Sol FA4890-10-R-0001 Updates to CAAS IV Draft RFP Cover Letter.docx

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR COMBAT COMMAND

ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION CENTER

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, VIRGINIA

21 April 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR POTENTIAL OFFERORS

FROM: ACC AMIC/DRA

SUBJECT: Contracted Advisory and Assistance Services (CAAS) IV, FA4890-10-R-0001, Revised Draft Solicitation, Responses to Industry Questions, and RFP Change Matrix

1. The most recent version of the draft CAAS IV solicitation, to include the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and PWS Appendixes A-D, has been posted to FedBizOpps. At the 17 November 2009 Industry Day, we briefed a projected final solicitation posting and pre-proposal conference date of 3 May 2010. This date will not be met due to an extended period of review requirement with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). We are working to gain acquisition approval. For your planning purposes, we do not anticipate posting the final solicitation until early August, at the latest. We will keep you updated on changes to the final solicitation posting date. At this time, we are not planning to conduct a pre-proposal conference.

2. At Attachment 1, we have provided a consolidated matrix of changes to the draft documents, based on Industry input to the versions posted on 26 February 2010. The changes listed in the RFP change matrix are reflected in the most recent versions of the draft documents, posted on 21 April 10. Attachment 2 contains our responses to the questions we received on the draft documents. Please note that the change matrix and answers to your questions are provided for reference. If there is any variance among these documents, the documents themselves (RFP, PWS and Appendices), take precedence.

3. Please also review the current version of the draft documents for additional changes. We value and encourage your feedback, and hope that our changes to the draft documents and answers to your questions assist you in better preparing your proposals. Please send any comments/inquiries to caasivprogram.office@langley.af.mil by 5 May 2010. Offerors are reminded that the government requests written questions and email is the preferred method.

//Signed//21 Apr 10//

STEVEN F. PILLO

Contracting Officer

2 Attachments:

1. CAAS IV Draft Document Change Matrix

2. Government Responses to Industry Questions on Draft Documents

Draft Document Change Matrix CAAS IV Draft Documents Changes Matrix

RFP

Old Paragraph

New Paragraph

Description of Change

Price Table

N/A

Clarified that on-site work represents on government site work.

Price Table, Table B-1

N/A

Removed Table B-1 from Section B, completely updated Table B-1 to include multiplier based on historical labor hours, made Table B-1 Attachment 6 to Section J, and reduced from 40 to 24 labor categories based on further review of historical usage.

H-3

N/A

Added statement “Contractors who manufacture Air Force weapon systems shall not be allowed to bid any A&AS task orders that involve, impact, or relate to those weapon systems” to OCI clause

H-5

N/A

Clarified Small Business Subcontracting Goals

H-7

N/A

Removed the disclosure statement requirement

N/A

H-14

Section H-14 has been added that now reflects insurance details

I-Clauses

N/A

Added clauses supporting OCONUS performance, FAR 52.228-3, 52.228-4, and DFARS 252.209-7003 and 252.228-7003

I-Clauses

N/A

Removed clause 5352.204-9001

N/A

J-Attachments 6 & 7

Attached wage determination for the NCR area as well as the Hampton Roads area to the RFP

L-Clauses

N/A

Removed clause FAR 52.215-20

L-5.3.1

N/A

Clarified font sizes limitations

L-5.3.2

N/A

Clarified that electronic copies must have copy/paste capability

L-5.3.3

N/A

Decreased Technical Volume page limit due to movement of Subcontracting Plan and reduction in font size

L-5.3.4

N/A

Changed reference to L-5.3.5

L-6

N/A

Changed to 15 calendar days after final solicitation release date

L-7.4.1.4

L-9.3.5

Removed Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement (large businesses only) as Technical subfactor and added to Price Factor

L-7.4.1.5

L-7.4.1.4

Changed to, “within 30 days of task order award.”

L-8.1

N/A

Added table to Past Performance Volume content and any limitations

L-8.1.3

L-8.1.2

For PPI, the maximum number of PPIs that offerors can provide is now five (5), with a minimum of two (2) on the prime

L-8.1.5

L-8.1.4

Increased page limit for organizational change history from one to two pages and asked for bullet format without narrative.

L-9.2

N/A

Removed Prime Contractor Pre-Award Survey from solicitation

L-9.2

N/A

Removed requirement for offeror to provide information regarding the proposed prime’s and teaming/joint venture partner’s general financial condition, and provide specific plans for financing the proposed effort

L-9.2

N/A

Removed purchasing system audit requirement

Section L, Attachment 1

N/A

Introductory paragraph – updated paragraph reference to L-8.1.2.

Section L, Attachments 1 & 3

N/A

Added verbiage regarding relevancy to Attachment 1 Paragraph B & Attachment 3, Section 1, Paragraph E.

Section L, Attachments 1 & 3

N/A

Added A&AS /A&AS type selections under contract type in PPQ and in table on PPI

Section L, Attachments 5 & 6

Section L, Attachment 5

Removed Attachment 5, Prime Contractor Pre-Award Audit and changed Attachment 6, Small Business Choice of Competition to Attachment 5.

RFP (continued)

Old Paragraph

New Paragraph

Description of Change

M-3.1.3.1

N/A

Added information regarding Section L, Attachment 6, Small Business Choice of Competition

M-3.2.2.1

Removed reference to “internally/externally driven mission-related requirement” and updated the criteria

M-3.2.5

L-9.3.5

M-3.4.5

Moved Subcontracting Plan to Price Volume and added that no extra credit will be given for exceeding the 23% subcontracting goal

M-3.2.5

M-3.4.5

Clarified that the NAICS standard of $7M will not be applied to subcontractors

M-3.3.4

N/A

Minor change to show that this subfactor only applies to the LB prime offerors

M-3.4.1

N/A

The Government will provide a multiplier based on historical labor hours with the final RFP

M-3.4.1

N/A

Clarified that the total overall evaluated price is an estimate based on historical work to determine price reasonableness; it is not intended to reflect the work that will occur in CAAS IV and the CAAS IV ceiling will remain at $4.6B.

M-3.4.4

N/A

Updated paragraph M-3.4.4 to include example of an unbalanced offer

PWS and Appendices

Old Paragraph

New Paragraph

Description of Change

PWs Paragraph 1.2.1.6

1.2.1.6 and 1.2.1.7

Changed the regularity of PMRs to annually, with right to conduct PMRs semi-annually the first year of performance. Added 1.2.1.7 stating that the Government and Contractor may also meet periodically to discuss Contractor or TO-specific issues.

PWS paragraph 1.2.2.2.1

Removed requirement for two-week’s notice and simply stated that position vacancies shall not exceed 14 calendar days unless approved in writing or otherwise directed in advance by the CO

PWS paragraph 1.2.3.2

N/A

Changed to “CO or QAE, as specified in the TO PWS.”

PWS paragraph 1.2.5.3

N/A

Deleted all references to CPIF in the PWS

PWS Paragraph 1.3.1

1.3.1.3

Clarified Government’s intent regarding travel for PMRs and performance reviews

PWS Appendix B, CDRL A002

N/A

Added requirement to report on number of FTEs for all contract types, to include FFP TOs

PWS Appendix D, paragraph 1.2.1

N/A

Changed requirement from “7 days” to “10 business days”

PWS Appendix D, paragraph 1.3.3

N/A

Updated language to give actual time period related to performance start date

PWS Appendix D, paragraph 2.3

N/A

Removed entire paragraph

PWS Appendix D, Labor Category Descriptions

N/A

Added minimum experience requirement to Engineering labor category

PWS Appendix D, Labor Category Descriptions

N/A

Reduced from 40 to 24 labor categories

F-52.211-11

N/A

Removed clause image3.emf

Government Responses to Industry Questions GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY’S QUESTIONS ON DRAFT SOLICITATION/CAAS IV ACQUISITON

SOLICITATION No. FA4890-10-R-0001

NO

DOCUMENT

COMMENT/QUESTION

RESPONSE

N/A

The DRFP has 12 SB awards and 6 awards in F&O. Is this correct? It seems like 6 SB and 12 F&O might make more sense.

It is the government’s intent to issue a target of 12 SB awards and a target of 6 Full and Open awards.

N/A

Is the CAAS IV a partial SBSA or will awards be made to large businesses as well.

The intent is to award a target of 12 SB awards and a target of 6 Full and Open awards. Any size company can compete for work in the Full & Open competition pool. Per Section H, paragraph H-1, any TO valued at $1M or below is automatically set-aside for SB, and the CO will determine if any TOs valued above that threshold will be set-aside for SB or will be competed in the F&O pool.

N/A

Will all tasks be competed among the 12, 6 or 18 new awardees?

See above

N/A

Are the existing TOs available through FBO site?

There were three tasks from both AFDW and AMIC posted to FedBizOpps on 10 Nov 09. The Government is contemplating posting additional PWSs.

Draft RFP, Page 14, Section B-Price Table

The draft RFP states that proposed labor rates will be the maximum allowable fully burdened rates used throughout the life of this contract for Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), Labor Hour (LH) and Time and Material (T&M) task orders …” Does this assume all work will be performed “on-site” (i.e., Government site)? Or does the Govt anticipate any work would be performed on the contractor’s site, which might then require a different labor rate?

It is anticipated that the majority of work will be on-site (e.g., on a government site). However, for any off-site or OCONUS work, rates will be negotiated per task order as stated in Section B, Table B-1.

Added verbiage to clarify on site work.

Draft RFP, Page 39

52.222-49 SERVICE CONTRACT ACT--PLACE OF PERFORMANCE UNKNOWN (MAY 1989)

Since the Price Table on DRFP page 14 identifies the National Capital Region (NCR), it appears that the Government should provide a Wage Determination for the “known” NCR as part of the final RFP. We believe that the NCR wage determination should be provided for the IDIQ since contractors will have to be compliant with SCA when preparing rates.

A wage determination for the Washington DC area as well as the Hampton Roads area will be attached to the final RFP. All others (unknown) will be implemented at the TO level.

Draft RFP, Page 59 and 62

L and Attachment 1

L-8.1.3

We recommend the Government expand the PPI sheet (attachment 1) to indicate the correct placement of the new hire data requested by L-8.1.3.2. In addition, would the Government consider additional page count for this information?

Added information to PPI, Section E, and increased the PPI page count five (5) pages for each PPI.

Draft RFP, Page 59 and 62

L and Attachment 1

L-8.1.3.2

We suggest that the Government expand/modify the PPI sheet (attachment 1) to indicate where relevancy should be discussed as specified by L-8.1.3.2. In addition, would the Government consider additional page count for this information?

Added information to PPI, Section B to address relevancy.

Draft RFP Page 61 Attachment 1

It appears that the correct reference for the length of each submission is L-8 rather than L-9. Please clarify.

Updated reference to L-8.1.2.

Draft RFP, Page 30, 60, and 73

H-1, L, and M

L-9.4.3, M-3.1

Section H-1 states in part, “Those in the SB pool may also elect to participate in the F&O pool. Those that qualify will earn the right to compete for requirements in this pool; however, will not count against the six (6) target awards in that category.” Section L-9.4.3 has similar words. However, the evaluation of SBs to compete in the F&O pool without counting against the 6 target awards does not seem to be similarly reflected in the M-3-1 evaluation methodology. Please consider modifying accordingly.

Added, “Small businesses that elect to compete in both the SB and F&O competition pools by selecting both boxes in Section L, Attachment 5, Small Business Choice of Competition, and meet award criteria for the SB competition pool detailed earlier in this paragraph will be assessed against the F&O competition pool past performance relevancy definitions in the table at paragraph M-3.3.1.2. Any small businesses that elects to compete in both pools and wins Task Orders will not impact the ceiling amount reserved for (6) awards in the F&O competition pool.” at the end of M-3.1.3.1.

Draft RFP, Page 59 of 78

Sec L, L-8.1.5

Organization Structure Change History can be quite lengthy for large businesses due to acquisitions and other factors; will the Government consider not counting this information against the page count?

Increased to two (2) pages and asked for bullet format without narrative.

Draft RFP, Page 59 of 78

L, L-8.1.4

Do Offerors need to provide consent letters for subs who do not provide PPIs?

Yes, because the Government may assess CPARs on those subs and if there’s a need to discuss issues with the Prime, the Government requires a consent letter. Per the PPI reporting requirements in paragraph L-8.1.2, PPI (and therefore consent letters in the absence of PPI) is only required on subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners considered critical to overall successful performance.

Draft RFP, Page 77 of 78

Sec M, M-3.4.1

This section states that historical labor hours will not be provided in Section B, Table B-1 however the government intends to use the historical labor hours to determine the total overall evaluated price. Since incumbents have historical knowledge of what labor hours it takes to perform work based on their own performance, we recommend that the Government provide historical labor hours to bidders so as not to give incumbents an unfair advantage.

The Government will provide a multiplier based on historical labor hours with the final RFP.

Page 1, Solicitation letter

Will the list of historical tasks for AMIC and AFDW contain the customer name, type of service provided and the contractor?

The historical data has been posted and contains the customer name, type of service, but doesn’t have contractor’s name listed.

Draft RFP, pp 15-23 of 78

Price Table, Section B, Table B-1

Section B

Would the Govt consider adding “Level I” and “Level II” rates to the following selected Labor Categories: Software Developer/Designer; Database Specialist; Engineer; and CAD/GIS Operator? Based on CAAS III TOs, we believe this approach offers better overall pricing to the Govt given the significant difference in experience levels and associated labor rates in these particular categories.

Under normal circumstances, this would be a very valid request. However, the Air Force is currently competing the Network-Centric Solutions (NETCENTS) ID/IQ contract that will be a mandatory source for IT-specific work and the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) will be a mandatory source for engineering and environmental work. There is some IT and/or engineering/environmental A&AS work that could remain in the CAAS IV arena, so we’ve retained these labor categories to capture that work and don’t see a need to further break out those labor categories. In fact, we’ve streamlined the engineering labor categories (took away the individual engineering career specific categories such as Mechanical Engineering) and retained the Engineer category and did the same with the sciences and some of the IT-related labor categories.

N/A

Regarding the historical data released on 15 March 2010, will statements of work (SOW) associated with the task orders listed on the historical data worksheet be made available for review? If not, would it be possible to obtain copies of the SOWs? This email is to follow up my email sent on 17 March 2010, please indicate whether statements of work associated with the task orders listed on the historical data worksheet will be made available for review. It would greatly assist our assessment of potential OCI issues. Thank you very much.

The Government is contemplating posting additional PWSs.

REFERENCE: Section L-5.3.1. Page Format requires proposal submission using Times New Roman 12 point font.

DISCUSSION: This requires offerors to reformat the Attachments in Section L (i.e., Past Performance forms) using Times New Roman 12 point font versus the solicitation’s Times New Roman 10 point font. In addition, Section L provides limited guidance regarding font restrictions for tables, charts, graphs, and figures. Normally, submittal requirements specify that for tables, charts, graphs, and figures the text be no smaller than Times New Roman 8 point font. The use of Times New Roman 12 point font inside of tables, charts, graphs, and figures makes the tables, charts, graphs, and figures cumbersome and unwieldy.

QUESTION(S): Will the Government consider changing Section L-5.3.1 as recommended below?

RECOMMENDATION: Suggest L-5.3.1 be revised as follows:

L-5.3.1. Page Format. The proposal text shall be printed single-sided versus duplex. Type size for text shall not be smaller than Microsoft Word Times New Roman 12 point font, single column, normal proportional spacing and one inch (1”) margins (top, bottom, left and right). For charts, graphs, and figures the text shall be no smaller than Microsoft Word, Times New Roman 8 point font. Tables and forms shall be no smaller than 10 point Times New Roman. Font size requirements do not apply to charts, e.g., organizational charts; however, these charts must be reasonable in size and readable. Text lines and table lines of text shall be single-spaced. Page color for each page of the proposal submission shall be white or ivory.

Updated L-5.3.1 to clarify chart, table, graph and figure font requirements as New Times Roman, no smaller than 8 point font. It also makes the size limit for proposals no less than Times New Roman 10 font (vice 12 font), which contributed to the reduction on pages for the technical proposal.

REFERENCE: The DRFP Section L-7.4 Technical Proposal Volume I includes the statement: “This section shall not contain any pricing data.”

DISCUSSION: In Section L-7.4.1.4 Large Businesses are required to include a proposed Subcontracting Plan that complies with FAR Part 19/H-5 clause and FAR 52.219-9. The Plan contains anticipated annual costs in ($) and percentages and dollars ($) earmarked for the various small business subcategories: SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB, and HUBZone. As such, the completed Subcontracting Plan violates the overall instruction that “This section shall not contain any pricing data.” The easiest solution is to delete L-7.4.1.4 and move the requirement to Volume III, Price Proposal making it Section L-9.5 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Businesses Only).

In addition, the Subcontracting Plan is currently included in the Volume I page limitations. These plans typically require 10-15 pages. If the Subcontracting Plan remains in Volume I, please consider removing it from the stated 60-page limit to provide offerors sufficient room to adequately address other subfactors.

QUESTION: Will the Government please move the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to the Volume III Price Proposal? Alternatively, will the Government remove the SB Plan from the Volume I page limitation, and allow pricing to be shown in the SB Plan as required by FAR Part 19/H-5 clause and FAR 52.219-9?

Moved small business subcontracting plan to price factor and there is no page limitation.

REFERENCE: Page 53 of 78 under FAR 52.215-20 (c) states: “When the proposal is submitted also submit one copy each to (1) the Administrative Contracting Officer, and (2) the Contract Auditor.”

DISCUSSION: It appears that this requirement is not included in Section L-5.3.3, Organization/Copies/Page Limit. In addition, offerors generally submit pricing volumes only to contract auditors.

CLAIRIFICATION: Please clarify if offerors are required to submit one copy of Volumes I, II, and III each to (1) the Administrative Contracting Officer, and (2) the Contract Auditor. Please clarify that the Contract Auditor is the offerors’ cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office.

That clause has been removed from the solicitation. All submissions will go to the contracting officer.

N/A

Do you have a date set for when you plan to release registration information for the Pre-Proposal Conference scheduled of May 3?

At this time, the Government is electing not to conduct a pre-proposal conference.

RFP 14 of 78

Section B, Price Table, Section B, Table B-1, Labor Categories

1st paragraph, 2nd sentence

Would you please confirm that the word “rate” should be inserted in the second sentence after the word “hourly” so that the complete (second) sentence reads as follows? “The offeror shall provide an hourly rate for both the National Capital Region and Other US for each labor category.”

The word “rate” has been added.

RFP 35 of 78

Section I, 52.228-5

Do you anticipate the final RFP will address the minimum insurance requirements?

Section H-14 has been added that now reflects the insurance details.

RFP 36 of 78 Section I

5352.204-9001

PWS Page 11 of 17, Paragraph 1.6.2.2

Would you please confirm the clause 5352.204-9001 is still applicable, as it is no longer listed in AFFARS?

That clause is not applicable and has been removed.

RFP 34 of 78 Section I 52.215-11

RFP 52 of 78

Section L, Clauses Incorporated by Full Text 52.215-20

Although the referenced section contains 52.215-20, Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost Or Pricing Data and 52.215-11, Price Reduction for Defective Cost or Pricing Data-Modifications, the draft solicitation does not contain clause 52.215-12, Subcontractor Cost or Pricing Data and 52.215-13, Subcontractor Cost or Pricing Data-Modifications. Would you please confirm the Government does not require sealed packages from Offeror’s team members?

That is correct; the Government does not require sealed packages from prime offeror’s team members. 52.215-20 has also been removed.

RFP 60 of 78, Section L, L-9.2

This requirement states “offerors shall include information regarding the proposed prime’s and teaming/joint venture partner’s general financial condition, and provide specific plans for financing the proposed effort.” Does the government expect a narrative-style financial assessment of each subcontractor’s financial condition? We recommend only the prime’s and joint ventures’ general financial condition be provided as this is the responsible party to the contract.

This requirement has been removed.

D-3 DRAFT CAAS IV PWS APPENDIX D TASK ORDER (TO) PROPOSAL PROCESS

1.2.5

It is noted that CPIF is listed in PWS 1.2.5.3, yet there is no line item in the IDIQ Solicitation Section B listed nor is FAR 52.216-10 listed. The incentive fee is also not discussed in the solicitation. Should the solicitation be modified to address this?

A new draft PWS Appendix D was posted on 25 March 2010 and no longer shows the CPIF line item. There will not be a CPIF line item for this contract.

D-3 DRAFT CAAS IV PWS APPENDIX D TASK ORDER (TO) PROPOSAL PROCESS 1.2.5

It is noted that there is a T&M line item in the IDIQ Solicitation Section B yet there is no mention of T&M in the TO PWS. Should the solicitation be modified to address this?

If you review the Draft PWS Appendix D that was posted on 25 March 2010 you will notice that the contract type is addressed at 1.1.1 Contract Type.

N/A

Would you please confirm that a DD254 will be provided in the final RFP?

DD 254s will not be provided at the ID/IQ level. All 254s will be implemented for each individual task order, when required.

RFP 4 of 17

DRAFT CAAS IV PWS

1.1.2

The solicitation and the PWS indicate OCONUS performance. Would you please confirm the final RFP will contain the following clauses in support of OCONUS performance?

· FAR 28.305: Overseas Workers Compensation & War Hazard Insurance

· FAR 52.228-3: Worker Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act)

· FAR 52.228-4: Workers Compensation and War-Hazard Insurance Overseas

· DFAR 252.209-7001: Disclosure of Ownership or Control by the Government of a Terrorist Country

· DFAR 252.225-7402-4(a) Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States

DFAR 252.228-7003: Capture & Detention

Clauses added:

FAR 52.228-3: Worker Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act)

FAR 52.228-4: Workers Compensation and War-Hazard Insurance Overseas

DFAR 252.209-7001: Disclosure of Ownership or Control by the Government of a Terrorist Country

DFAR 252.228-7003: Capture & Detention

All other clauses were already in the RFP.

RFP Page 51 of 78, Section K

252.247-7022

RFP Page 75 of 78, Section M, M-3.2.5

We note that the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for a Small Business Prime is 541611 and the size standard is $7 million. What is the applicable size standard for a Small Business as a Sub on a LB team? We would recommend that the standard of $7M for SB subcontractors not be applied to expand the pool of certified SBs that can participate in the procurement.

The standard of $7M will not be applied to subcontractors. Made that clarification in Section M.

Section B, Table B-1, Labor Categories

Section B requires the offeror to provide on-site rates for Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), Labor Hour (LH), and Time and Material (T&M) task orders. A maximum composite FFP/LH/T&M rate for each labor category in these three very different contract types does not account for the significant differential in risk associate with contract type. Under an FFP task, all cost risk associated with completing a task is assumed by the contractor. Under T&M/LH tasks, the cost risk associated for completing a task is assumed by the government. Given the significant differences caused to rates by cost risk, would AMIC consider a break out between FFP and T&M/Labor Hour rates to allow offerors to clearly reflect the risk differential? To set a max rate across three different contract types would ignore the very large differences between those very different contract types.

The offeror’s proposed hourly rates should take the various levels of risk into consideration.

This question applies to the PWS App D that was released last week.

PWS Appendix D: Paragraph 2.3 states that, “CAAS IV Contractors proposing on a TO requirement shall include the total number of personnel performing on each task, rationale and hours. For Firm Fixed Price requirements, CAAS IV Contractors shall still provide the labor category(ies) and associated rates, which will comprise the total overall evaluated price.” Based on the foregoing, it is our understanding that the total number of personnel, with associated rationale and hours, will not be required for FFP TOs. Please confirm.

Agree this was not clear. Removed entire paragraph from Appendix D. Any task order proposal requirements will be addressed in the task order solicitations.

N/A

If a contractor is the manufacturer / supplier of a system, can that contractor also provide A&AS services related to that system? The high potential for an A&AS contractor who is also the manufacturer to create biased ground rules OCIs associated with the acquisition of a system would seem to preclude such use. The high potential for an A&AS contractor who is also the manufacturer to create impaired objectivity OCIs would seem to preclude such use. Finally, the ability to conduct a fair A&AS Task Order competition against the manufacturer of that system seems to create a high potential for unequal access to information OCIs, since such manufacturers do not attempt to ensure that equal information on their systems is available to all offerors. While scenarios might be possible where a manufacturer could avoid any or all of these OCIs, they would appear to be rare. Recommend that the CAAS IV OCI clause clearly state that offerors who manufacture Air Force weapon systems shall not be allowed to bid any A&AS task orders that involve, impact, or relate to those weapon systems.

“Contractors who manufacture Air Force weapon systems shall not be allowed to bid any A&AS task orders that involve, impact, or relate to those weapon systems” has been incorporated into the OCI clause in Section H.

Reference the Engineer Labor Category:

Is there a minimum requirement for years of experience?

The new App D posted 25 Mar 10 includes details for all labor categories.

The following excerpt was taken from a letter dated 20 September 2005 addressed to All CAAS III Offerors from Capt Janice Scott, CAAS III Contracting Officer:

“ NAICS. ……. The NAICS business size standard is the determining factor whether a Prime is considered a small business concern for the CAAS III acquisitions. This business size standard does not apply to subcontractors under the Prime. The key to successful performance on a contract of this magnitude is a diverse teaming arrangement. Potential Primes will need to ensure they have adequate breadth and capability to meet a various assortment of task order requirements. Consequently, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will not be restricted to firms with only a NAICS Code of 541611.”

“ NAICS. ……. The NAICS business size standard is the determining factor whether a Prime is considered a small business concern for the CAAS III acquisitions. This business size standard does not apply to subcontractors under the Prime. The key to successful performance on a contract of this magnitude is a diverse teaming arrangement. Potential Primes will need to ensure they have adequate breadth and capability to meet a various assortment of task order requirements. Consequently, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will not be restricted to firms with only a NAICS Code of 541611.”

We assume on CAAS IV that the above paragraph also applies and that our Small Business Subcontracting Plan will not be restricted to firms only with a NAICS Code of 541611. Is that correct?

See Question 30.

Reference H-5 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING GOALS

Please clarify that the statement “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”. Does this mean that of the awards the prime makes to its subcontractors, 23% must be awarded to Small Businesses?

Yes, 23% of the total dollars awarded to large businesses. Further clarified that in H-5.

Reference L-8.1.3 Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheet:

The reference states that “Offerors shall submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of four (4) contract references. Two of the references provided shall be on the prime. Additional references may be on the prime.” To clarify, a maximum of four (4) references for the total team should be submitted?

That is correct, but the maximum is now five (5), with a minimum of two (2) on the prime.

Reference the Small Business pool

Does the small business prime have to do 50% of the effort or is the 50% aggregated over the efforts performed by all the NAICS 541611, <$7M , companies on a small business team?

This applies to the small business prime who must meet the requirement of FAR Clause 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting which states that “50 percent for the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.”

Reference L-5.3.2 Electronic Copies

The reference states that we can submit electronic files in MS Office 2003-2007 or Adobe PDF Version 9 or earlier. The reference also states that each volume should be in a single searchable, editable file. I do not believe PDF files are editable. Please clarify.

If a file is in PDF format, we are requesting that a search may be performed within the text, and the text may be highlighted and copied. The paragraph was updated to reflect this.

H-7

Requires submittal of an approved Disclosure Statement. What about firms that are exempt from requiring a Disclosure Statement?

The disclosure statement requirement has been removed from Section H.

Section I

FAR 52.216-29 and 52.216-30 identify that fixed hourly rates can include separate rates for the offeror and each subcontractor or a blended rate. Please clarify if the rates submitted are to be a blended rate or separate rates for the prime and each sub.

Blended rate; e.g., ONE rate for each prime contractor. The hourly rates are NTE rates that will be discounted at the TO level. So, each prime submits one rate for the National Capital Region and Other US for each labor category. Also, the Government expects invoicing ONLY from the prime.

Section L-9.2

States that offeror shall provide proof of a DCAA acceptable purchasing system. What if offeror has not had their purchasing system audited, as of yet? For example, a small business contractor who recently became a large business may not have an audited purchasing system

That section has been removed.

PWS Section 1.2.4.2

A FFP task order is to complete a specific task regardless of the number of individuals required. Would the Government consider adding a statement that the lapse rate report excludes FFP type task orders?

We will track lapses on FFP only for CO or contractor-identified key personnel. Details are provided in instructions for CDRL A001 in CDRL A001 Attachment 1, Format/Instructions

Reference H-1

H-1 states that the CO will conduct an analysis to determine if two or more small business concerns are capable of performing the work and make a decision as to whether or not the task order should be set-aside. What decision criteria will be used to make the determination?

This procedure will be used when the requirement is estimated at over $1M and there is a reasonable expectation that offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small businesses who could perform the task requirement and that the award would be made at a fair market price

Page 14 of 78, Price Table, SECTION B, TABLE B-1, LABOR CATEGORIES

Please define “on-site”. i.e., does that mean the government site or contractor site?

See Question 5.

Reference page 30 of 78, Section H, Paragraph H-3, ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

Please clarify what “contract” in the following sentences from the middle of the paragraph. Is this the CAAS IV contract, the task order that directed the studies under the CAAS IV contract or the contract awarded as a result of the conducted studies?

“As a result, the contractor is precluded from award of any contract or subcontract or from acting as a consultant to other contractors for those programs resulting from the recommendations of these studies. Such restriction shall be effective for five (5) years after the completion of the contract”

Section H-3 has been updated and negates this issue.

Reference the draft PWS, Para 1.2.3.2 Purchasing

Assuming an ODC CLIN will be included in any task order that requires purchase of materials, will AMIC consider changing the approval authority to the Government QAE?

Changed to “CO or QAE, as specified in the TO PWS.” and add to management plan.

Reference the draft PWS, Para 1.3.2.1

Duty Hours, office shutdown (i.e., weather). What is the policy regarding voluntary Government shutdowns on contractor workdays, e.g., ACC Family Days, squadron activities, early workday shutdown of Government facility?

In Section 1.3.2.2, it states, “For official MAJCOM family days, or 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. In all cases, if Government personnel are not available in the building/location of work to oversee Contractor activities, Contractor personnel shall leave the premises. Costs incurred for work will not be reimbursed, unless the option for alternate work locations or arrangements are specifically addressed in the individual TO PWS, coordinated with the QAE and approved by the Contracting Officer.”

Reference the draft PWS

For OCONUS Task Orders, will individual task orders contain a CLIN permitting the contractor to bid any costs associated with personnel performing work overseas, e.g., State Department allowances, COLA, etc)?

There would be no specific CLIN identified for these costs. Labor rates for OCONUS tasks will be negotiated at the TO level.

Reference CPARs

Will AMIC consider including a PWS paragraph defining CPAR grading standards to include criteria for achieving the highest performance rating?

The guidance that is used to rate CPARS can be found at.: http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/cparsfiles/pdfs/DoD-CPARS-Guide.pdf

See Attachment 2 of the guide for rating definitions.

N/A

Can you tell us when the final RFP will be released?

We will not post by our projected release date of 1 June 2010. Our timeline is subject to approvals through many levels at AF and OSD. We will keep Industry informed as we approach dates we will not meet and as we solidify dates.

N/A

During Industry Day you announced ECAS was to be included in the CAAS IV contract. With this Draft RFP the only revisions seemed to be in the labor category segment where several new categories were incorporated. Request an additional task be added to better delineate this ECAS work.

The type of work performed on ECAS that will be performed on CAAS IV is not highly technical in nature. Those highly technical engineering requirements once placed on ECAS will be placed on contract through another vehicle. See Question 15.

N/A

As discussed in the Industry day open Question and Answers, the replacement metric for a two week expected replacement for individuals electing to seek other employment is impractical. The nominal replace window revolves around the notional two week notice standard. Would the government consider a two week replacement window that begins with the actual departure of the incumbent?

Removed requirement for two-week’s notice and simply stated that position vacancies shall not exceed 14 calendar days unless approved in writing or otherwise directed in advance by the CO.

N/A

Request consideration of a change in the OCI provision in the draft of the CAAS IV contract RFP. We suggest an OCI issue be resolved with an appropriate mitigation plan, in lieu of automatic preclusion from award as outlined below.

H-3: OCI: The contractor shall maintain an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan to reduce the likelihood of occurrence of an OCI violation or the appearance thereof. The contractor shall be cognizant of disclosure of other contractors' and/or Government proprietary information, including procurement sensitive information; and of restrictions on participating in the development of, and then bidding on resultant requirement. For example, the contractor may be required to perform studies that directly impact future Government requirements. In support of these studies, the contractor may have access to certain proprietary information and data. As a result, if the contractor is unable to resolve the conflict through an appropriate mitigation plan, the contractor is precluded from award of any contract or subcontract or from acting as a consultant to other contractors for those programs resulting from the recommendations of these studies.

See Question 33. OCIs cannot always be mitigated, and writing an OCI mitigation plan will not necessarily correct or prevent the actual or perceived OCI.

N/A

With your state intention to include the ECAS work within CAAS IV and given that you have provided the historic list of tasks for CAAS and AFDW, would you consider providing similar historic task information for the ECAS work.

See Question 52.

In L-8.1.3

The RFP states the government wants a minimum of two contract references with a maximum of four, two must be from the prime. Can you clarify that you are asking for two with a maximum of four for the prime with additional references from any teammates.

See Question 37.

N/A

If you are asking for a maximum total of four PPIs (both prime and sub) would the government consider increasing the number to a total of six?

See Question 37.

N/A

The government is requiring an OCI plan, can you define the components and metrics of an acceptable OCI plan?

See Question 33. The OCI plan shall address all requirements stated in section L-7.4.1.2 and FAR 9.5 and 9.6.

N/A

The labor category description for the Program Manager has a requirement for functional area qualifications for the TO, does the government foresee a program manager for each TO or the overall contract? If it is the overall contract, can the government remove the language about the TO

Please review the updated PWS Appendix D, posted on FedBizOpps, 25 March 2010. There is no way to determine how many TOs will require a PM; this is determined by the proposals on each TO and whether the CAAS IV contractors who bid determine if a PM labor category fits the TO requirement.

Section F – 52.211.11 – Liquidated Damages – Supplies, Services, or Research and Development (SEP 2000) – Page 28

The FAR prescribes the use of this clause when the time of delivery or timely performance is so important that the Government may reasonably expect to suffer damage if the delivery or performance is delinquent and the extent or amount of such damage would be difficult or impossible to estimate accurately or prove. The scope of the CAAS IV contract is to provide Advisory & Assistance Services (A&AS) in the areas of services , studies, analyses and evaluations with output in the form of information, advice, opinions, alternatives, analyses, evaluations, recommendations, training and services. Would the Government reconsider the applicability of this clause to a task order driven contract to provide services?

The clause has been removed.

Section H-1 - Competition Pools – Page 30

The Government intends to award a target of 18 contracts, with a target of six (6) contracts awarded in the Full and Open (F&O) competition pool. This could include large businesses and any other businesses that elect to compete only in this category.

In the second sentence in the reference, we assume that “any other businesses that elect to compete in only this category” is referring to those Small Businesses as defined by the CAAS IV NAICs that either use Section L – Attachment 6 to select the F&O competition pool or those Small Businesses that fail to complete Attachment 6. Would the Government clarify or confirm that this assumption is correct?

That is correct. A SB under NAICS code 541611 can elect to compete only in the SB competition pool, only in the F&O competition pool or in both competition pools. However, any SB must meet the criteria specified for the competition pool(s) in which they elect to compete to be eligible for award. If a SB elects to compete ONLY in the F&O competition pool, and that business is eligible for award, it will count against the 6 awards in that pool. If it elects to compete in both competition pools, and wins award in both pools, it will NOT count against the 6 awards in the F&O competition pool.

Section L-5.3.4 – What Counts as a Page – Page 56

All material shall be contained within the page limit identified for each volume, and all appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc., are included in the page count, with exception if items stated in L-5.3.6.

Would the Government confirm that the reference to section L-5.3.6 should be a reference to section L-5.3.5?

Changed to L-5.3.5.

Section L-7.4.1.2 – Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan – Page 58

The requirement is to provide an OCI plan.

Section H-3 – Organizational Conflict of Interests – Page 30

The requirement is to maintain an OCI Mitigation Plan.

Many large businesses have comprehensive plans for reducing the likelihood of occurrence of an OCI violation or the appearance thereof. Given the requirement to address each of the five (5) subfactors, we do not believe the approaches for detecting, disclosing, avoiding, and mitigating OCI issues/risk can be adequately addressed given the current page limitation.

Would the Government consider allowing Offerors to provide the OCI Mitigation Plan as an attachment to the technical proposal outside the 60 page limit?

The Government considered this request and determined that making it fall outside the page count is not necessary.

Section L-7.4.1.4 – Subfactor 4: Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Businesses Only) – Page 58

The requirement is for large businesses to provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

It would appear that the small business subcontracting plan is part of the 60 page limit for the Technical volume. It seems disadvantageous to Small Businesses who decide to be considered in the F&O category to have to use part of the 60 pages for a Small Business Subcontracting Plan while their Small Business competitors who decide not to be considered for the F&O category award would have additional space for the other subfactors. Recommend that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan not count against the page limit of the Technical volume.

See Question 18.

Section L-8.1.3 – Past Performance Information Sheet – Page 59

Section L-8.1.3.2 – Offerors shall submit information on contracts deemed relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposal effort and explain how/why the referenced contracts are relevant to the proposed effort, by each of the five technical subfactors shown in paragraph L-7.4.1, as appropriate.

Each PPI sheet is limited to three (3) pages.

The PPI template alone is almost 2 pages and is written in 10 point font. If we convert the template to 12 point, it would take up 2 pages, leaving a little over 1 page for text. Also, the PPI does not have sufficient length to adequately address each of the five technical subfactors shown in paragraph L-7.4.1.

Would the Government raise the page limit for each PPI to five (5) and allow also allow the contractor to optimize the space in the tables in Sections A and C of the PPI?

See Question 17.

Section L-8.1.5 – Organizational Structure Change History – Page 59

To facilitate the Government’s past performance evaluation, offerors shall include in this proposal volume a detailed “roadmap” describing all such organizational changes (if applicable), to include specific names and dates.

What is the page limit permitted to answer this requirement? None is provided in Section L criteria.

See Question 11.

Section L - Attachment 6, Small Business Choice of Competition - Page 71

Small Business (SB): The Government intends to award 12 contracts resulting from the SB set-aside pool. Each small business offeror may choose to compete in the SB pool OR in the full and open (F&O) pool OR in both pools. Offerors shall check any competition pool(s) they intend to compete in for the CAAS IV source selection. Failure to complete this form will result in evaluation for the F&O pool only. Small businesses shall only propose on task orders in the pool(s) in which they indicate interest on this form, meet appropriate evaluation criteria, and receive award at the CAAS IV ID/IQ level. There will be no specific socio-economic set-aside other than a small business set-aside.

If a small business, as defined by the CAAS IV NAICS, only checks the box for F&O competition on Attachment 6, does this mean the small business will be evaluated for potential award of one of the six (6) F&O awards?

Please clarify in what pool a small business, as defined by the CAAS IV NAICS, will be evaluated at the IDIQ level depending on how they fill out the referenced attachment?

See Question 61.

Section M-3.2.2.1 – Organizational Structure – Page 74

Demonstrate effective management, problem resolution, and the ability to respond to and integrate internally and externally drive mission-related requirements to include processes for managing subcontractor relationships.

Question

Would the Government clarify what would be considered an “internally drive mission-related requirement” and an “externally drive mission-related requirement”?

Removed this requirement and updated the criteria.

Past Performance Information (PPI) sheet on p. 61 of the solicitation

There is a requirement to "Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this program/contract and are proposed to support this acquisition." Given that there is no requirement to propose individuals on this submission, and our understanding is that specific personnel will only be proposed on task orders, should this requirement be deleted from the solicitation? If not, can the Government explain what is expected in response to this requirement.

This criterion does not have to do with TOs. It is in response to Section L-7.4.1.1.2. Human Resources, where it states, “Identify any key management personnel with applicable experience and qualification summaries.”

Section 2.0, Table 1 on page 15 of the PWS

References a metric of a lapse rate of less than 5% across all contracted positions, as well as a formula in CDRL A001. We cannot find the definition of this lapse rate or formula in the solicitation. Can the Government define how the 5% lapse rate will be calculated?

According to CDRL A001, Attachment 1, Format/Instructions, #9 at the bottom, “9. Quarterly Lapse Rates: Quarterly Lapse Rate = Vacant FTE Days in Qtr / (Total Number TO Performance Days - Number Days Reduced by PWS Revision).”

N/A

We are assuming the government will designate contractor personnel as mission essential for OCONUS travel in the CAAS IV Task Orders. If not, the costs to the contractor will be considerable if they can’t take advantage of government travel, accommodations, etc. that are offered government personnel.

The Government will identify key personnel on a case-by-case basis for each TO and the applicable rates for OCONUS work will be negotiated at the TO level for TOs requiring OCONUS work.

N/A

Is there a way to determine if the latest draft solicitation documents reflect or negate any of the responses to the 14 December 2009 Gov’t Responses to Industry Questions? If not, a PWS/sol cross walk that identifies the major revisions of the draft PWS to the final CAAS IV solicitation documents may be of value to the prospective respondents.

A Change Matrix is attached to the letter with the posting of the updated RFP, PWS, PWS appendices and wage determinations.

N/A

Will the 14 day turnaround for replacement apply to categories such as SME Level I/II, which are normally…