Draft_RFP_Q_and_A-_Final.pdf

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

Addendum 52.212-1 - Instructions to Offeror

1. P2, Draft Addendum to

52.212-1_FIAR,

2.5 Proposal

Submission

This code will be placed on 4 of the 5 required printed copies. This code will replace the company name and logos.

On the four (4) coded proposals, there shall be NO mention of the company name or logo or any other identifying information.

Can the Government clarify which 4 of the 5 required copies are to have the code? The instructions note 4 volumes (Volume I – Technical, Volume II – Past Performance, Volume III – Small Business Participation Plan, and Volume IV – Price). Can the Government clarify the fifth copy?

With regard to using the code and having no mention of company name or logo, can the Government clarify how the contractor should respond with information that normally contains company name (e.g., contact email address, employment information/experience in resumes, Facility Clearance information, etc.)?

Updated Final RFP for clarity

2. P6, Draft Addendum to

52.212-1_FIAR,

2.5

4.1.1.3 Subfactor

3 Staffing Plan/Recruiting and Retention Plan

The offeror shall submit 3 resumes per labor category for review to show the offeror's understanding of the requirement only.

Can the Government clarify that resumes are not included in the page count limit for the technical approach volume and can be included as an appendix to the technical approach volume?

Resumes are not included in the page count

3. Addendum to

FAR – ITO

Section 2.3 Organizational

2.3. Organizational

Conflict of Interest (OCI) states “OCI mitigation plans are due on 18 September 2017”.

Please confirm that if the Government determines that an offeror has a potential OCI, that the Government will enter into discussions with the offeror so that the offeror may provide clarification before

Updated Final RFP for clarity

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

Conflict of Interest, Page 2 of

And 2.4 Points of Contact:

“All questions or concerns should be e-mailed to the CO and CS by 2:00 pm Eastern Time on 15 September 2017."

2.5 Proposal Submission

states The Past Performance Volume (Volume II) is due on 2 October 2017.

The technical (Volume I), small businesses participation plan (Volume III), and price (Volume IV) volumes are due 20 November 2017.

the Government makes a final determination regarding the offeror's independence regarding this requirement.

Addendum 52.212-2 Evaluation

4. Addendum 2 The tradeoff process for this acquisition will permit a tradeoff between past performance and price.

Given the size, scope and complexity of the requirements, technical approaches and solutions can significantly affect cost, results, and return on investment;

therefore, recommend that the Government include Technical in the Past Performance trade-off with Price.

The Government is using Performance Price Tradeoff for the evaluation of this effort.

5. Attachment 2 – Addendum, Section 3.3.7;

Table 3

The draft AF FIAR RFP includes a significant change in what qualifies as relevant past performance from what was announced at Industry Day.

Namely, at Industry Day, the Government defined “Past Performance Relevancy” in its briefing to include “IPA Audit/Advisor services for Fortune 500 company”; however, the draft RFP

The Government made significant changes to the RFP in regards to your concerns. Updated Final RFP for clarity

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response now indicates that past performance in support of “Performance of Audit/Coaching Services” must be for an audit of a “federal entity” to be relevant (Section 3.3.7.1, and Table 4). The original approach outlined at Industry Day is the appropriate approach and we strongly recommend that the AF revise what qualifies as relevant to include both commercial and federal government audit/coaching services experience (meaning audit readiness/ coaching services, and/ or the performance of audits) for the following reasons:

a. Limiting relevant past performance to only audits of federal entities unnecessarily limits competition for the pending procurement, potentially depriving the government of the best value.

b. The draft RFP indicates the AF FIAR procurement will be conducted as a FAR Part 12 procurement of commercial services, and it is inconsistent with that approach to not consider commercial past performance as relevant when procuring commercial services.

c. The draft RFP appropriately indicates that offerors must be Independent Public Accounting (IPA) firms, but then fails to recognize the typical work that IPAs conduct and for which IPAs were created (i.e., audit related work of

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response private companies) as relevant to the AF FIAR procurement.

d. The draft RFP also indicates that past performance for “Contract Management History” will be considered relevant if they come from “Federal Agencies or Private Firms”; yet, the draft RFP inexplicably limits relevant past performance for “Performance of Audit/Coaching Services“ to only audits of “federal entities.”

e. Most of the innovation and improvements in providing the types of services specified in the AF FIAR PWS are usually developed on commercial engagements and subsequently adapted to federal engagements. For example, commercial audit related services have increased the use of technology and tools, which generate significant efficiencies. The government jeopardizes not obtaining the most innovative and efficient firms in the auditing field, since their commercial experience will not be considered relevant.

To promote competition and obtain the best value contractor, will the government expand the definition of what qualifies as relevant for past performance to include both commercial and federal government experience performing audit/coaching services?

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

6. Attachment 2 – Addendum, Section 3.3.7;

Table 3

Section 3.3.7 of the draft RFP specifies one of the past performance areas as “Performance of Audit/Coaching Services”; Table 4 refers to relevant past performance as consisting of an “audit” of federal entities; and section 1.2.2 of the PWS states that the pending “AF FIAR Support contract will provide Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) support . . . .” These differences in the terminology may lead to confusion and potential problems during evaluation of past performance.

We recommend the use of consistent terminology in section 3. Since the scope of the work (per the PWS) is fairly broad but specifically related to “Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness,” would the Government consistently refer to the work in section

3.3.7 and Table 4 as “audit/ coaching services” to avoid confusion?

The Government made significant changes to the Final RFP in regards to your concerns. Please review the RFP for updates.

7. Attachment 2 –

Addendum, Section 3.3.7;

Table 3

The Complexity definition in the Draft PWS focuses on the performance of an audit, but relates relevancy to completion of the PWS tasks (which are scoped around Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness activities – not audit activities). Recommend using the language from 3.7.7., i.e., “Audit/ Coaching services” to help the Government more accurately and

The Government made significant changes to the RFP in regards to your concerns. Please review the RFP for updates.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response consistently evaluate the offerors' ability to successfully deliver the PWS tasks.

To provide the Government with the best ability to evaluate the offerors' capability to execute the PWS tasks, would the Government consider expanding the definition of "Complexity" to include audit/ coaching services, consistent with section 3.3.7?

8. Attachment 2 – Addendum, Section 3.3.7;

Table 3

Based on the questions above and recommendation to consistently apply the language of "audit/ coaching services" to the complexity and magnitude elements of Table 3, and to allow for Federal and Commercial audit/coaching services, will the government update Table 3 as presented here? [link to example at end of document]

The Government made significant changes to the RFP in regards to your concerns. Please review the RFP for updates.

9. Past Performance Attachment 11, Past Performance References that Addresses the Task and Functional Areas of the PWS

Each Offeror shall complete this form for each of the task areas with past performance and validate the corporate knowledge and experience in these areas.

Will the Government please confirm that all PWS tasks should be addressed in each past performance reference, specifically within "Section H. Illustrate How Your Corporate Experience/Knowledge on this Program Applies to the Functional Areas" of the Past Performance template, and that separate past performance forms for each of the eight PWS Task Requirements are NOT required?

Past performance information submitted by each offeror is at their own discretion..

10. Attachment 2, Section 1.4

While Section 1.4 of the draft RFP specifies the relative importance of all the evaluation factors, it limits the best

Updated Final RFP for clarity. The Government will be using performance price tradeoff.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response value trade-off to just past performance and price of all offers that are evaluated as acceptable for the remaining non-price evaluation factors, including technical. Hence, it is not clear why technical is included in the list of relative importance of evaluation factors in section 1.4.

If the change from a full best value trade off presented at Industry Day is intentional to now limit the best value trade-off to just past performance and cost (and to not rate technical beyond acceptable/unacceptable), we feel based on our experience providing similar audit-related services that it is critical for the Air Force to expand the best value trade-off to include the technical factor in order to truly identify the best value contractor. The approach in the draft RFP elevates past performance to being the likely differentiator despite the paramount importance of the technical factor, including the technical approach to completing the PWS tasks, the management plan, the staffing plan, and the transition plan. As currently drafted, if the Air Force evaluators see significant benefits that are likely to accrue to the government based on an offeror’s far superior technical approach, the government is precluded from paying even one extra dollar for such a

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response proposal. Limiting the tradeoff to past performance limits the government’s ability to weigh innovation and insight into AF-specific factors such as feeder systems, root causes, change management, and execution of corrective actions in the AF business environment.

That would preclude selecting the best value for the AF FIAR procurement.

Since the evaluation and source selection approach outlined in the draft RFP results in the entire technical area (including technical approach, management plan, staffing plan, and transition plan) being rated either “acceptable” or “unacceptable,” and the only trade off with price is past performance, it may be inconsistent with the legislative provision included in the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (Sec. 813, P.L. 114-

328) on the use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection procedures. Section 813 states that “it shall be the policy of the Department of Defense to avoid using lowest price technically acceptable source selection criteria in circumstances that would deny the Department the benefits of cost and technical tradeoffs in the sources selection process.” More specifically, this provision states “To the maximum extent practicable, the use of lowest

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response price technically acceptable source selection criteria shall be avoided in the case of a procurement that is predominately for the acquisition of . . .

audit or audit readiness services.”

To help ensure the Air Force obtains the best value, will the government revise the source selection approach to include a range of possible technical ratings that would be included as part of the cost trade-off analysis?

Pricing Questions

11. PWS, pages 56- 60; Appendix D – Labor Category Descriptions

Appendix D contains 11 labor categories, the PWS contains 13 labor categories, and Attachment 5 contains 14 labor categories. Please confirm which document provides the correct listing of labor categories for the IDIQ.

Updated Final RFP for clarity

12. PWS, Appendix D, pages 56-60

The Senior Staff Consultant and Staff Consultant labor categories have identical labor descriptions. Recommend differing the years of experience between these two labor categories, with the Staff Consultant being 0-3 years of experience. There are a number of tasks and activities within the statement of work that can be successfully delivered by staff with 0-3 years of experience, providing the Government with cost savings and efficiency benefits.

Updated

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

13. Attachment 5 – TO Pricing Sheet

Attachment 5 "Rates and Hours" tab lists a separate Transition-In period plus a Transition-In. Given that the Transition Plan is due with offerors' proposals, please confirm that the Transition-In CLIN’s scope aligns only to PWS paragraph 9.7.1 – Project Lead to process and obtain required security badges, ID/CAC cards, and computer system access.

Yes

14. Attachment 5 – TO Pricing Sheet

The tab, "Proposed Hrs Est by Task" does not delineate hours by year. Please confirm offerors are to enter a grand total number of hours for all years per task.

Instructions updated for clarity

15. Attachment 5 – TO Pricing Sheet

In the tab "Rates and Hours" some formulas are missing or incorrect. Please confirm that offerors have permission to update and adjust formulas as needed for a fully functioning workbook.

Update at your own risk

16. Attachment 5 – TO Pricing Sheet

Please confirm that the tab "Rates and Hours" is specific to a single task order, and that each of the 7 or 8 task orders proposed as part of the IDIQ response should have individual tabs specific to each task.

Yes. Each task order will receive this pricing sheet. TO’s will be for base plus 4 years.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

17. PWS, Appendix E

The introductory paragraph to Appendix D indicates that offerors have full discretion to propose their own labor categories and associated education, certifications, experience, clearances, etc., and that Appendix D is only a format recommendation, versus actual IDIQ Labor Category requirements.

Please clarify whether all offerors have full discretion to propose a different set of labor categories for this effort, and/or to change the education, experience, certifications, clearances proposed.

Offerors can propose other labor categories. They must be cross referenced with the matrix (See Volume I Attachment 3). Can propose but do not edit within PWS.

18. PWS, Paragraph 11.3

Paragraph 11.3 states, “The Government will negotiate rates and labor skill mix with the Contractor prior to award;

however, rates can never be higher than the maximum rates that will be shown in the basic contract that were negotiated at ID/IQ award.”

Can the Government provide more insight into their stated intent to negotiate task order rates? For example, what circumstances would exist for the Government to ask for discounts from the IDIQ ceiling rates at a task order level?

Updated PWS. See paragraph 11.3

19. Draft FIAR Ordering Guide, Paragraph 9.3.2 Systems,

9.3.2 states “Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) are mandatory unless, covered by exemption under 48 CFR 9903.201-1 and 48 CFR 9903.201-2”

Deleted

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

Certifications, and Compliances

Exemption #6 under 48 CFR 9903.201-1 is “(6) Firm fixed-priced, fixed-priced with economic price adjustment (provided that price adjustment is not based on actual costs incurred), time-and-materials, and labor-hour contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items.”

Deleted

FAR 12.214 also states that “Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) do not apply to contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items when these contracts and subcontracts are firm-fixed price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment (provided that the price adjustment is not based on actual costs incurred).”

Deleted

Given that this IDIQ is a fixed price contract for the acquisition of commercial items, recommend Government remove this clause from the solicitation materials.

20. Draft FIAR Ordering Guide, Paragraph 9.3.2 Systems, Certifications, and Compliances

The Ordering Guide states “Acceptable Accounting Systems are mandatory. The Contractor must maintain an acceptable accounting system for the entire term of

FIAR.”

DFARS 242.7502 states that accounting systems are only required for cost-reimbursement, incentive type, time-and-materials, or labor hour contracts, or contracts that provide for progress

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response payments based on costs or on a percentage or stage of completion.

Given that this IDIQ is for fixed price orders only, please remove the requirement for an acceptable accounting system.

21. Draft FIAR Ordering Guide, Paragraph 9.3, PWS paragraph 11.1.2.6

The Ordering Guide, paragraph 9.3 states “The Contractor will receive a Task Order Pricing Sheet (Attachment X) and will have five (5) business days to respond with the proposed labor categories, hours, and price.”

The PWS, paragraph 11.1.2.6 states “The Government may specify the number of Contractor personnel required…” We would like to clarify the Government’s intent with regard to future task order requests. Does the Government intend to prescribe any of the following information with the task order requests?

- labor categories

- number of FTEs

- number of hours

- skill mix

The government will provide an estimate but the responsibility of providing the best labor mix, hours, etc. is with the contractor.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

22. PWS Paragraph 7.3, Ordering Guide, Paragraph 8.1

PWS paragraph 7.3 states, “The CORs are required to monitor and certify the Contractor’s performance for any work conducted off-site; therefore the Contractor shall provide a plan to the Government for monitoring the work accomplished and hours expended by labor category and for each Task Order that will allow the COR to validate the level of effort performed and the number of hours invoiced.”

The Ordering Guide, paragraph 8.1 Invoice Data does not mention a requirement to report hours.

Reporting hours and hours by labor category on a FFP task order is in conflict with the contract type.

Please clarify whether the Government intends to manage this FFP IDIQ as a “true” FFP, with invoicing based on either deliverable milestones or monthly increments of the fixed price, or as fixed-price labor hour or time-and-materials, consistent with a requirement to report hours by labor category.

Deleted

23. Addendum to 52.212-1, Paragraph 4.4.1.1

The price proposal should provide supporting cost data to include labor categories, labor rates (rounded to two decimal places), and labor hours, as applicable, in accordance with the IDIQ Pricing Sheet within the RFP.

FAR 12 acquisitions are commercial item procurements, and as such, Other than Cost and Pricing information does not apply. Please remove the reference to “supporting cost data” from paragraph 4.4.1.1.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

24. Addendum to 52.212-1, Paragraph 4.4.1.1;

Attachment 4

Instructions and Evaluation regarding Attachment 4 state, “The offeror shall complete and submit the IDIQ Pricing Sheet with fully burdened off-site rates.

This pricing sheet will be incorporated and attached to contract."

Attachment 4 includes requests for information such as hours and task associations. Please clarify if this attachment is intended to include rates only, or rates and hours information (similar to Attachment 5).

Instructions provided in the attachment

25. Addendum to 52.212-1, Paragraph 4.4.1.2

The offeror shall complete and submit the Task Order Pricing sheets for Task Orders 1-11. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will consist of the sum of the Firm-Fixed Price (Off-Site Labor) plus Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) for Task Orders 1-7.

Other documents in the DRFP package, including Attachment 5, the SF1449, and the PWS, refer to 8 Task Orders. Please clarify the number of task orders for which offerors are to provide pricing with the IDIQ proposal.

Updated Final RFP for clarity

26. Addendum to 52.212-1, Paragraph 4.4.1.2

Task Order Pricing Sheet(s) (Attachments 5a-g)

Please clarify whether Attachments 5a-g refers to tabs within Attachment 5, or if Attachment 5 is to be replicated into seven separate workbooks, lettered a-g.

The Attachment 5 tab "Proposed Hrs Est by Task" indicates that all 8 tasks are to be represented in a single workbook.

Please clarify what letters a-g signify and where that information is located.

They will be the TO Request Forms that need to be awarded at the same time as the IDIQ.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

27. Addendum to 52.212-1, Paragraph 4.4.1.2

4.4.1.2 states “The total evaluated price (TEP) will consist of the sum of the Firm Fixed Price (Off-Site Labor) plus Travel and Other Direct Cost (ODCs) for Task Orders 1-7.”

Q1 – Please confirm that Transition price will be excluded from the total evaluated price, so as to not provide the incumbent (who may require little-to-no Transition-In) with a price advantage.

Q2 – Is it correct that task order 8 will be excluded from the evaluated price?

Updated Final RFP for clarity

28. Addendum to 52.212-1, Paragraph 4.4.2

The implementing clause for FAR 52.222-46, Professional Employee Compensation Plan is 22.1103, Policy, procedures, and solicitation provision.

FAR 22.1103 states, “All professional employees shall be compensated fairly and properly. Accordingly, the contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, in solicitations for negotiated contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed $700,000 and services are to be provided which will require meaningful numbers of professional employees.”

FAR 12 acquisitions are not negotiated contracts. Therefore, per the implementing clause, Professional Employee Compensation Plans should not be included in non-negotiated

According to FAR 12.102 (b) (b) Contracting officers shall use the policies in this part in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation and award prescribed in Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures; Part 14, Sealed Bidding; or Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as appropriate for the particular acquisition.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response contracts such as those classified as FAR 12 – Acquisition of Commercial Items.

Recommend removal of the compensation plan requirement.

29. Addendum to 52.212-1, Paragraph 4.4.2

The Requirement in 4.4.2 Professional Employee Compensation Plan states, “This contract is expected to exceed $700,000 and the services to be provided will require meaningful numbers of professional employees, as such, offerors shall submit for evaluation a total compensation plan(s) setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the contract. Compensation plans must provide supporting cost data in order to be evaluated in accordance with FAR Provision 52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993).”

As noted within the description of the requirement, salary and fringe benefits are cost data.

Requiring cost data is not permitted under FAR 12 acquisitions. Recommend removal of the requirement for the compensation plan.

According to FAR 12.102 (b) Contracting officers shall use the policies in this part in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation and award prescribed in Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures; Part 14, Sealed Bidding; or Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as appropriate for the particular acquisition.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

30. Attachment 4 IDIQ Pricing Sheet

Instruction 6 requires cost elements of each proposed labor rate. As this procurement is being done under the rules of FAR 12 Commercial Items, cost and pricing data is not required.

Recommend revising the Price Proposal Instructions and each of the Core FTE tabs to remove the requirement for cost data, for Unburdened Labor Rates, and for Fringe, OH, G&A, and Profit.

Updated Final RFP for clarity

31. Attachment 4 IDIQ Pricing Sheet

Instruction 6 states “The resulting values in the Loaded Rate column shall be equal or less than rates proposed as part of the OASIS ID/IQ solicitation and included in the basic ID/IQ award, and will cover the entire PoP.”

Q1 – No other DRFP document references the GSA OASIS GWAC as governing this acquisition. Please clarify the reference to OASIS.

Q2 - This instruction is in conflict with the OASIS Contract Terms and Conditions and the Ordering Guide, which states that the OASIS ID/IQ rates are ceiling for only sole-source T&M task orders. Competitive orders, and FFP orders, are not to utilize the OASIS ID/IQ rates as ceilings for task orders.

Recommend removing this requirement.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

32. Attachment 4 IDIQ Pricing Sheet

Column C in each of the “Core FTEs” tabs captures a Year, and cell C25 sums all of the years into a numerical total.

Please clarify the purpose of the Year column, whether offerors should use the Year that is pre-populated in the example row, and if the summation of all of the years in C25 is the desired result.

Updated Final RFP for clarity

33. Attachment 4 IDIQ Pricing Sheet;

Attachment 5 TO Pricing Sheet;

and Addendum to 52.212-1

The period of performance for the Base and Option periods in Attachment 4 and Attachment 5 do not match the period of performance listed in the Addendum to 52.212-1, paragraph 4.4.3.1. The Day, Month, and Years are inconsistent between the three documents. Please clarify the PoP and update accordingly.

Updated Final RFP for clarity

34. Attachment 4 IDIQ Pricing Sheet

In each of the Core FTE tabs, row 25 is labeled “Total Optional FTEs.”

1. Please clarify the use of Optional in this Price Proposal. How are the FTEs proposed by offerors Optional?

2. The price spreadsheet captures annual hours only; there is no space to enter number of FTEs. Please clarify whether offerors are to enter only the number of hours per labor category, or if FTEs are also required.

3. If FTEs are required to be entered by the offeror, please specify where FTEs are to be entered as there is no field provisioned.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

35. Attachment 4 IDIQ Pricing Sheet

In the Core FTE tabs, Cell D25 sums all proposed hours from the rows above.

This total includes the example row 5.

Please confirm that offerors should remove the example row from their submission or adjust the formula in cell D25 to exclude the example data.

Updated Final RFP for clarity

36. Attachment 4 IDIQ Pricing Sheet

The Instructions tab includes “Note:

The information provided on this spreadsheet to include the Unburdened Labor and additional costs to include Fringe, OH, G&A and Profit as updated in the tabs. This information will be used to review and evaluate the Employee Compensation Plan (ECP).”

This Attachment and the ECP’s request for unburdened labor and additional costs (fringe, in particular) is requesting Other than Certified Cost and Pricing Data.

This is an inappropriate request for FAR 12 Commercial Items procurements.

If this information is desired, would the government consider changing to a FAR 15 negotiated (and cost-disclosed) procurement, with cost-type task orders?

Updated Final RFP for clarity

37. Addendum to 52.212-2, Paragraph 1.2

Paragraph 1.2 states, “The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements.”

How can greatest confidence be determined through only a subjective comparison of past performance, and not

Thank you. The Government has determined that Performance price tradeoff is most fitting for this requirement.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response a subjective comparison of an offeror’s Technical approach?

38. Addendum to 52.212-2, Paragraph 1.4

Paragraph 1.4 states “The relative importance of each factor and sub-factor is as follows: Past Performance, Technical Approach, Small Business Participation Plan, and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 2 (Past Performance) being most important, Factor 1 (Technical) being second and Factor 3 (Small Business Participation Plan) being third and Factor 4 (Price) is last in importance.”

Factor 1 and Factor 3 are both to be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. Please clarify

1. Whether a proposal that is rated Unacceptable in Factors 1 or 3 would be eligible for award.

2. If only proposals rated Acceptable in Factors 1 and 3 are eligible for award, wouldn’t these two factors be of equal importance?

Updated the Final RFP for clarity. If any factor is rated Unacceptable, the entire proposal is will be elminiated.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

39. Addendum to 52.212-2, Paragraph 1.4

Paragraph 1.4 states “All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.”

Given that Factors 1 and 3 are to be rated Acceptable/Unacceptable, this statement does not make sense.

All offerors who receive an Acceptable rating in Factors 1 and 3 would effectively be rated “equal,” with price as the only differentiator, therefore leading to the lowest price as the best value. This is not a situation where price is significantly less important than Factors 1 and 3; rather price is of equal or greater importance.

Please clarify the relationship between Factors 1 and 3 with Price in the evaluation.

Updated Final RFP for clarity

40. DRAFT_Attachm ent_10_FIAR_ID

IQ_QASP

The QASP makes numerous references to the incumbent contractor, PwC, within the document.

Has PwC participated in the development and creation of the Draft

QASP?

FAR 9.505-2 prohibits a contractor from supplying services when material created by the contractor is used in the work statement. Therefore, is PwC precluded from competing under this solicitation as a result of Organizational Conflict of Interest?

No. Those references to PWC were deleted.

No. PWC did not participate in the creation of the PWS.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

41. DRAFT_FA7014

-17-R- 5002_FIAR_Soli citation;

SF1449

Continuation

The Draft RFP’s CLIN tables include 9 CLINs only – 8 tasks plus Travel.

Q1: Are these CLINs intended to cover the complete 5-year period of performance, or will additional CLINs for the Option periods be added in the Final RFP?

Q2: Does the Government anticipate issuing more than 8 tasks during the IDIQ period of performance?

The Government will use the IDIQ as a “shopping list” that customers use to get tasks done. Not all customers will require all tasks to be completed per task order.

42. Addendum to 52.212-2, Paragraph 3.5.1.2

3.5.1.2. Task Order Pricing

Sheet (Attachment 5) will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The total evaluated price (TEP) will consist of the sum of the Firm Fixed Price (Off-Site Labor) plus Travel for Task Orders 1- 7.

Attachment 5 includes 8 task orders.

Please confirm that task 8 is required to be proposed, but is not included in the evaluated price.

Updated Final RFP for clarity

43. Draft FIAR Price proposal worksheet

Tab 2-Historical Hours Does the Government plan to provide historical hours by labor category for the current and historical task orders under current IDIQ Contract?

See Attachments 5a – 5g.

44. Addendum to 52.212-2, Paragraph 1.3

This acquisition will result in a Firm Fixed Price contract…

Given the highly specialized and unpredictable nature of key activities within the statement of work, including corrective action implementation and development of reconciliations for IUOT/ EUOT, will the Government permit T&M and FFP task orders within this IDIQ?

Not at this time

Performance Work Statement

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

45. Past Performance 3.0 Preparation Instruction to Offerors Table 1 Proposal Organization Table

Factor II: Past Performance Proposal, Page Limit: 50

Assuming the above assumptions are correct and that all sections of the PWS will be included in a single past performance qualification, will the Government increase the page limit from 50 pages to 300 pages? Currently the past performance template provided is 6 pages and to populate it and speak to all of the requirements within the PWS, significant more page space is required.

The PP Information form is included in page count when filled out. See Final RFP for updated direction.

46. Past Performance 3.0 Preparation Instruction to Offerors Table 1 Proposal Organization Table

Factor II: Past Performance Proposal, Page Limit: 50

If the Government requires a separate form for each of the eight PWS Task Requirements, will the government update the page limit to allow for more pages? If the Offeror is required to submit a minimum of six contracts and a separate form for each of the eight PWS Task Requirements, the Offeror will submit a minimum of 48 forms within the Volume. As the form template (unfilled by the Offeror) is six pages, the Offeror would need at least 288 pages (48 Forms multiplied by six pages).

The government does not require past performance submitted at the TO level.

Past performance will be rated at the IDIQ level and will not be evaluated again for TOs.

47. 2.0 TASK

REQUIREMENT

S, Page 7

We need to invoke/reference the listing of AUs. The listing is all the assessable units that work needs to be

Wording appears incomplete. Can the Government clarify?

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

48. PWS, Section 2.2.4.1;

PWS, Appendix A “General Fund Assessable Units”

Conduct internal sampling, testing, reconciliations and initiate corrective actions for all assessable units (Fund Receipt and Disbursement, Military Pay, Civilian Pay, Travel Pay, Reimbursement Budget Authority & Execution, Dormant Obligations, and Contract Pay [Vendor, MOCAS, Miscellaneous]) to determine audit compliance down to unit level. Ensure internal controls and processes are operating IAW newly published guidance.

It appears the Assessable Units and Key Areas are inconsistently defined throughout the solicitation. For example, 2.2.4.1 defines assessable units as Fund Receipt and Disbursement, Military Pay, Civilian Pay, Travel Pay, Reimbursement Budget Authority & Execution, Dormant Obligations, and Contract Pay, Vendor, MOCAS, Miscellaneous, while PWS Appendix A lists the assessable units as Other Assets/ Other liabilities, Payroll/ Travel, Contracts, etc. Will the Government please clarify which list identifies the "Assessable Units" versus key areas?

Updated

49. PWS, 6.7.5;

PWS, Appendix A – General Fund Assessable Units

The Contractor shall provide a Contractor employee to oversee/lead NO more than three (3) related assessable units (e.g., MOCAS, Vendor Pay) or NO more than two (2) unrelated assessable units (for instance, Civilian Payroll or Funds Distribution to Base) at one time, as long as multiple assessable unit oversight does not interfere with any sustainment effort. These personnel will serve as the interface with the applicable COR on a daily basis, or as

It appears the Assessable Units and Key Areas are inconsistently defined throughout the solicitation. For example, 6.7.5 defines related assessable units (for instance MOCAS, vendor Payments), while Appendix A defines the Assessable Unit as Contracts and the Key Areas as Vendor Pay and MOCAS.

Will the Government please de-conflict this information to clarify its requirements for key personal related to Assessable Units?

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response requested. Assessable units are defined in Appendix A.

50. PWS 6.7.5;

PWS Appendix A

– General Fund Assessable Units

The Contractor shall provide a Contractor employee to oversee/lead NO more than three (3) related assessable units (for instance, MOCAS, Vendor Pay, etc.) or NO more than two (2) unrelated assessable units (for instance, Civilian Payroll or Funds Distribution to Base) at one time, as long as multiple assessable unit oversight does not interfere with any sustainment effort. These personnel will serve as the interface with the applicable COR on a daily basis, or as requested. Assessable units are defined in Appendix A.

If the Government determines that the current "key areas" are the assessable units, will the government provide an updated definition of "related" and "unrelated" assessable units so offerors can appropriately staff and price?

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

51. PWS, Section 2.1.1-2.1.4

2.1.1 Maintain key personnel

deemed critical to managing the overall performance of the AF FIAR Follow-on Support ID/IQ contract IAW the AF FIAR Support IAW the PWS.

Changes to the Contractor-identified Key Personnel as incorporated into the contract, shall be submitted to the CO for approval prior to implementation of change.

The Contractor shall provide a detailed description of the change to include the title and criteria required in the AF FIAR Support ID/IQ PWS, Table 8 demonstrating the appropriate expertise and credentials to properly manage the entire requirement and any applicable task order requirements.

2.1.2 Provide primary point(s)

of contact to work with the Government on all AF FIAR Support ID/IQ issues.

2.1.3 Respond to Government

Contracting Officer (CO), Contracting Officer Representative, and/or Program Manager (PM) requests in a timely manner.

PWS tasks 2.1.1 – 2.1.4 appear to be oriented around Staffing and/ or Management plan requirements. Will the Government please confirm that these requirements should be not included within PWS task 2.1 Task 1:

Administrative/ Program Management Office?

This task is a function of the PMO which is task one. This task will encompass managing all of the task orders off this contract.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

2.1.4 Possess the requisite

skills in AF FIAR Support ID/IQ Contract IAW the PWS, to provide the oversight and program management necessary to ensure Contractor successfully performs the requirements of the contract.

52. PWS, Subsection 2.1.6 Performance Reviews, Page 7

2.1.6.1. Program Management

Reviews (PMRs). Attend scheduled PMRs as notified by the Government.

Government personnel, as appropriate, will meet at least semi-annually with the Contractor to review performance…PMRs are intended to serve as an opportunity for open and frank discussions on the current status of the contract.

2.1.6.2. Other Performance

Reviews. In addition to PMRs, the Government may meet with the Contractor, at Government or Contractor request, to discuss Contract-specific requirements.

2.1.7 Management Reports.

The Contractor shall prepare and submit the following

PWS tasks 2.1.6.1 – 2.1.7 appear to be oriented around the Management plan requirements. Will the Government please confirm that these requirements should be not included within PWS task

2.1 Task 1: Administrative/Program

Management Office?

This task is a function of the PMO which is task one. This task will encompass managing all of the task orders off this contract.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response reports in the format established by the Government: Workstream Summary Report, Travel Request, and Trip Reports.

53. Page 9, 2.2 Task 2: Enduring Audit Readiness/Interna l C, Sub bullet 2.2.1.2

2.2.1.2 The A-123 program

shall be designed and implemented across the Air Force enterprise in conjunction with existing efforts such as the Management Internal Control Program (MICP), MAJCOM Self-Testing, Sustainment testing, etc. The contractor will support the following requirements:

Wording appears incomplete. Will the Government please clarify?

Clarified

54. 8/48, 2.2 Task 2:

Enduring Audit

N/A Throughout section 2.2, there are multiple references to the existing

Appropriate items provided in Bidders Library

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

Readiness/Interna l Controls ; Page 8, 2.1 Task 1:

Administrative/ Program Management Office, Sub Bullet 2.1.8 program, collateral, and specialized materials for various Air Force organizations. In response to the announcement that the AF will be coordinating a bidder's library, to ensure all offerors can be fairly evaluated and have equal access to information, recommend that the Government include, but not limit documentation provided, to the following:

· Existing Entity Level Controls (2.2.1)

· SAF/SG MICT overview (2.2.1.3)

· MICP charter/guidance specific to AF and MAJCOMs (2.2.1.4)

· List of Assessable Units within the A-

123/MICP (2.2.1.7/2.2.1.8)

· Existing Self-Identified Deficiencies

(2.2.1.8)

· Material Systems List and CUEC

Status (2.2.1.8)

· FY17 or prior-year Statement of

Assurance (2.2.1.10)

· Space and Missile Command process documents and Standards samples;

FM Knowledge now (FMKN) (2.2.2)

· List of existing findings/deficiencies (2.2.3.1)

· AFSPC Performance Management Indicator sample (2.2.4.4)

· List and sample of existing Service Provider MOUs (2.2.5)

· Existing standard templates for audit readiness

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

55. 9/48, 2.2.1.6 Develop and provide training…

Develop and provide training to all applicable stakeholders for all critical elements and phases of the Air Force’s A- 123 program.

Regarding development and delivery of training, can the Air Force provide an estimated number of classes or recipients, breaking down levels for HQ and MAJCOM program leadership, as well as Assessable Unit Managers, etc.

Additionally, does the Air Force have any existing preference for delivery methods and structure (Virtual vs In-person Instructor Led, Web-based, Train the Trainer, etc.)?

Clarified in PWS

56. 9/48, 2.2.1.7 Perform an analysis of existing AUs …

Perform an analysis of existing AUs defined IAW the PWS and align them to business cycles (Procure to Pay, Order to Cash, Record to Report, etc.) for proper evaluation by the OMB Circular A-123 program.

Air Force stated that the contractor shall "Perform an analysis of existing AUs defined IAW the PWS and align them to business cycles (Procure to Pay, Order to Cash, Record to Report, etc.) for proper evaluation by the OMB Circular A-123 program." Can the Air Force identify the number of AUs, controls, and business cycles to be assessed as part of the OMB A-123 program?

Listed in Table AU table. See Attachment to PWS

57. 2.2.1.8 Annually assist the Air Force in performing full cycle of A-123;

2.2.3.1; 2.3.1.2

2.2.1.8 "Develop corrective action plans to address Self- Identifies (SIDs) resulting from testing failures"; 2.2.3.1 "Assist with WIT findings / deficiencies to establish corrective actions and monitor closure efforts"; 2.3.1.2 "The contract shall support AFMC working capital fund for tasks IAW the PWS for the assessable units in ANNEX."

The Government is requesting offerors to propose a Firm Fixed Price, which is traditionally for requirements that have well-defined deliverables. The deliverables and work volumes associated with the tasks referenced depend on future events that will influence volume and nature of deliverables (corrective actions, deficiencies, assessable units in the ANNEX, etc.). Will the Government please clarify what additional

Provided information in bidders library.

RFP updated

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response information it will provide to offerors to develop Frim Fixed Pricing estimates for these activities?

58. 2.2.1.8 Annually assist the Air Force in performing full cycle of A-123;

2.2.3.1; 2.3.1.2

2.2.1.8 "Develop corrective action plans to address Self- Identifies (SIDs) resulting from testing failures"; 2.2.3.1 "Assist with WIT findings / deficiencies to establish corrective actions and monitor closure efforts"; 2.3.1.2 "The contract shall support AFMC working capital fund for tasks IAW the PWS for the assessable units in ANNEX."

The Government is requesting offerors to propose a Firm Fixed Price, which is traditionally for requirements that have well defined deliverables. The deliverables and work volumes associated with the tasks referenced depend on future events that will influence volume and nature of deliverables (corrective actions, deficiencies, assessable units in the ANNEX, etc.). Will the Government consider segmenting the specifically defined scope requirements for FFP bid structure, and the less defined tasks for a T&M structure?

The government provided historical information to price for CAPS.

59. Page 11, Task 2:

Enduring Audit Readiness/Interna l Controls; Para 2.2.2

2.2.2.2 Coordinate with

SMC/FM Workforce Development Director to ensure process documentation and standards for FIAR assessable units are merged with “FM Bootcamp” course content.

In order to ensure each offeror can be fairly evaluated and has equal access to information, will the Government please confirm the FM Bootcamp course is complete, and include it in the Bidders Library?

Made available in the Bidder’s Library.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

60. PWS, 2.3.1.2 The contract shall support AFMC WCF for tasks IAW the PWS for the assessable units in ANNEX.

To meet the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 4.1 Volume 1, FACTOR 1 - Technical Proposal "The proposal should not merely reiterate or rephrase the objectives or reformulate the Government's requirements specified in the solicitation", will the Government provide additional details regarding the ANNEX Program to ensure all offerors can be fairly evaluated?

Clarified

61. 12/48, 2.2.5 Service Providers

N/A Based on OUSD(C) guidance, MOUs have also extended to sub-allotment recipients. Has the Air Force executed similarly, and is this included under the umbrella of section 2.2.5 or elsewhere?

If so, can the Air Force provide a listing of sub-allotment recipients in addition to service providers?

Can the Air Force provide a complete listing of existing Service Providers and MOUs?

Example provided in bidder’s library

62. Paragraph 2.3.1.1, Page 13 of 48

Develop and train organizations and action officers on the Deficiency, Evaluation, Remediation, and Tracking for all financial statement-related findings and recommendations.

In order to appropriately respond to this requirement and communicate a recommended approach as well as identify the necessary level of staff, will the Government please provide additional details such as: the estimated number of professionals to be trained, broken out by HQ and MAJCOM program leadership, and AU managers?

Clarified. Gov’t provided historical data on existing CAPs.

RFP Page # /

RFP Section and Name

RFP Text That Your Question References Question Government Response

63. Pages 13-14/Para

2.3.2 Population

Completeness/Un iverse of Transactions

2.3.2.2 The Contractor shall

assist with the maintenance of the Population Completeness Universe of Transactions (UoT) Framework for Full Financial Statements addressing the accounting transactions and audit requirements necessary to support the all Air Force General Fund Financial Statements (inclusive of Mission Critical Assets Universe of Transactions) via the LoGUoT initiative.

To ensure all offerors can be fairly evaluated, will the Government please provide additional context around the LoGUoT initiative?

Provided in Bidder’s library

64. 2.3.4 Valuation Baseline and Go Forward Sustainment

“Assist SAF/FM in sustaining the beginning balances.”

“Assist AFMC in sustaining the beginning balances.”

To ensure all bidders will be evaluated fairly, will the Government provide additional clarity regarding the following:

· ·Will it include the establishment of beginning balances (i.e., the valuation of assets in accordance with SFFAS 48 and 50)?

· ·Will it include maintaining the valuation of assets that were part of beginning balances?

· ·Will it include the valuation of assets acquired after opening balances in accordance with SFFAS 4 and 6?

No change

65. 12 Attachments or Appendices to the PWS:

Appendix A

Table that references Assessable Units and Key Areas

There are a number of…