Industry Questions and Answers.pdf

AFRC Enterprise IT Services RFP No.: FA664322R0002 December 1, 2022

No. Reference Document Section Reference Text and Page Number Question Answer 1 Solicitation+-

+FA664322R0002.pdf SF1449 - Box 9 "CRAIG KEELEN, Email: craig.keelen@us.af.mil

Telephone: 497-0815" - Page 1 The phone number provided for Mr. Craig Keelen is only seven digits (i.e., 497-0815). Would the Government please provide the full 10 digit phone number for Mr. Keelen?

(478)327-0815

2 Attachment_11_- _Addendum_to_FAR_52.2 12-1.docx

I.B Communications "Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing or facsimile." - Page

Per Section I.B, Offerors are permitted to submit their Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) via direct mailing or facsimile. Would the Government please respond to the following three questions:

1) Would the Government please confirm the address to be used for direct mailing is listed in Box 9 of the SF1449?

2) If submitting a PPQ via direct mailing, would the Government please confirm that a PPQ submission shall be considered on time provided it is post marked no later than the proposal due date of 12/16/2022?

3) Would the Government please provide the facsimile number to be used if an Offeror intends to transmit their PPQ via facsimile?

Section I.B. is meant to address communications between the government and contractors after proposal submission. All proposals are to be transmitted via DoD

SAFE

3 Attachment_11_- _Addendum_to_FAR_52.2 12-1.docx

II, Volume Organization, A.2

Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12.

Paper size shall be 8 1/2” X 11”. Each volume shall be separately identified. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch on all sides and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. Elaborate formats and/or color presentations are not desired or required. Page 2

Will the Government please allow 10 point font for graphics, tables, headers, and footers?

Gov't would accept 10 point for graphics/tables/headers/footers

4 Attachment_11_- _Addendum_to_FAR_52.2 12-1.docx

II, Volume Organization, B.3

This VPP information shall be no more than two

(2) pages. Page 2

Will the Government please allow 2 pages per partner/JV member for their respective VPP information?

VPP requirement will be removed from Atch 11.

5 Attachment_11_- _Addendum_to_FAR_52.2 12-1.docx, Att. 1, PWS

II, Volume Organization C.3 Subfactor Two

Offeror shall provide a written narrative, not to exceed 20 pages, that describes the offeror’s approach based on its application of reasonable IT industry methods and techniques to accomplish the full range of tasks in the entire PWS. Page 3

Will the Government please clarify if the Offeror is expected to reply to each and every element of the PWS in order to have their response considered compliant? If the answer is yes and the Offeror is required to respond to each and every element of the PWS, will the Government please consider increasing the page limit from 20 to 35 pages for Subfactor Two - Technical Narrative?

The government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to fulfill the full range of services required. The government feels 20 pages is sufficient for a concise description of the Offeror's approach, tools, and efficiencies to address the full scope of services.

6 Attachment_11_- _Addendum_to_FAR_52.2 12-1.docx

I.B, D.7 - Past Performance Questionnaire

Respondents must submit their completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire electronically by e-mailing to:

craig.keelen@us.af.mil, and michelle.henderson.8@us.af.mil. Please ensure respondents encrypt the e-mail in accordance with the requirements detailed in paragraph I.B.

above.Page 6.

To minimize the burden on the Offeror's PPQ respondents, will the Government please consider removing the requirement for respondents to encrypt PPQ responses submitted via email to the CO?

Due to the source selection sensitive nature of answered PPQ's, encryption is necessary. If it is easier for respondents they may submit PPQ's via DoD SAFE.

7 Attachment_11_- _Addendum_to_FAR_52.2 12-1.docx

E. Volume II, Subfactor 3, Sample Task Order Proposal

Offerors shall submit a rate sheet, in MS Excel format, using Attachment 9 – Rate Sheet, in support of their proposed price.pg, 28

Would the Government please confirm the Sample Task Order in Volume II is being evaluated as 'Technically Acceptable?' If the answer is 'Yes,' should Attachment 9 be submitted as a part of Volume IV rather than Volume II?

Attachment 9 is being used to establish contractor burdened rates and to establish total evaluated price for the basic ID/IQ contract. That is why it is needed as part of Volume IV and not volume II. Yes the initial TO is being evaluated for Technical Acceptability and shall be submitted as part of Volume II. The initial TO is being used to allow contractors to demonstrate that they understand which labor categories to propose per CLIN and the appropriate amount of hours.

8 . Ref: Attachment 3 – Task Order 01 Performance Work Statement; 5.0.

General Requirements

Task Order 01 Performance Work Statement; 5.0.

General Requirements

Perform IAW the AFRC Enterprise IT Services PWS for locations identified in Appendix A. For para 5.15. Hours of Work, in addition to the normal workdays, the following support requirements will apply specifically for UTA weekends.

• On call support will be provided for PWS para

2.1.1. through 2.1.13, 2.1.15, and 2.1.16.

Question: Would the Government please define what the requirements and parameters for providing on call support entails?

The requirement for on call support is for after hours and UTA weekends. In the event of a service disruption that does not have a viable workaround, the contractor will be called to affect repairs. This support may be completed remotely or on-site depending on the complexity and classification of the issue. The contractor can offset on-call time with compensatory time at their discretion

9 Ref: Attachment 11 – I.

Proposal Format; II Volume Organization

A. General; 2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12.

Paper size shall be 8 1/2” X 11”. Each volume shall be separately identified. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch on all sides and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. Elaborate formats and/or color presentations are not desired or required.

Would the Government allow a font size of 10pt for Tables, Charts, and Graphics?

Government would accept 10pt for tables/charts/graphics

10 Ref: Attachment 11 C. Volume II Written Technical Proposal; 2. Mission Essential Services Continuation Plan; In accordance with DFARS 237.7602 and DFARS PGI 207.105(b)(20)(C)(3), offerors shall submit a written Mission Essential Services Continuation Plan, not to exceed two (2) pages, for how it will provide the continuity of essential services.

Due to the amount of information necessary to respond to this requirement iaw DFARS 237.7602 and DFARS PGI 207.105(b)(20)(C)(3), would the Government consider allowing a 10pt font to cover in the two page allotment?

The page limit for the Mission Esssential Continuation Plan will be changed to 3 pages.

11 Attachment 11 B. Volume I, Completed Request For Proposal (RFP)

Completed Request For Proposal (RFP); 1.

General: Volume I shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include acknowledgment of any amendments issued…

Should a copy of the DD 254, with Blocks 6/7 completed be submitted with proposals?

The 254 is filled out by Government once contractor is selected

12 Ref: Attachment 11 - D. Volume III, Present/Past Performance; 7. Past Performance Questionnaire; The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 6 – Past Performance Questionnaire) will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information.

The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s). The offeror/joint venture shall send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires to each of the offeror’s/joint venture, critical subcontractors’ and/or teaming partner(s) (i.e., each entity’s) Respondent identified in each FACTS Sheet. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror.

Offerors shall not delegate this responsibility to any other entity. When sending out the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire, offerors are to include the Client Authorization Letter (Attachment 7 – Client Authorization Letter). Offerors should exert their best effort to ensure that at least two Respondents per relevant contract submit a completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals.

Will the Government accept/acknowledge CPARs in lieu of the PPQs/Client Authorization Letters?

CPARs wil not be accepted in lieu of PPQs as the questions in the PPQs are specifically focused on areas of interest to this contract effort.

Industry Questions and Answers Page 1 of 4

13 Attachment 12 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

Per the relevant experience requirements within the RFP, the Government unfairly restricts small businesses other than the incumbent. Can the Government please amend the RFP relevancy requirements to allow for fair competition?

The government does not feel like the relevancy requirements are unfairly restrictive.

The relevancy requirements are based on the environment to be supported by this new contract. This contract is not being awarded to stand up new capability, it is to assume operations and maintenance of existing AFRC services for 75K users. The level of specificity is necessary because AFRC has a significant financial investment in certain technologies and therefore needs a contractor who can come in knowledgeable of critical capabilities in the AFRC enterprise in order to provide services on day one. AFRC cannot afford a ramp up period that impacts existing services during contract transition. Additionally, the relevancy requirements do not favor the incumbent as the incumbent does not qualify as a small business under this NAICS code.

14 Attachment 12 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

The Government's strict requirements are stacked in complete favor of the incumbent - can the Government please amend the relevancy requirements to allow for fair and even competition.

The government does not feel like the relevancy requirements are unfairly restrictive.

The relevancy requirements are based on the environment to be supported by this new contract. This contract is not being awarded to stand up new capability, it is to assume operations and maintenance of existing AFRC services for 75K users. The level of specificity is necessary because AFRC has a significant financial investment in certain technologies and therefore needs a contractor who can come in knowledgeable of critical capabilities in the AFRC enterprise in order to provide services on day one. AFRC cannot afford a ramp up period that impacts existing services during contract transition. Additionally, the relevancy requirements do not favor the incumbent as the incumbent does not qualify as a small business under this NAICS code.

15 Attachment 12 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-3

Can the Government restructure the relevancy requirements so the offeror can use all past performance collectively?

Because IT technologies and capabilities change so rapidly, the government feels it is in its best interest to only accept past performance performed within the past three years. However, all past performance that meets the recency criteria will be evaluated collectively. Each individual past performance will be evaluated separately, but the aggregate of all will be considered when determing a confidence rating. Therefore, it is possible to receive an overall "Substantial Confidence" rating without any single past performance meeting the criteria for "Very Relative", as long as the collective group of submitted past performances demonstrates the ability to meet all the criteria.

16 Attachment 12 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-4

Do the subcontractor’s past performance qualifications carry equal weight as the Prime offeror? If not, can the Government please amend the solicitation to provide fair and equal competition?

All past performance will be weighted equally.

17 Attachment 12 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-5

The scope and specificity of the Present/Past Performance Relevancy Matrix creates the likelihood that most small businesses, other than the incumbent, do not have the past performance(s) that can achieve a “Very Relevant” or “Relevant” rating, thereby limiting small business competition. Would the government please amend the past performance evaluation to “or similar technologies or infrastructure”?

The government does not feel like the relevancy requirements are unfairly restrictive.

The relevancy requirements are based on the environment to be supported by this new contract. The level of specificity is necessary because AFRC has a significant financial investment in certain technologies and therefore needs a contractor to provide qualified personnel who are knowledgeable of the critical capabilities in the AFRC enterprise in order to perfrom mission crotocal functions at the start of the contract. AFRC cannot afford a ramp up period that impacts existing services during contract transition. Because (1) past performance will be considered for partners as well as the prime, (2) all past performance will be evaluated in the aggregate to determine a confidence of the proposer to successfully fulfill the services AFRC requires, and (3) the technologies and services AFRC requires are generally standard in the IT industry, small businesses that feel they do not have sufficient past performance in one or more areas have the option of leveraging partnering strategies to demonstrate sufficient past performance to address AFRC relevancy criteria.

20 Amendment 1, Solicitation - FA664322R0002, Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs, page 3

The Government has dollar amounts in each

CLIN.

Is the Offeror to submit this table as part of the proposal submission?

Please confirm offerors may replace the dollar amounts in the table with proposed bid rates.

The offeror is required to submit Attachment 8 - Rate sheet as per the instructions found at attachment 11 addendum to FAR 52.212-1 paragraph E. The contractor SHALL NOT change the amounts shown in each CLIN. Those are the government provided maximum amounts for the basic ID/IQ contract. The rate sheet is used to establish Total Evaluated Price and in no way needs to match the CLIN amounts detailed on the SF1449. Attachment 8 is being used only as a method to evaluate price and to establish rates for the term of the contract.

21 Attachment 11 Attachment 11 Section 7.

The instructions to offers states that offeror should exert their best effort to ensure that at least two Respondents per relevant contract submit a completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire. This is in direct contridiction to the government's response to a question about the need for more than one respondant during the draft RFP Q&A period. On line 118 of the the Draft RFP Q&A response the government stated it would change the requirement to only require a minimum of 1 respondant.

Since the government didn't change this requirement as they stated they would, is the governmnet going to unfavorably score the relevancy of the PPQ if only a single respondent provides a response?

Thank you for bringing this to the government's attention. A correction will be made to only request 1 PPQ response is necessary.

22 Attachment 12 Attachment 12 Section 6

The example the government provides of how the relevancy of the scope will be evaluated appears to show that scope relevancy is determined on an individual contract citation basis. This appears to be in direct contradiction to the government's response to a question on the relevancy matrix during the draft RFP Q&A period. On line 64 of the Draft RFP Q&A response the government stated that it would aggregate total PPQs submitted to determine how well they demonstrate the ability to relevancy requirements. Does the government intend to aggregate relevancy, especially concerning relevancy of scope, during evaluation as previously stated?

Yes. The government will be looking at past performance in the aggregate. We will be looking if the contractor demonstrates across all their submitted past performance that they have experience in all areas of scope, magnitude, and complexity. The example specifically shows that in the area of scope not one of the examples achieved a very relevant yet the contractor was still evaluated as Substancial Confidence because they demonstrated that they worked in all areas of scope across all their submitted efforts. The confidence rating is the rating that is viewed in the aggregate, i.e. wholistically.

23 Attachment 12 Attachment 12 Section II.D.3/3.1/3.2

Per paragraph 3. and sub paragraphs, it appears as worded that the government will provide advantage to offers that submit a series of task orders vs. single task order(s) and offers that submit multiple definitive contracts, even if the combined Scope, Complexity and Magnitude of the single task order(s) or definitive contracts exceeds the series of orders.

Is it the government’s intent to advantage series of task orders performance over single task order(s), definitive or stand-alone contract performance?

No, the government is not seeking to give an advantage to a series of orders. A series of orders will be treated the same as individual orders or contracts.

24 Attachment 12 Attachment 12 Section II.D.3/3.1/3.2

If the answer to the previous question is “Yes, the government intends to advantage offers with series of task orders performance over single task order(s), definitive or standalone contracts. Will the government consider adjusting the verbiage in paragraph 3. and subparagraphs to treat multiple task orders equivalent to a series of orders on an IDIQ or

MATOC?

The answer above is no.

26 Attachment 6 PPQ Section 5, General comment

The "pick list" object that allows gov't respondent to PPQ to select "would" or "Would not" does not work. Similarly, the Date "Click and pick the date" field does not work. This means gov't respondent to PPQ cannot submit compliant PPQ as provided by AFRC. Will the government please change this to "Would / Would not [ select only one]" and remove the "click and pick the date" field, and provide clean forms to industry to complete?

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The government will provide an updated form.

Does AFRC intend to utilize SharePoint throughout th

At this time, there is no projected change envisioned. However, it is always possible that technology advancements or DoD or AF guidance changes could drive changes during the life of this contract.

Attachment 11, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors

4 II.D.2(a) For Volume III Present/Past Performance, please confirm that the Summary Page does not have a page limitation.

The requirement for the summary page wil be removed, as the FACTS sheet provides the opportunity to demonstrate how past performance aligns to the PWS and the proposed role of the offeror/joint venture, critical subcontractor and/or teaming partners. Atch 11 will be updated to reflect this change.

Industry Questions and Answers Page 2 of 4

Attachment 1 - IT Enterprise Services Performance Work Statement dated 25 MAY

56 Para 5.17

In section 5.17 of the PWS it states that from time to time a contractor may be required to provide afterhours support. The Attachment_8_- _Rate_Sheet currently has no listing to provide an overtime rate. Will the Government please modify the Attachment_8_-_Rate_Sheet.xlsx to include an Overtime Rate as well as the Regular time Rate.

It is not the intention of the government to provide an overtime rate. The statement in the PWS is solely meant to notify contractors that after hours work maybe required from time to time. This is not a reimbursable contract but a firm-fixed price contract.

Contractors will bid the first task order which will result in a monthly fixed price per CLIN for services. The rate categories and prices are necessary to assist the government in fair and reasonable determinations in the out years of the ID/IQ.

30 Solicitation -

FA664322R0002

Item 0007 Item 1007 Lists IT Modernization services valued at $2,000,000.00 and $2000,000.00 respectively under a Firm Fixed Price pricing arrangement. All services to be provided shall be in accordance with the PWS. Can the Government please provide additional detail on the types of IT Modernization projects it intends to execute under these line items?

Types of projects are unknown at this time. This CLIN is for emergent capabilities or efficiencies that may be identified during the life of this contract. If this CLIN is used, gov will describe need to contractor and contractor will have oppostunity to provide a proposal for a seperate task order at the time the need is identified.

Solicitation - FA664322R0 Page 3 Page 5 Item 0008 Item 1008

Lists Travel valued at $720,000.00 and $72,000.00 respectively under a Firm Fixed Price pricing arrangement. Due to the limited amount of travel information provided within the solicitation (Attach 1, page 49, para 5.4 Travel: 80 contractor travel events per year) will the Government consider changing these line items to cost reimbursable?

At the start of each year the government will include a travel CLIN on the task order with a dollar amount. As the contractor travels they will be able to invoice as travel occurs. If travel is exceeded for that year the government will add more funding to the travel CLIN on the task order as needed.

Attachment 11, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors

Page 5 Para 7

Final RFP Attachment 11 instructions state that Offerors should exert their best effort to ensure that at least two Respondents per relevant contract submit a completed PPQ. However, the draft Q&A response, lines 118 and 124, indicates that this requirement is being changed to only require a minimum of 1 government POC per PPQ. Would the Government please confirm that a minimum of 1 government POC per PPQ is required?

Thank you for bringing this to the government's attention. A correction will be made to Atch 11 to only request 1 PPQ response is necessary.

Solicitation - FA664322R0 3 & 14 Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs

In the Solicitation, page 3 & 14, it states the Qty as 60 Months. Should the offer be interpreted as a 60-month base with a 6-month option to extend?

That is correct. Please keep in mind that the government is providing the max value of each CLIN and contractors are only required to propose labor rates and the first task order.

Solicitation -

FA664322R0002

Attachment 3 - Task Order 01 Performance Work Statement

3 & 14

Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs

1.0

Task Order 1 states a 12 Month period of performance from 20 March 2023 – 19 March 2024. The Solicitation, Page 3 & 14, show the CLIN numbers 0001 – 0008, should these CLIN numbers correlate to Task Order 1 CLIN numbers 0001 - 0008? If yes, Will the Government please explain the 60 months Qty shown in the solicitation? If no will the government explain how these CLIN number should apply to Attachment_8_-_Rate_Sheet.

The period of performance for the first task order is 12 months. The ordering period for the basic ID/IQ contract is 60 months. They should not correlate since the task order is for one year of performance and the basic ID/IQ contract is for the entire 5 years.

Solicitation -

FA664322R0002

3 & 14 Supplies or Services & Prices or Cost

As the Solicitation, Pages 3 & 14, states a base period of performance as 60 months will the government be allowing escalation of the bill rate or does the government expect a consistent bill rate shown year over year in Attachment_8_-_Rate_Sheet.

The bill rate may vary by year to account for inflation or other factors

38 Attachment 11-- Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services: Page 2, paragraph II.B.2

The Government states, "Offeror will not be eligible for award when teaming arrangement documentation is found to be noncompliant." Are offerors to include signed copies of subcontractor teaming arrangements to demonstrate compliance with FAR 9.6 or is a narrative detailing a subcontractor team member's roles and responsibilities and percentage of workshare sufficient?

Both are required. To make a proper determination of the teaming agreement the government needs the signed copies of the agreement and the division of work detailed.

Attachment 11-- Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services: Page 4, paragraph II.D.2.(a)

The Government requests a summary page that describes how the present/past performance aligns (by PWS paragraph number) to the proposed role of the offeror/joint venture, critical subcontractor and/or teaming partners and the nature of work. Are offerors to show this to the first level PWS paragraph number, i.e, 2.1 or all the way down to the third level, i.e, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 etc.? We suggest only to the first level due to space available.

The summary page requirement will be removed and combined with the FACTS sheet. Within the FACTS sheet, offerors should map the present/past performance to at least the three digit PWS paragraph number (i.e. 2.X.X) since this is the most meaningful distinction between functions. Atch 11 will be updated to reflect this.

40 Attachment 1 Enterprise IT Support PWS and Attachment 3 Task_Order_01

PWS

The Government does not specify any PWS requirements or time for Transition In for a new contractor. What are the Government's requirements for Transition-In and Transition-Out on the IDIQ PWS and Sample Task Order PWS?

This new contract provides an 8-day overlap with the existing contract to allow for an orderly exchange. It is the intent of the government to anounce award as soon as possible to provide the selected contractor time to hire employees prior to start date.

Also, please note the Task order PWS is not a sample but is the actual PWS for task order 1 for the first year of service.

41 Attachment 1 / PWS

2.1.2.1 - Enterprise CT Support

Can you provide insight to what cloud solutions are currently in place/in progress?

AFRC currently has no active Cloud engagements, but are anticipating transitioning some services to Cloud in the next 12 months

Attachment 1 / PWS

2.3.2 - Program and Project Management

There is a mention of "Mil-Cloud transitions." Is MilCloud being used as a generic term or specfically referencing MilCloud? With the MilCloud sunset, is the intent to use Stratus or another offering?

Mil-Cloud is used generically. AFRC is evaluating a number of government and commercial cloud services. Stratus is one of the government Cloud offerings that is being evaluated.

Attachment 1 / PWS

2.3.3 - Project Oversight Support

With regards to change management, it's noted the use of "local change management" processes. Is there an overarching enterprise CM process or do these all work independently of one another? How are geographically separate locaations notified of potential impacts by other remote site changes?

The majority of AFRC bases use Service Now for change management. The intent of the statement is to leverage the expertise of the incoming contractor to suggest process improvements and encourage expanded acceptance of the process.

44 Attachment 1 / PWS

2.5.4 - Cyber Security/CCRI Support

EndPoint Security System (ESS) is mentioned. This is generally used as a generic term for the technology and not necessarily a platform. Is there a specific platform in use currently? McAfee, etc?

ESS is the set of tools provided by McAfee/Trellix

45 Attachment 1 / PWS

5.2 - Training Requirements

MCSE is listed for the SharePoint support. This certification is no longer offered. Is there an alternate certfication requirement?

MCSE requirement will be removed from Atch 1. Appropriate qulaifications for the Sharepoint architecture role iare listed in Atch 3.

Attachment 1 / PWS

5.12 - Key Personnel

Positions for key personnel are referenced based on job role. Are all billets in these roles considered key personnel or a certain amount? For example, are all VTC Eng's considered key or just three of the ten required (numbers are an example)?

All personnel fulfilling the roles in the sections identified as key personnel will be considered key personnel.

47 Attachment 1 / PWS

2.2. Service

Desk/Communicatio ns Focal Point (CFP)

How are Critical/VIPs be designated and how many are supported at each performance location?

Critical/VIPs are designated by rank (GS-14 / 0-5 and above). Number of Critical/VIPs vary by location.

Industry Questions and Answers Page 3 of 4

Attachment 1 / PWS

2.6.1. Enterprise

Architecture Support

Please define the context of "cross-domain"?

Cross-domain refers to the multiple Air Force mission area domains identified in IT Investment Portfolio and conducting research in all domains for an architecture review and analysis. The Enterprise Architect will be expected to review architectural information from all domain areas for consideration of optimizing investment opportunities and converging systems. When needed, the architect will need to locate and contact the architecture owners for clarification of information conveyed in the architecture. The domains are: Business Mission Area, DoD Intelligence Mission Area (DIMA), Enterprise Information Environment Mission Area (EIEMA), and Warfighter Mission Area (WMA).

Attachment 1 / PWS

2.1.15. Unified

Collaboration (Video Teleconferencing

(VTC)

Is there any requirement to connect/interface with DISA Global Video Services (GVS)?

Yes, only on SIPR.

50 Attachment 8 Rate Sheet and Attachment 1 PWS:

5.20. Federal

Holidays.

It appears the rate sheet is using 1920 hours as the basis for a full-time-equivalent position. However, PWS 5.20 shows 11 Federal Holidays which means for pricing purposes shouldn't a full time equivalent be 1912 hours to match the 11 Federal Holidays?

The purpose of Atch 8 is to establish the hourly rate for each labor category and create a common framework to evaluate rates against. The number of hours is an estimate only, used only for the purpose of demonstrating a different projected proportion for each labor category.

51 Attachment 9 Task Order Proposal Worksheet and Attachment 1 PWS:

5.20. Federal

Holidays

For uniformity amongst offerors task order proposals, is a full time equivalent position 1,912 hours to conform with the 11 Federal Holidays listed in PWS 5.20?

The government is not identifying a standard FTE. Contractors should identify the number of hours per labor category and CLIN that will be needed to accomplish the work. Contractors should account for federal holidays when determing the number of hours to propose. 1920 was never intended to represent the gov estimate of an

FTE.

52 Attachment 11-- Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services: Page 4, paragraph II.B.2

If an Small Business Administration (SBA) approved Mentor Protégé Joint Venture offer is bidding as Prime, should we include our approved/signed SBA All Small Mentor Protégé Program letter in Volume I under Section 2?

Yes

The solicitation requires offerors to submit via DoD SAFE. Per DoD SAFE, "DoD SAFE is NOT to be used for contract solicitation or proposal submission. Use the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) for time-sensitive submissions.". Will the Government provide an update to be compliant with DoD SAFE policy and provide an alternate proposal submission mechanism?

DoD SAFE states that DoD SAFE SHOULD not be used but does not direct that it shall not be used. It is the preference of HQ AFRC to use DoD SAFE for this proosal submission. It is recognized that DoD SAFE does not guarantee a delivery time and to please allow up to 4 hours for delivery.

Therefore, The government will accept proposals timestamped up to 4 hours after the identified submission time.

55 Will the Government provide a "Drop Off Code" for proposal submission within DoD SAFE?

Yes a dropoff code will be provided in the next amendment posting.

56 Should offerors submit each volume as separate files (e.g. zip)? If not, what file format and type should offerors submit response information?

Offerors should submit their proposal in accordance with Attachment 11. If attachment 11 is silent on a topic then it is at the contractors discretion.

Per DoD Guidance, DoD, Service and Installation SOH directives, instructions, and regulations should not be referenced as a requirement for contractors unless the contractor is hired to perform SOH services for DoD employees. As this contract does not involve SOH services, to include construction, would the Governmetn remove the requirement for a Voluntary Protection Program Information?

Thank you for bringing this to the government's attention. Yes the requirement for the Voluntary Protection Program Infomation will be removed.

58 Would the Government confirm if there is a page limit to the FACTS Sheet submission? Given the description of work performed within Section 1, I. of the FACTS Sheet, a page count for the submission will allow offers to be comparatively evaluated.

FACTS sheet submissions will be limited to 5 pages. Atch 11 will be updated to reflect this.

59 As the Government is requesting two (2) PPQ submissions per FACT Sheet, would the Government update the FACTS Sheet template to include two areas for POC Respondant information?

The government is only requesting one submission and Attachment 11 will be updated.

Given many within the federal workforce are leverage 'use or lose' leave, it is burdensome on both offerors and the Government PPQ respondants to respond by the proposal due date. Would the Government consider receiving PPQs (also identified in the FACTS Sheet) following the close date of the RFQ?

Any PPQ's not received at the time of proposal submission the government will follow up with the identified POC to get the PPQ.

61 Would the Government consider a two week extension to proposal submission in order to allow offerors sufficient time to respond given holidays during the solicitation period?

yes

Industry Questions and Answers Page 4 of 4

AFRC RFP Questions