17-R-0001_Questions_and_Answers_(Government).pdf

FA6800-17-R-0001

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Reference: M.4, 4.2. Page 58 of 65. Offerors are again reminded to only submit one candidate per CME and to tailor each résumé to address the evaluation criteria (maximum of 3 pages per résumé). Although a signed “Letter of Intent” or similar document for each CME is not required, each proposed CME must be actively seeking employment and must have been in contact with your company in the past expressing a desire to be employed by your company (job fairs, interviews for previous positions, etc.). If using a “candidate pool” of résumés that your HR department may have on file, at a minimum, offerors are required to verify the proposed candidates are still seeking employment and will consider filling a position on this contract should your company be the successful offeror. Offerors are prohibited from submitting candidates with whom they have not any interaction with in the past (i.e. simply pulling résumés from LinkedIn, Monster.com, etc.).

Question: Will the Government please clarify if resumes are to be included in Subfactor 14 CME Resume Certification or if they are to be included as part of each Subfactor 1 – 11?

A: Either location is suitable as long as a resume is provided for each position referenced in the PWS. The intent of Subfactor 14 is for the offeror to certify that all candidates being proposed are people the offeror has actually spoke to and confirmed the candidates interest in the job and didn’t arbitrarily pull resumes from the internet without contacting that person. Attachment 5 of the RFP serves that purpose.

2. Reference: Section L 8.5(E).1 states ‘submit one (1) sheet for each contract reference to include and overview of the work performed, what capacity they served under the references, offeror’s assessment of how the contract reference is relevant to the Relevancy Criteria, and any additional significant details. However, the table in Section L.4.6 states there is no page limit for the past Performance and references Section L, paragraph 8 for details.

Question: Will the Government please clarify if the Past Performance Volume has no page limits, but each contract reference, to include and overview of the work performed, what capacity they served under the references, offeror’s assessment of how the contract reference is relevant to the Relevancy Criteria, and any additional significant details, is limited to one page?

A: Each offeror has the opportunity to provide three contracts for consideration of past performance. For each contract submission, one sheet of paper may be provided, meaning you have two pages to present your information for each contract. The limit for contracts is three (3) for the prime and three (3) for each subcontractor. Considering this example you would be able to provide 18 pages of past performance information. We specified unlimited considering the Government does not know how many subcontractors an offeror may propose.

3. Reference: Section M.3.2 on page 58 states there are 13 Technical Subfactors. Section M.4.3 on pages 60-62 lists 14 Subfactors. Section L.6.2 on pages 51-52 lists 14, miss-ordered, Technical Subfactors.

Question: Please verify that 14 Subfactors is correct, as 14 are listed in both Section L.6.2 on pages 51-52, and in Section M.4.3 on pages 60-62, contrary to the number “13” mentioned on page 58.

Also, please verify that Subfactor 8 is Fratricide Support, as listed in Section M.4.3 on page 60-62, contrary to the Section L references identifying the subfactor as “7” on page 52.

A: The reference to 13 technical factors was an error that was corrected in Amendmen 01 to the RFP. Fratricide support listed as Subfactor 7 is incorrect and should be annotated as Subfactor 8. This also was corrected in Amendment 01 to the

RFP.

4. Reference: L.6; 6.2., E. Technical Section – The purpose of this section is to allow the offeror to set forth in the most comprehensive manner its understanding of the program requirements and to demonstrate its ability to meet the evaluation requirements of 52.212-2 Addendum – Evaluation Factors and Basis of Award ; Factor 1, Mission Capability (Technical). In this section, the offeror shall present a clear and concise description of how it plans to meet contract requirements. The offeror shall describe the performance standards (emphasis added) that have been established in each area (emphasis added) and explain how performance standards will be met. This section shall not contain any pricing data. The technical section shall be completed as follows:

Questions: Will the Government please clarify if referenced “performance standards” above are the same as those listed in section 7.0 Services Summary of the PWS, or if specific standards for each area will be provided via future amendment?

Additionally, will the Government please clarify if referenced “area” above is the same as each Subfactor 1-11?

A: The following changes are being made to this paragraph to provide clarity:

The purpose of this section is to allow the offeror to set forth in the most comprehensive manner its understanding of the program requirements and to demonstrate its ability to meet the evaluation requirements of Section M, – Evaluation Factors for Award ; Factor 1, Mission Capability (Technical). In this section the offeror shall present a clear and concise description of how it will meet the requirements and perform the tasks and services described in the PWS (Attachment 1). This change will be included in the next amendment.

5. Reference: L.6; 6.2., D. Cross Reference Matrix – Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

Cross- referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. The offeror shall fill out (emphasis added) the cross reference matrix indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the RFP, PWS, and CLIN references found therein.

Question: Will the Government please clarify if a Cross Reference Matrix template will be provided or if the offeror should create one of their choosing?

A: The offeror may create of cross reference matrix of his or her own choosing. The Government has no intention to provide a template.

6. Reference: L.3., 3.1. The original proposal and copies as specified in this document shall be sent to the issuing office listed in Block 7 of Standard Form (SF) 33; Solicitation, Offer and Award; on or before the date and time specified in paragraph 1.7 above.

Please mark all packages as follows:

AFICA/KGQ

ATTN: Regina Blue and Maj Patrick Graham 841 Fairchild Ave, Bldg 5541, Suite 327 Barksdale AFB, LA 71110 Ref: Solicitation No. FA6800-17-R-0001, Volume # and Title

**DO NOT OPEN IN MAIL ROOM**

Questions: Will the Government accept hand delivery of proposals? If so, are there any specific instructions with respect to scheduling and pre-coordination? Additionally, will the Government please clarify if referenced “area” above is the same as each Subfactor 1-11?

A: Proposal may be hand carried but keep in mind the security and base access requirements for this base which can create unexpected delays. Proposal must be received by the PCO prior to the requested delivery date and time referenced in the RFP. When scheduling hand delivery, please contact the PCO at 318-456-1386 to let me know if your currier can gain access to the base and if so, the Government can direct the currier to my location for a face-to-face hand off and acknowledgment of receipt of proposal. If base access is not possible, myself or someone from my office can meet the currier at the gate for hand off and to get a written receipt of proposal.

7. The Government has provided a very detailed basis of estimate for CLINS x001 through x011. However, CLIN x012 is FFP and not quantified in the same manner.

Therefore, given that the tasks are not defined, this can present a barrier to entry and could lead to a wide distribution of pricing solutions for non-incumbents.

Would the Government clarify the level of effort that should be bid upon OR provide a “plug” number for CLINS x012? Additionally, would the Government consider making CLINs x012 for overtime, special projects and reachback Cost Plus Fixed Fee?

A. The Government intends to restructure CLIN X012 so that Over and Above is an optional CLIN, not to exceed 3 months period of performance for every position listed in X001 thru X0011. This will better define the need for this CLIN as a capability to handle surge requirements when they occur when funding is available. The government has no intention of making this a CPFF CLIN.

8. There is historically significant travel on this contract. The reduction of positions from 21 to 11 still leaves the majority of the travel within this group @ an estimated ~75%.

The travel “plugged” number is not of concern however, with an estimated $337,500 suggested travel budget there is a significant number of hours expended to research, coordinate the LOI, book travel (A/L, Hotel, Car) and then upon return coordinate expenses, file receipts, record/report travel cost. It is suggested that there be an administrative number of hours identified to perform these duties to preclude team engineering hours being expensed on these duties and allow for a less expensive administrative position be identified for these tasks. Would the Government consider adding additional administrative hours to support travel in order to free up valuable engineer hours?

A. No. Government employees cover travel requirements as part of their salary and we would expect contractors to do the same.

9. With 11 CMEs there is a requirement for oversight management. Comparing this contract to AFGSC divisions, this size of team/division within AFGSC would have at minimum 1 manager / POC responsible for the administrative functions to allow for responsible care and feeding of the group. Would the Government consider minimal management oversight hours for this function?

A: No. If the contractor wishes to provide an oversight function, we would expect them to provide for it within the planned contract performance.

10. Are all of the experience levels hard requirements? Can degree requirements be substituted for experience in specific skills / job expertise?

A: Experience levels are extremely important to understanding the tasks and providing the required support. Degrees are more generic in nature and can serve as foundational knowledge for individuals providing the support. All experience and degrees will be considered during the evaluation period.

11. Reference PWS 5.1.3 Emergency War Order Support: What is the duty location for the single CME? Barksdale or FE Warren?

A: Barksdale AFB. This position provides tdy on-site support at F.E. Warren for up to a week at a time on roughly a quarterly basis.

12. Please clarify the definition for “Recent” in the Past Performance Recency chart on page 65 of the solicitation. Should the definition in the chart on page 65 be the same as the definition of Past Performance Recency on page 54, paragraph 8.3 of the solicitation?

A: Will be updated to “Active contract/task order performance (minimum of six (6) months) during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation”, same as paragraph L8.3 of the solicitation.

13. Reference Personnel Categories: Is the Government willing to accept capabilities in the Reachback section (PWS 5.3) to fill minor capability deficiencies in resumes of personnel bid?

A: No. Resume’s must meet the minimum requirements.

14. Reference Item No 0012, 1012, and 2012 Overtime, special projects and Reachback FFP. The Government is requesting a quote for 3 months of effort per year. Can the Government detail the skill level required for this area (e.g. Subject Matter Expert, Principal Engineer, composite of skillsets)? Or would the Government consider flexibility in this area to accommodate a value-added approach as outlined in question 9?

A. The Government intends to restructure CLIN X012 so that Over and Above is an optional CLIN, not to exceed 3 months period of performance for every position listed in X001 thru X0011. This will better define the need for this CLIN as a capability to handle surge requirements when they occur when funding is available.

15. Reference Section 5.3 of PWS page 14, Overtime, Special Projects, and Reachback:

The Government has defined a requirement for this capability and the need for additional resources and innovations to exist with the winning contractor. However, there is no grading criteria in the Evaluation Factors for Award given to this capability. Would the Government entertain adding this as a graded sub factor (Mission Capability volume) to the RFP to allow a bidder to provide the Government with additional capabilities that would be of great benefit to AFGSC?

A: The minimum qualifications for each position and the company’s capability of providing reachback to individuals with certain expertise are sufficient to satisfy this task.

16. The Government has defined this acquisition strategy as a Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT). This allows for any competitor to meet the “minimum” requirements outlined in Mission Capability (Technical) Volume and then determine the lowest price bidder who might meet substantial confidence in the Past Performance volume. This allows for no innovation or deep reachback capabilities in other specific areas such as Nuclear Survivability, Modeling and Simulation or cUAS that could add a tremendous value to AFGSC. Would the Government consider changing the evaluation criteria from an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis in this volume to a best value approach similar to the Past Performance volume (e.g. Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence)? This would better align the acquisition strategy to a more AFGSC beneficial best value approach than a mildly modified LPTA.

A: The acquistion strategy has been approved and will not be changed at this time.

17. Several requirements for the Mission Capabilities volume, Subfactors 1-11, are not currently met by the incumbent’s employees. Can the contractor address such differences and recommendations in Section L.5 Exceptions in the RFP without concern for disqualification?

A: Offerors may propose exceptions to the solicitation requirements, the Government is not obligated to accept or consider such exceptions. Further, exceptions could result in an unacceptable offer. Any change to the requirement as a result of accepting an exception shall be reflected within the resultant contract.

18. Para 4.5, Electronic Copies, of Section L, referenced Section 3 of Volume II and requires it be in Excel format. There is no other reference to Vol II, Section 3 in the RFP.

Should this requirement be removed?

A: Section L of the solicitation will be updated in Amendment 02.

19. I have a few questions about this requirement that I hope you can help answer:

1. How are these services currently being performed? Under contract? In-house?

2. If these requirements are currently being performed under a contract,

a. Who is the Contractor?

b. What is the contract number?

c. When does the contract expire?

d. What is the current contract value?

A: This effort is currently under contract. The contract is GSA contract GS-23F-0058K, Order number GST0712BG0088. Any other questions may be directed to GSA.