents in PDF that are copied as images. Offerors may use JPEG images for charts or screen shots.”

Currently the SF 33 that is part of the RFP (a word document) is a picture. We plan to print it off and signed it as the original. How does the government want the electronic copy of items that need to be signed such as the SF-33 to be submitted on the CD’s? In order to submit this form with a signature, it must be scanned.

Thank you for pointing this out. Since the SF33 was presented to industry as an image in the RFP, offerors may submit their signed electronic copy of the SF33 back to the Government as a .pdf image, but must still comply with the other limitations set forth in RFP paragraph L-5.3.2.

Since the due date for the proposal is 9 December, this date will not allow sufficient time to adjust its proposal, if needed.

We would respectfully request that the date for posting the last round of answers be moved forward to NLT 1 December in order to give respondents time to react and adjust their proposals as necessary.

We fully understand Industry’s concerns in this matter. Our intent is for this posting, 30 Nov 10, to be the last posting as we have not received any additional questions. However, we may receive additional questions, and we intend to keep industry fully informed.

H-5 Small Business Subcontracting Goals requires that the Contractor submit how they’ve performed compared to their goals every 6 months via the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS). Dollar values are needed for input into eSRS. Is it the intent of the Government that the Contractor include only goals and report only those dollars awarded during the period of performance against the goals?

Per answers to questions posted to FedBizOpps on 19 Nov 20, “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 Government will assess the Contractor’s ability to meet these goals (percentages) as part of CAAS IV performance using awarded task orders.

Question: Will the Government either revise the release date of the final responses to submitted questions to NLT 3 December 2010 or confirm the responses will not affect proposal submission requirements?

See response to Question #6 above.

The Government’s emphasis on cross teaming and the resulting requirement for “separate management” may indicate that the Government believes that any cross teaming relationship automatically will result in an organizational conflict of interest (OCI).

Question: Does the Government consider the simple act of cross teaming automatically will result in an OCI?

Cross-teaming may or may not always be an OCI issue. The Offeror’s OCI Plan needs to address when it creates an OCI issue. See response to question #8 posted to FedBizOpps on 19 Nov 20.

Questions:

Is “separate management” required only at the task order level or is it required at the IDIQ level?

If required at the IDIQ contract level, does it apply only to technical management functions or is it the Government’s intent to have all technical and business functions separate at the contract level?

The “separate management” requirement is required only as it applies to potential OCI issues. The OCI plan at the ID/IQ (and task order level) should address “separate” requirements, as it pertains to possible OCI.

The Government will not allow an additional page in Volume II.