FA7014-17-R-5002_-_USAF_FIAR_Follow_On_Support_QAs_FINAL_20171004.pdf

September 28, 2017

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

RFP Questions

Attachment 1 Addendum to FAR

Provision 52.212-1, Page 3, Section 2.5

Proposal Submission

The Past Performance Volume (Volume II) is due on 9 October 2017.

SOME DELAY SHOULD BE

ANTICIPATED WHEN HAND

CARRYING PROPOSALS AS WELL AS

MAILING BY COMMON CARRIER DUE

TO POTENTIAL BASE MAILROOM

DELAYS.

The RFP requires Past Performance

Questionnaires and Past Performance (hard copy, hand carried) volume submissions on

October 9th, which is a Federal holiday.

Request the due date for these submissions be changed to October 10th to ensure that delivery locations will be open and accessible.

The RFP has been amended to change the Past Performance

Volume (Volume II) due date to

16 October 2017 NLT 2:00PM

EST

Provision 52.212-1, Page 3, Section 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 on all required volumes.

The RFP requires name-redacted

The name redaction will apply to the Technical Volumes only.

Past Performance Volumes will have full company names and logos along with the code provided by the Government.

Each offeror is required to submit an un-redacted copy per the instructions.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

submissions. While we understand the

Government's desire for blind evaluation, removal of the company name or logo in the

Past Performance Volume will require a removal of all references within the past performance reference itself. This redaction renders this volume significantly less meaningful for evaluation. Please clarify that the name redaction applies only to the

Volume I Technical Proposal.

Provision 52.212-1, Page 7, Section

4.1.1.3 Subfactor 3 Staffing

Plan/Recruiting and Retention Plan

If the Offeror proposes alternate labor categories, the Offeror must map the proposed alternates to the provided labor categories.

The RFP intent appears to be that offerors can augment the RFP Labor Categories with alternates appropriate to perform the proposed support services. However, mapping to the (RFP) "provided labor categories" reduces the use of alternate labor categories to derivatives of the RFP labor categories. Please clarify whether offerors may propose alternate labor categories in place of provided labor categories OR propose alternate labor categories in addition to the provided labor categories.

The offeror is allowed to use the labor categories listed, propose all new labor categories, add to the labor categories, or propose to remove some. The offerors have discretion to propose as they see fit. However, if the offeror is proposing alternate labor categories, they must be mapped to the Government provided labor categories.

Provision 52.212-1, Page 6, Section 4.1

Volume I, FACTOR 1 - Technical

Proposal, Paragraph 4.1.1.3.2.

Can the Government confirm the TO

Request Form(s) to be included in the

Technical Volume only refers to the

"Proposed Hours Estimated by Task"

The TO Request Form will be placed in Volume III, Pricing, as required but "Proposed Hrs. Est by Task" tab will be used by the

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

At Task Order level, the Government is not requesting a technical proposal for the task order pricing; all based on the approach provided for the IDIQ. The

Offerors shall complete TO Request

Form (Attachments 5a-g). The Offeror shall propose the appropriate FTEs and labor categories for each of the specific task orders based on what was proposed at the IDIQ level.

worksheets?

Technical Evaluation Team to evaluate Task Order FTEs/Hours proposed only.

Provision 52.212-1, Page 6, Section 4.1

Volume I, FACTOR 1 - Technical

Proposal, Paragraph 4.1.1.3.2.

At Task Order level the Government is not requesting a technical proposal for the task order pricing; all based on the approach provided for the IDIQ. The

Offerors shall complete TO Request

Form (Attachments 5a-g). The Offeror shall propose the appropriate FTEs and labor categories for each of the specific task orders based on what was proposed at the IDIQ level.

Can the Government confirm the TO

Request Form, "Proposed Hours Estimated by Task" worksheets are to be included as part of the Technical Volume and are included in the Technical Volume page count?

The TO Request Form will be placed in Volume III, Pricing, not the Technical Volume. The Price

Volume has an unlimited page count

RFP AFFARS 5352.209-9001, Potential

Conflict of Interest

The RFP on Page 40 of 41 states “any offeror that holds a contract in the Program

Management Office, Financial Management

Offerors have the opportunity to submit mitigation plans in regards to this OCI. Offerors that

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

Office, and/or the System Integrator of the following systems have an impaired objectivity OCI: Defense Enterprise

Accounting and Management System

(DEAMS), Next Generation Information

Technology (NexGen IT), and Air Force

Integrated Personnel and Pay System

(AFIPPS).”

It appears the Government has concluded the contractors identified above have an impaired objectivity OCI that would not permit such contractors to compete for the

Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness

(FIAR) contract. It should be noted that:

The Air Force is currently under audit and the Independent Public

Accountant (IPA) conducting the audit, not the FIAR contractor, will independently identify the weaknesses and deficiencies in

DEAMS, NeXGen IT, and AFIPPS that require corrective actions

Although it is the FIAR contractor’s responsibility to develop corrective actions to address weaknesses and deficiencies identified by the IPA, typically the Government, IPA, and

FIAR contractor collaborate and mutually agree on the nature and requested an offeror code and provided proof that they are an

IPA have an opportunity. The

Contracting Officer will review the OCI plans from all offerors and provide their determination in writing.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

extent of the corrective actions needed to address the deficiencies and weaknesses identified by the IPA

Contractors supporting the DEAMS

Functional Management Office

(FMO) work under the direction and control of Government personnel.

The Government, not the support contractor, through a very complex review and approval process, makes the final decisions regarding development, integration, assembly, checkout, and production of

DEAMS, NexGen IT, and AFIPPS system components

Contractors supporting the DEAMS

FMO do not provide system components, including hardware and software.

Given that these factors reasonably mitigate impaired objectivity OCI concerns, will the

Government permit contractors supporting the DEAMS FMO to compete for the FIAR work?

N/A N/A

Would the Government extend the due date for the OCI Mitigation Plan to at least 10 calendar days from the date at which the

Government releases all final answers concerning potential conflict of interest matters? This would ensure that contractors

The OCI plan due date has been changed to 13 October 2017 at

2:00PM EST. See Attachment 1, Amended 52.212-1.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

have adequate time to respond.

We would like to request an extension on the due date of the OCI Mitigation Plan as questions are due Monday, September 22 and the OCI Plan is due Friday, September 29, which would not allow time to respond to Q&A.

The OCI plan due date has been changed to 13 October 2017 at

2:00PM EST. See Attachment 1, Amended 52.212-1.

Attachment 1 Questions

RFP Attachment 1, Page 2, Section 2.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI).

Please confirm that meaningful discussions will be conducted by the Air Force after each offeror submits their OCI Mitigation Plan if the Air Force has any questions about the content of the OCI Mitigation Plan and/or prior to the Air Force taking any action to eliminate any offerors from the FIAR procurement based on their OCI Mitigation

Plan.

The Government will take the actions that are in its best interest

Attachment_1_-

_Addendum_to_52_212-

1_FIAR_FINAL, Section 2.1.3, page 1

…Offerors must be an Independent Public

Accounting (IPA) firm, in good standing with the American Institute of Certified

Public Accountants (AICPA)…

The key element of the AICPA standard to judge if an IPA firm is in good standing with the AICPA is to require a Peer Review.

Please confirm the Offeror must present the government a current peer review associated with the bidding entity (i.e. same DUNS and

CAGE).

Offerors were given their notice to continue to step 2 or not already in accordance with

52.212-2, Paragraph 1.5.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

2.3.2

Attachment_1_-

_Addendum_to_52_212-

1_FIAR_FINAL, Section 2.3.2

“All Offerors shall also submit an OCI Plan as to how to avoid other OCIs in the future.”

Attachment 1, section 2.3.2 states: “All

Offerors shall also submit an OCI Plan as to how to avoid other OCIs in the future.”

Could the Government provide additional guidance on what the Government is seeking in this additional OCI Plan? Is the

Government seeking a separate OCI Plan than the OCI Mitigation Plan described in section 2.3.1? Can offerors provide both plans in one document? Is the Government seeking a separate OCI Mitigation Plan to avoid OCIs that are not based upon impaired objectivity?

Yes. The Government is seeking a separate mitigation plan from the known impaired objectivity

OCI. Offerors can submit the plans together or separately as long as the offeror clearly addresses each OCI matter; e.g.

impaired objectivity, future

OCIs.

Standard Form 1449; Attachment 1, Section 2.5, page 3

Could the Government please clarify the submission deadline for November 6, 2017?

The SF 1449 states “12:00 AM 06 Nov

2017” and Attachment 1, Section 2.5 states, “by 2:00 pm Eastern Time…”

The deadline is 13 November

2017 at 2:00PM EST. The RFP has been updated.

Attachment 1, Section 2.2, page 2 Could the Government please clarify in which volume it would like the Offeror to include information on its Facility Security

Clearance?

See RFP Attachment 1 –

Addendum to 52.212-1 paragraph

2.1.4. Should be submitted in

Volume I, Technical

Attachment 1, Section 3.3.1, page 5 and

Question 97 (page 47 of the Draft Q&A)

Could the Government clarify if the

Technical Cross Reference Matrix

(Attachment 3) is excluded from page count?

Yes. The cross reference matrix is excluded from the page count.

Updated para 4.1.1.3.1 and

4.2.1.3.

Attachment_1_-

_Addendum_to_52_212-

The Offeror shall submit one resume for all key personnel positions (PWS Attachment F) Use the key personnel positions

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

1_FIAR_FINAL, Section 4.1.1.3.1, page for review to show the Offerors understanding of the requirement.

Attachment F identifies key personnel by

IDIQ Task Area and also refers the reader to attachment G.

Please clarify if the full requirement is to submit the eight key positions identified in attachment F and only those eight.

If the eight positions do not represent the full resume submission requirement, please clarify the number of key personnel positions required for submission.

in Attachment F.

The language in Attachment F has been updated to provide clarity

Attachment_1_-

_Addendum_to_52_212-

1_FIAR_FINAL, Section 4.1.1.3.2, page

At Task Order level the Government is not requesting a technical proposal for the task order pricing; all based on the approach provided for the IDIQ. The Offerors shall complete TO Request Form (Attachments

5a-g). The Offeror shall propose the appropriate FTEs and labor categories for each of the specific task orders based on what was proposed at the IDIQ level.

Since a specific approach is not proposed for each Task Order, how will the government determine realism for staffing FTEs and labor categories?

The Government will evaluate the approach to complete the tasks at the IDIQ level because each task order will not have a separate PWS at this time.

However, the proposed Task

Order FTEs and labor categories will be based off the proposed

IDIQ labor categories and will be evaluated to ensure the offeror is proposing enough resources for the Task. See 52.212-2, Paragraph 3.2.3.

The evaluation of the TO pricing sheet, using the “Proposed Hrs.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

Est by Task” will be based on the

IDIQ pricing, which is evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and the PECP for realism. The TO will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. Updated language in para 4.1.1.3.2.

Attachment_1_-

_Addendum_to_52_212-

1_FIAR_FINAL, Section 4.1.1.3.2, page

At Task Order level the Government is not requesting a technical proposal for the task order pricing; all based on the approach provided for the IDIQ. The Offerors shall complete TO Request Form (Attachments

5a-g). The Offeror shall propose the appropriate FTEs and labor categories for each of the specific task orders based on what was proposed at the IDIQ level.

Required staff levels are especially difficult to predict for option years starting in July

2020 and after since it is highly variable based on actual progress, managerial decisions and other moving factors. Staffing would be highly dependent on the Task

Order approach and Government and offeror assumptions for each task area within each task order.

For evaluation purposes, we recommend the

Government choose one of the following methods to determine realism for the staffing: (1) have bidders bid to historic level of effort; (2) have bidders determine staff

Offerors shall propose staff mix and FTEs for the base year and keep that constant across the options for this solicitation

(Attachments 5a-5h). The Task

Order pricing is to be based off the IDIQ pricing. See 52.212-1, Amendment 1, Paragraph 4.3.1.3.

The offeror can escalate rates if they so choose.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

mix and FTEs for the base year and keep that constant across the options for bid and price evaluation purposes; (3) provide government estimates for hours for all task orders and all years; or (4) provide government assumptions for out years, additional estimating details, and provide instructions for Offerors to bid an approach and supported BOE for each Task Order.

Attachment 1, Section 4 Transition Plan,

4.1.1.4 a. Key Transition Personnel,

a. Key Transition Personnel

Do Key Transition Personnel have to be named? Can Key Transition Personnel be considered key in multiple areas?

Key transition personnel do not have to be named. Key personnel can work in multiple areas

Attachment 1, Section 4.1.1.4.1, page 7 Could the Government please clarify if there is to be a letter “h” in the bulleted list?

Error corrected

Attachment 1, Section 4.2.1.1, page 8, bullet 7

Could the Government please clarify if the

Offeror should add “List of significant subcontractors” to the Past Performance Info

Form (Attachment 6)?

Offerors should only reference first tier subcontractors past performance if they are submitting it for inclusion and expect it to be evaluated

Attachment 1, Section 4.2.1.3, page 9 The Government requests the Offeror to submit a Past Performance Cross Reference

Matrix that assigns the proposed past performance to the specific subfactors listed above using the template provided

(Attachment 3). Attachment 3 is the

Technical Cross Reference Matrix, could the

Attachment 3 is a starting point and offerors can tailor or create their own matrix.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

Government clarify if the Offeror should use this matrix or create its own matrix for past performance?

Attachment 1, Section 4.3.2.1, page 10 Does the government require information for each subcontractor in the professional employee compensation plan?

Yes. For first tier subcontractors.

Updated paragraph 4.3.1.2 See

52.212-1, Amendment 1, Paragraph 4.3.1.2.2.

RFP Attachment 1, Page 9 / Section 4.3 4.30Volume III, FACTOR IV – Cost/Price:

Will the government please confirm/clarify that the reference to “FACTOR IV” is a typo and there are only three factors, and therefore the heading for this section should reference Factor III under the Price Volume per Table 1 on page 5?

There are only three factors. The typo has been corrected.

Would the government consider a teaming arrangement between contractors that would operate similar to a contractor teaming arrangement (CTA) in a GSA contract environment? There would still be a named prime with overall accountability to the government but both contractors would operate as co-primes.

The Government is seeking to have one focal point for audit readiness.

RFP RFP and Attachments in general.

Please confirm that “Tasks” as used in the B tables and in the PWS is not synonymous with “Task Orders.”

Tasks are referred to as the work throughout the solicitation. It is not synonymous with Task

Orders, which is the actual award that outlines the tasks or work to be completed.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

ITO

Attachment 1 – Addendum to FAR

Provision 52.212-1 Instructions to

Offerors (ITO) – Commercial Items

4.2.1.3 The Offeror shall submit a Past

Performance Cross Reference Matrix that assigns the proposed past performance to the specific subfactors listed above using the template provided (Attachment 3).

Will the government please confirm that the

Past Performance Cross Reference Matrix is excluded from the Past Performance Volume page count?

Yes, the Past Performance Cross

Reference Matrix is excluded from the page count.

2 2.2

This section states, “A verifiable SECRET

FCL must exist in the ISFD at time of proposal. Offeror’s FCL will be assessed as

“responsive/non-responsive” at proposal submission.” In which Factor/section should offerors include verification of their Secret

FCL?

The facility clearance does not have to be included in any

Factor/section. The Offeror does not have to submit anything outside of the required DD254 for Government verification.

3 2.5 Proposal Submission

This section states, “All proposals shall be received (5 hard copies, plus CD-ROM or

CD-R), by the contracting team by 2:00 pm

Eastern Time on each required date.” Please confirm all Volumes may be included on the same CD-ROM or CD-R.

Yes

3 2.5 Proposal Submission

This section states, “Offerors should notify the CS or CO if they intend to hand deliver their proposal.” How much notice does the

Government need ahead of the hand delivery?

The Government requires at least one business day notice prior to scheduled delivery. The RFP has been updated to reflect this change in 52.212-1.

5 3.3.2 Page Size and Format

This section states, “Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.” Please confirm offerors may use a separate numbering system for pages not included in

Yes

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

the page limitations (such as i, ii, iii or A-1, A-2, A-3).

5 3.3.2 Page Size and Format

This section states, “Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.” Please confirm the title page (reference in section

3.3.4) does not need to be numbered.

Yes

5 3.3.2 Page Size and Format

This section states, “When text is included within displays, it may be no smaller than 8 point, but must be clearly legible without magnification, as determined solely by the

CO.” Please confirm “displays” refers to tables and graphics.

Yes

5 3.3.2 Page Size and Format

This section states, “When text is included within displays, it may be no smaller than 8 point, but must be clearly legible without magnification, as determined solely by the

CO.” Please confirm offerors may use text no smaller than 8 point in headers and footers.

Yes

5 3.3.3 CD-ROM or CD-R Copies

This section states, “Each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD.” Please clarify if “directory” is equivalent to

“folder.”

Yes

5 3.3.3 CD-ROM or CD-R Copies

This section states, “One electronic copy of the proposal shall be submitted in the following formats: Microsoft (MS) Word

2010, MS Excel 2010, or MS-Power Point

2010, or Portable Document Format (PDF), as applicable.” Should offerors submit one electronic copy of each volume in ALL of the listed formats (as applicable) or ONE of

One of the listed formats

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

the listed formats?

5/6 3.3.4 Title Page

This section states that the title page must include, “Name, address, telephone numbers and e-mail address of the offeror (only one copy for all required volumes).” Does this mean only one copy of each volume should contain the name, address, telephones and e-mail address of the offeror, and it may be omitted from all other copies?

Yes

4.2.3 Past Performance Info Form and

Past Performance Questionnaires

When applicable, may offerors submit a

CPARS report in lieu of a Past Performance

Questionnaire?

No

N/A N/A Please confirm offerors may submit their proposals in Adobe PDF format.

Yes, with the exception of pricing. The pricing sheets

(attachment 4 and 5a-5h) need to be in Excel

Attachment 2 Questions

Attachment_2_-_Addendum_to_52.212-

2_FIAR_FINAL, Section 1.6 Step 2, “If the CO determines there is an OCI that cannot be mitigated, the government will not evaluate any further and the offeror will not continue to step 3.”

Will the Government afford the Offeror the opportunity to address any OCI mitigation actions the Government has an issue with prior to the PCO’s final determination?

The Government will take the actions that are in its best interest.

Attachment_2_-_Addendum_to_52.212-

2_FIAR_FINAL, Section 3.2.3, page 3

At the IDIQ level the Government will evaluate the cross reference matrix

(attachment 3) that assigns the proposed labor categories and FTEs to specific PWS

The Technical Cross Reference

Matrix used to assist in evaluation. The purpose of the matrix for both the technical and

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

task areas.

In the evaluation criteria cited for this question, it states the cross reference matrix from attachment 3 will be evaluated based on the relationship of labor categories to

FTEs to PWS task areas.

In attachment 3 the cross reference matrix is identified as an example and the example does not include FTEs.

Please clarify that attachment 3 will not be evaluated – rather our proposed cross reference matrix would be evaluated.

past performance is to ensure the

Offerors address and map all information requested by the

Government. If an offeror provides a product similar to

Attachment 3, it will also be used to assist in the evaluation. If a product other than Attachment 3 is used, ensure it is easily identified as the cross reference matrix.

3 Attachment_2_-_Addendum_to_52.212-

2_FIAR_FINAL, Section 3.2.3, page 3

If applicable, the Government will evaluate any alternate labor categories proposed by the offeror.

This section discusses evaluation of alternate labor categories. Please confirm (1) the government is allowing Offerors to propose new labor categories in addition to those defined by the government, (2) since the new categories are required to fill a gap that the government categories do not cover, that the new categories would have distinct requirements and pricing that cannot be mapped to an existing category, and (3) those labor categories should be described in

Volume 1, Subfactor 3 Staffing

The offeror is allowed to use the labor categories listed, propose all new labor categories, add to the labor categories, or propose to remove some. The offerors have discretion to propose as they see fit. However, if the offeror is proposing alternate labor categories, they must be mapped to the Government provided labor categories.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

Plan/Recruiting and Retention Plan and priced in the pricing volume.

4 Attachment 2, Section 3.2.4, page 4 Could the Government please clarify if there is to be a letter “h” in the bulleted list?

Error has been corrected

5-8 Attachment 2 –Addendum to 52.212-2

Evaluation, Sections 3.3.6 – 3.3.8, pages

5-8

To determine relevancy in this performance category, the offeror can submit up to three

(3) submissions in this performance category.

How will the government weigh the past performance for up to three (3) submissions in each category? For example, do three

RELEVANT scores rate higher that one

VERY RELEVANT score?

The Government will use the evaluation criteria as provided in

52.212-1, Paragraph 3.3 to rate each submission.

Table 4 Attachment 2 – Addendum, Section

3.3.7.1, Table 4

Table 4, “Past/Present performance on audit contracts for entities with an annual budget greater than $60B performing 51% or more of the required effort.”

The Draft RFP provided a higher rating for bidders with federal audit experience, while the final RFP provides a higher rating for federal and commercial audit experience. We request that the government revise the experience requirements to provide a higher rating for federal audit experience because federal audits are significantly different and in some ways more complex than commercial audits. For example, No changes to the past/present performance evaluation criteria.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

commercial auditors do not need to understand and test internal controls and test account balances for the Statement of

Budgetary Resources, such as appropriations, reimbursable agreements, new obligations, undelivered orders, and unfilled customer orders. In addition, federal auditors assess federal agencies implementation of federal accounting standards, which are different than commercial accounting standards, thus auditors of federal financial statements will understand the unique aspects of federal accounting standards and be able to assist the

Air Force with complying with the federal accounting standards. The federal accounting standards include several unique accounting standards related to beginning balance valuation for PP&E and OM&S and exchange versus non-exchange transactions that a federal auditor will have experience with. Ultimately, a bidder with seasoned federal auditors will have a better understanding of what the Air Force needs to get to an unmodified opinion on its federal financial statements that follow federal accounting standards rather than commercial accounting standards.

Attachment 2 – Addendum to 52.212-2 –

Evaluation – Commercial Items

3.2.2 Subfactor 2: Management plan at the

IDIQ level

The evaluation of the

Management Plan and Past

Performance are not the same

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

3.3.6 Contract Management History, Table 3

Will the Government please confirm if the criteria (200 vs. 250 FTEs) to evaluate the

Management Plan and Past Performance

Qualifications is intentionally different, or should the criteria be the same, and therefore updated in the RFP?

and are intentionally different.

Paragraph 3.2.2 under the

Technical Factor refers to the evaluation of the offeror’s proposed management of plan of at least 200 FTEs in order to meet the PWS requirements.

Paragraph 3.3.6 under the

Past/Present Performance Factor provides the relevancy definitions for each submission in the Contract Management

History category.

No changes to RFP.

2/3 3.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Please confirm offerors must submit each

Factor (Technical, Past Performance, and

Cost/Price) as a separate electronic file.

Yes. Each Factor should have its own electronic file. All separate electronic files can be on one

CD-R or DVD-R.

Attachment 6 – Past Performance Information Form

Attachment 6 – Past Performance

References that Addresses Performance

Categories

G. Describe how contract requirements relate to contract management history, audit, or audit advisory support.

Will the Government please confirm that the requirement to address Magnitude and

Complexity within Attachment 6, is no longer required, as that same language was removed from Attachment 2 52.212-2.

Updated attachment 6.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

Attachment 6 – Past Performance

References that Addresses Performance

Categories

When filled-in, this form shall not exceed eight (8) pages.

The template states the form shall not exceed eight pages. However, the Offeror can submit up to nine qualifications and the Past

Performance Volume cannot exceed 100 pages. If the Offeror submits nine qualifications and the template cannot exceed eight pages, the total maximum page count for the Past Performance Volume under this scenario is 72 pages.

Will the government update the RFP to remove the page limitation at the individual past performance template level, and instead keep the page limit requirement at the overall volume level?

Updated attachment 6

Attachment 6 – Past Performance

References that Addresses Performance

Categories

I. Continuation for Items A through H.

Will the Government please delete Section I from the template because it is not required since all offerors will complete the template

‘soft copy’ therefore the spacing will automatically adjust to fit the content.

Updated attachment 6

Attachment 6 - Past Performance Form, Section G and corresponding RFP Past

Performance Evaluation Criteria

Magnitude:

Complexity:

How does the Government define Magnitude and Complexity of each past performance

Updated attachment 6

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

type?

Attachment 9 PWS Questions:

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Table 1 performance locations.

The locations listed in the table are not consistent with the task order attachments

5a-g. Notably, Los Angeles AFB is not included in the table.

Table 1 clarified to state and associated bases for MAJCOMs.

6 and

DRAFT

RFP 59

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 1.4.1, page 6 and Draft RFP

Q&A Question #9 (page 59 of 94)

“AF Major Command (MAJCOM) / Direct

Reporting Unit

(DRU) Liaison Support. The Contractor shall provide MAJCOM liaison support between MAJCOMs/ Functional Community and SAF/FMFFA to assist with sustaining audit readiness, Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) Circular A-123 annual cycles, and financial statement audit liaison support.”

Does the Government expect MAJCOM liaison support to be collocated at the

MAJCOMs?

Government Response: Yes

Follow-up Question: There are numerous locations in Table 1 showing where

MAJCOM Liaisons are required. Yet in

Table 4 there are no Government seats for these people. To be effective at performing the Liaison role these people need to be co-located with the MAJCOM client vice

The IDIQ PWS is identifying that the listed support may be needed at the MAJCOMs. If needed then a Task Order will be issued for the MAJCOM. The RFP has task orders for AFSPC, AFMC already.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

located in an office nearby. Suggest the

Government identify seats collocated with the MAJCOM client at these locations or permit them to be centrally staffed at another contractor location.

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 2.2.1.1, page 8

The PWS requests that the contractor shall advise and assist with the implementation and compliance with OMB Bulletin No. 01-

02; however, this bulletin has been superseded and relates to requirements that the auditor would follow rather than management. We recommend the government remove such bulletin from the list.

Typo corrected

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 2.3.1, page 12

The PWS indicates that the contractor assist with the implementation of corrective action plans. We recommend that the government remove “implementation”

No change

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 2.6.1, page 21

“Proactively analyze the progression of audit readiness/sustainment for financial statement audits and provide strategic and implementable solutions to address gaps”.

Will the Government please confirm if there is an established process for assessing progress? Are there existing performance indicators? If not, would the contractor be expected to develop a measurement tool and/or key performance indicators?

The contractor is expected recommend a process to the government and then execute the approved process.

21 Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, “An integrated and coordinated approach to There is no effective existing

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

Section 2.6.1, page 21 execute this initiative through the development of communication and change management strategies.”

Will the Government please confirm if there is an existing governance model that would allow the contractor to have access to integration points?

governance model.

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 2.6.1, page 21

The contractor shall design/develop, provide broad-based communications and change management support for program management…

Will the Government please confirm who will ultimately approve the communication efforts being designed and developed?

SAF/FMFA leadership.

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 2.6.1, page 21

Assess communication and outreach strategies, approaches, and forums used internally and externally to assist SAF/FMF with internal collaboration and

Will the Government please confirm if there are existing methods or measurement tools being utilized? Are there existing key performance indicators established?

There are existing newsletters, monthly updates, established

POCs. There are no existing key performance indicators.

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 2.6.1, page 21

Support communication, collaboration and change management initiatives, including road shows and training events.

Formal training moved to Task 9 in the PWS. A Task Order will be issued when a specific training requirement is identified. See the

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

Will the Government please provide more information around expected support of initiatives such as road shows and training events (i.e., develop materials, provide onsite logistics, AV support, facilitation support, etc.)

updated PWS attachment.

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 2.6.1, page 21

Contractor to document, prioritize, and recommend solutions for the most critical areas related to financial management and audit readiness that require change management support and update on a periodic and routine basis.

Will the Government confirm who receives the recommendations and ultimately approves priority and solutions?

SAF/FMFA leadership

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 2.6.2, page 21

Create training content

Will the Government please provide an estimated number of course per year and in what format (instructor led vs. computer based)? If computer based, will the

Government please confirm if the training content is required to be completed on government issued computers?

Formal training moved to Task 9 in the PWS. A Task Order will be issued when a specific training requirement is identified.

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 2.6.2, page 22

Support the development and delivery of course curriculum.

Formal training moved to Task 9 in the PWS. A Task Order will

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Will the Government please confirm, on average, how long are the training courses?

requirement is identified.

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 2.6.2, page 22

Support the development and delivery of course curriculum.

Will the Government please confirm that delivery support is limited to the logistics noted in the PWS or is delivery support expected to include the contractor delivering the training course

Formal training moved to Task 9 in the PWS. A Task Order will be issued when a specific training requirement is identified.

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 2.6.2, page 22

Support the development and delivery of course curriculum.

In support of delivery of course curriculum, will the Government please confirm if travel is required to support, and if so, how much travel is anticipated.

Formal training moved to Task 9 in the PWS. A Task Order will be issued when a specific training requirement is identified.

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 5.2.2, page 30

We request that the government clarify that a secret or interim secret clearance is required prior to starting work as the current wording is not clear.

PWS updated.

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 6.7.4, page 34

We request that the government clarify if the reference to section 6.7.4 is correct or should be referred to another section.

PWS updated.

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 7.3, page 38 and Ordering Guide

8.1, and Draft RFP Q&A #22 (page 14 of 94)

The Government indicates in the Draft RFP

Q&A that this statement was “Deleted,” however the language is still included in the

The language has been deleted

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

Final PWS.

Question included:

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.

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 10.4 Computers, page 43

The government will provide laptops as part of this requirement as described in Table 4.

Laptops are only provided to personnel on site. Laptops are not to leave government space unless specifically authorized by

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

Will laptops be provided to contractor personnel who are not assigned to an on-site workstation?

exception.

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 12, page 46

(See 4a-3, Associate Contractor Agreement)

In Section 12 Organizational Conflict of

Interest, could the Government please clarify or provide a copy of 4a-3, Associate

Contractor Agreement?

Deleted

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 12, page 46

Section 12 of the PWS (RFP Attachment 9) states in part: “To avoid, neutralize, or mitigate a potential conflict of interest, the

Contractor shall not, during performance of the contract, engage (as a prime Contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or consultant) in any other contract that would design, develop, implement, operate, or sustain any general ledger system or deliverable that is based on a recommended solution provided under this contract. The following systems apply:

Defense Enterprise and Accounting

Management System (DEAMS), Next

Generation IT (NextGenIT), Air Force

Integrated Personnel and Payment System

(AFIPPS).”

Does this restriction apply only to the prime contractor or to both the prime contractor and its subcontractors?

Per the PWS the restriction applies to “as a prime contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or consultant.”

Attachment_9_AF_FIAR_PWS_FINAL, Section 12, page 46

Section 12 of the PWS (RFP Attachment 9) states in part: “To avoid, neutralize, or

Offerors, Prime and

Subcontractors, have to submit

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

mitigate a potential conflict of interest, the

Contractor shall not, during performance of the contract, engage (as a prime Contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or consultant) in any other contract that would design, develop, implement, operate, or sustain any general ledger system or deliverable that is based on a recommended solution provided under this contract. The following systems apply:

Defense Enterprise and Accounting

Management System (DEAMS), Next

Generation IT (NextGenIT), Air Force

Integrated Personnel and Payment System

(AFIPPS).”

Can the prime contractor use subcontractors that work on DEAMS, NextGenIT or

AFIPPS as long as these subcontractors do not work on any task areas on this contract that are related to the subcontractor’s work on DEAMS, NextGenIT or AFIPPS?

an OCI plan to show how they will mitigate an OCI or potential

OCI. The CO will make a determination if the plan will be accepted or rejected.

12 Page 12/ Task 5: FIAR IT

Systems/Integration/Support

2.5.2.1: Security Controls Assessment. The contractor shall provide support assessing, documenting, testing and monitoring internal controls in alignment with current AF, FISCAM, Risk Management Framework

(NIST 800-53), and FIAR Guidance related to systems utilized in the performance of material business processes.

a) In the final PWS section 2.5.2.1, Risk

Management Framework (NIST 800-53), was added as one of the standards that will

The scope of the NIST publications implementing

FISMA is not limited to NIST

800-53 and would include additional NIST publications as they relate to audit. Other such publications needed to address the support of RMF include the

Federal Information System

Controls Audit Manual

(FISCAM), and AFI 17-101, RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

be expected to be used to assess security controls. However, answers to questions regarding contractor’s involvement in IT

Support for FISMA (sections 2.5.2.1 and

2.5.2.4), indicated that contractors will not be required to provide IT support over

FISMA nor support on FISMA audit remediation efforts. Will the government elaborate on the extent of RMF NIST 800-53 compliance tasks and expectations?

b) We request the government provide clarification on the answers provided for #40 and #42 of our previously submitted questions to the draft PWS. The government’s response stated that no FISMA support will be required by the contractor.

However, there are a few instances where the

PWS requires contractor support for RMF

(see 2.5.2.1 and 2.5.2.21) and DoDI 8510.01

(i.e. DoD RMF) mandates FISMA compliance. Can clarification please be provided to the government’s original response? Is the scope of FISMA support simply limited to NIST 800-53? Or are there additional NIST publications that will need to be addressed during the support of RMF?

Risk Management Framework for Air Force Information

Technology. The contractors will be required to provide advisory support to information security owners, managers and assessors. Contractors will assist with policy creation and implementation guidance for the

Risk Management Framework, including reviewing controls, analyzing and performing assessments to validate completed activities (i.e., financial and cybersecurity controls) meet audit standards for

FIAR compliance.

19 Page 19/ Task 5: FIAR IT

Systems/Integration/Support

2.5.2.9: Support the AF Business

Capability Acquisition Cycle (BCAC) as required for development activity related to FIAR business processes. This support

For AFWCFi current systems (or the WCF portion of them) to be subsumed are:

ABS

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

shall include: Provide research and support to ensure future BCACAF WCF

DBS systems material to audit are FIAR compliant.

Will the Government provide additional information about the WCF Defense

Business Systems (DBS)?

‒ Can you identify them in

PWS ATTACHMENT D -

Feeder Systems?

‒ How many are they?

‒ Will they be hosted by Air

Force or other third party organizations?

This information influences the offeror’s ability to document a clear and concise approach and methodology within the response to the RFP, and informs staffing and pricing.

ABSS

APO

DIFMS

FIABS

GAFS-R

SMAS

Feeder systems are:

AFEMS, ATAAPS, DCPS,

DMAPS, DMLSS, ILS-S, SCS

Hosting decisions have not been made at this time.

For CON-IT systems to be subsumed are: ACPS, ConWrite, SPS.

20 Page 20/Task 5: FIAR IT

Systems/Integration/Support

2.5.2.20: Assist SAF/FMF in the development and sustainment the annual

Statement on Standards Attestation

Engagement 18 assertion package for

DEAMS in accordance with AICPA standards and OUSD FIAR Guidance.

Support shall include all control objective testing in support of assertion.

Analyzing SSAE18 reports, designing and implementing processes to review and validate CUECs over relevant systems

Two separate requirements.

2.5.2.20 is to develop the management assertion for the

DEAMS SSAE. As part of the support, there is associated annual updates and annual testing.

2.2.1.8 is the monitoring of all

SSAE reports that are applicable to the Air Force and create

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

owned by others. Analysis feeds SSAE monitoring report in 2.2.1.8.

Can the Government please clarify what the contractor will be expected to do with regards to SSAE 18 reports? Will the contractor be expected to test controls objectives and issue SSAE 18 reports AND review SSAE 18 reports issued by other

IPAs?

Are the CUECs referenced here related to systems owned by Air Force (e.g. DEAMS) or systems owned by service providers (e.g.

DFAS, DLA, U.S Bank, etc.)?

monitoring reports that document the review and associated testing of Air Force internal controls to address CUEC requirements in each of the SSAEs. Sample monitoring report was provided in Bidder’s Library.

Bidder’s Library document

SSAE SOC Listing 051917 listed all the SSAEs known as of that point in time, approximately 20.

21-22 PWS_2.6.2 Page #21 -22 The schedule shall also include delivery dates of sustainment courses for existing course content, training medium (e.g., in-person, virtual instructor, e-learning self-study) and a target list of USAF participants, etc.

We request that the Government clarify what existing content the government has and how this compares to the content the contractor is expected to create as indicated in the step above?

We request the Government provide added

Formal training moved to Task 9 in the PWS. A Task Order will requirement is identified.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

clarity for this Section such as:

a. How many courses need to be sustained?

b. How long are the courses currently?

c. How much time will be allocated for the development of new courses?

c. Are they mixed medium or all in person trainings?

d. What platform/LMS are courses currently stored and will the contractor be responsible for uploading and testing the electronic content?

e. Will the contractor be required for certifying courses for CETs?

22 Page 22, 2.7 Task 7: Acquisition

Program Office Valuation Sustainment

“… Acquisition Program

Office…Sustainment”

The title of Task 7 was changed from

“Existence and Completeness, and

Valuation” to “Acquisition Program Office

Valuation Sustainment”. Will the Air Force please clarify why the title of Task 7 was changed, and whether requirements have been changed for Task 7 (for example, supporting the substantiation of existence and completeness of assets) given there were inconsequential changes to the sub-tasks?

The title was changed to better reflect the requirements identified in the PWS.

Requirements did not change.

See updated PWS with the attachments.

22 Page 22, 2.7 Task 7: Acquisition

Program Office Valuation Sustainment

“2.7.3 … See PWS Attachment B –

Deliverables…”

The reference to “PWS Attachment B –

Deliverables” is made in Sub-tasks 2.7.3, PWS Attachment B updated.

RFP FA7014-17-R-5002

Page # Section, Paragraph, or Attachment Question/Comment/Clarification Government Responses:

2.7.6, 2.7.8, and 2.7.10.3, but “PWS

Attachment B – Deliverables” does not reference Task 7 and appears incomplete.

Will the Air Force be updating “PWS

Attachment B – Deliverables?”

Attachment

D

PWS ATTACHMENT D - Feeder

Systems

PWS ATTACHMENT D:: ** New System

Being Deployed, or related old system.

The key in PWS Attachment D indicates

“**” for new system being deployed or related old system, however this identifier seems not to be included in the list for any of the systems. Will the Government please update Attachment D to identify which are new systems to be deployed and which ones are related old systems?

PWS Attachment D updated.

New systems are NexGen and

CON-IT.

Attachment

10 Page 6

Attachment F and Attachment 10 page 6

(section 2.3)

2.3 Contractor/ Key Personnel

2.3.1 Program Manager: The Contractor’s

Project Manager is responsible for the overall execution of the task order. This individual will serve as the focal point for the CM/CO and/or PM assigned to the IDIQ contract and may interface with the customer, as needed.

2.3.2 Project/Task Lead: The Project/Task

Lead for each Task Order is responsible for technical or quality control oversight, this individual may be the Project Manager

2.3.3 Engagement Partner: The Engagement

Partner is responsible for overseeing the

PWS…