STORM_Question_Responses_20180730.pdf

FA7014‐18‐R‐1011 Solicitation Questions Page 1of 3

Q&A # Document Section/ Paragraph

Page Reference Question/Recommendation Answers

1 PWS CDRLs A001- A006

3.5.9, 3.6.8 13, 16 3.6.8 "(Deliverables: Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL) 1 Deliverable 001 STORM Campaign Alpha Developmental Release, CDRL 2 Deliverable 002 STORM Campaign Analysis Toolkit Beta Developmental Release, and CDRL 3 Deliverable 003 STORM Analysis Toolkit Final Version Release.)"

These CDRLs appear to be misidentified. CDRL 1 is for the STORM model, not the STORM Campaign Analysis Toolkit (SCAT), and Block 5 of its DD Form 1423-1 indicates it pertains to PWS para 3.5.8. The titles of CDRLs 2 and 3 also reference the STORM model, and the block 5 of those DD Form 1423-1s reference paras 3.5.8 and 3.5.9 respectively. CDRLs 4-6 reference the SCAT, and their block 5's reference para 3.6.8, but they are not listed under para 3.6.8.

Please clarify which CDRLs apply to which PWS paragraphs.

Corrected. PWS sections should now reference the correct

CDRL.

2 PWS CDRLs A001-A002

3.5.8, 3.5.9, 3.12, 4.0

13 3.5.9 "No later than 60 days prior to the determined release date, the Contractor shall deliver an alpha version to the Model Manager. Testing shall be done in the alpha version, discrepancies shall be resolved, and corrections shall be implemented into a beta version to be delivered to the Model Manager no less than 30 days prior to the determined version release date."

This language, which applies to the alpha (CDRL A001) and beta (CDRL A002) versions of the STORM model, appears in PWS paragraph 3.5.9, but the Block 5 of the DD Form 1423-1s for these CDRLs identifies them as referencing PWS paragraph 3.5.8, which contains no mention of them. Likewise, the tables in PWS paragraphs 3.12 and 4.0 associate them with paragraph 3.5.8. Please clarify.

Correct, A001 and A002 should reference 3.5.9 and the tables have been adjusted to reflect this change.

3 PWS CDRLS

A004-A006

3.6.8, 3.6.11 16-17 3.6.11 "(CDRL) 4 Deliverable 004 STORM Campaign Analyst Toolkit Alpha Developmental Release, CDRL 5 Deliverable 005 STORM Campaign Analyst Toolkit Beta Developmental Release, and CDRL 6 Deliverable 006 STORM Campaign Analyst Toolkit Final Version Release."

Block 5 of the DD Form 1423-1 for CDRLs 4-6 indicates they refer to PWS para

3.6.8. Please clarify the relationship of CDRLs 4-6 to PWS para 3.6.11.

To avoid confusion reference to CDRLs A004 - A006 has been removed from 3.6.11, leaving

3.6.8 as the sole PWS reference.

4 PWS CDRLs A004-A005

3.12, 4.0 27, 29 The PWS Column of Table Rows 4 and 5, corresponding to CDRLs 4 and 5. Block 5 of the DD Form 1423-1 for CDRLs 4-5, and the PWS column of the CDRL Table under PWS paragraph 3.12 show that these CDRLs reference PWS paragraph 3.6.8. The PWS column of the CDRL Table under PWS paragraph 4 shows that these CDRLs reference PWS paragraph 3.6.7. Please clarify.

Table in PWS 4.0 has been corrected to list 3.6.8 as the reference for CDRL A004 - A006

5 PWS

CDRL A002

3.12, 4.0 27, 29 3.12 "30 days prior to FINAL version release once those dates are established after CAD "

4.0 "VRD – 30 day" A002 "12. The final deliverable is due 60 days prior to the version release date established by the Model Manager under 10 above."

Please clarify the due date for Deliverable 002 given the conflicting dates in the PWS and the CDRL and provide updates to the PWS and/or the CDRL.

CDRL A002 has been updated to reflect 30 days.

9 PWS

CDRL A003

3.12, 4.0 27, 29 3.12 "5 days prior to FINAL version release once those dates are stablished after CAD"

4.0 "VRD"

A003 "12. The final deliverable is due 60 days prior to the version release date established by the Model Manager under 10 above."

Please clarify the due date for Deliverable 003 given the conflicting dates in the PWS and the CDRL and provide updates to the PWS and/or the CDRL.

CDRL A003 and Table 4.0 updated to reflect 5 days.

10 PWS

CDRL A005

3.12, 4.0 27, 29 3.12 "30 days prior to FINAL version release once those dates are established after CAD "

4.0 "VRD – 30 days" A005 "12. The final deliverable is due 60 days prior to the version release date established by the Model Manager under 10 above."

Please clarify the due date for Deliverable 005 given the conflicting dates in the PWS and the CDRL and provide updates to the PWS and/or the CDRL.

CDRL A005 has been updated to reflect 30 days.

11 PWS

CDRL A006

3.12, 4.0 27, 29 3.12 "5 days prior to FINAL version release once those dates are established after CAD "

4.0 "VRD"

A006 "12. The final deliverable is due 60 days prior to the version release date established by the Model Manager under 10 above."

Please clarify the due date for Deliverable 006 given the conflicting dates in the PWS and the CDRL and provide updates to the PWS and/or the CDRL.

CDRL A006 and Table 4.0 updated to reflect 5 days.

FA7014‐18‐R‐1011 Solicitation Questions Page 2of 3

Paragraph

Page Reference Question/Recommendation Answers

12 CDRL

A008[2nd]

Block 1 1 "A0008" The CDRL block 1 for "Continuity Plan" lists A008 when it should cite A009.

Please provided an updated CRDL correcting the reference in block 1 to A009.

Corrected. CDRL lists as A009.

13 PWS

CDRL A010

3.12, 4.0 27, 29 All references state that the Transition Plan is to be provided as "part of the proposal".

While CDRL A010 and PWS 3.12 and 4.0 state the transition plan is to be provided as part of the Offerors proposal, Section L instructions for Volume I, Gateway Question, does not provide instructions nor page count to allow for submission of a transition plan. The instructions for Volume II provide for a 10 page supplement which provides pages for the submission of resumes for Key Personnel, but does not provide page count nor instructions for submission of a transition plan.

In which Volume should Offerors include the required transition plan? What is the page limitation associated with the Volume Attachment for the transition plan?

A paragraph in Section L has been added to request a transition plan, this document has a page limit of 25 pages.

14 PWS

CDRL A013

3.12, 4.0 28, 30 3.12 "Provide ALL DATA/MEDIA to COR NLT the last day of the contracted effort"

4.0 "Provide all DATA/MEDIA to COR prior to last day of the contract" A013 "10. All DATA and MEDIA created will be submitted to the COR Model Manager within the final 10 days of the completion of the contract. "

Please clarify the due date for Deliverable 013 given the conflicting dates in the PWS and the CDRL and provide updates to the PWS and/or the CDRL.

3.12 and 4.0 updated to reflect need within final 10 days of completion of the contract.

15 PWS

CDRL A014

3.12, 4.0 28, 30 3.12 "within 30 Days of CAD "

4.0 "15 days of Contract Kick off Meeting " A015 "10. All Non Disclosure Agreement for all individuals working on the contract have to be in the hands of the COR no later than 15 days after contract award."

Please clarify the due date for Deliverable 014 given the conflicting dates in the PWS and the CDRL and provide updates to the PWS and/or the CDRL.

3.12 and 4.0 updated to reflect that NDAs are due within 15 days after contact award.

16 SF33

RFP

Block 4 L 3.2, 3.2.5

1, 32-34 Block 9 of the SF33 "Sealed offers in original and 2 copies for furnishing the supplies or services" Table provided at 3.2 references "Elec. Copies - 1" for all volumes.

3.2.5 makes reference to "a second, redacted, electronic copy of Volumes I, II, III, and IV"

Given this is an email submission, and the inconsistent references to the number of electronic copies required, please clarify the type and numbers of electronic copies required for each Volume. Is Offeror to provide one (1) electronic original + once (1) redacted copy of each volume?

Offerors must submit one redacted proposal and one unredacted proposal. Block 9 has fixed language which cannot be modified.

17 RFP L 3.2.5 34 3.2.5 makes reference to "a second, redacted, electronic copy of Volumes I, II, III, and IV"

Generally only the technical and management submissions are required to be redacted to allow for 'blind' review of an Offeror's submission. Past performance and price information relies on company specific data and citations and is therefore difficult to redact without rendering the redacted version un-useful for review purposes. Please consider revision of paragraph 3.2.5 to limit redacted copies of Volumes I and II only.

Accepted, only Vol. I and II require redaction.

18 RFP L 4.3,

M 2.2.3

37, 42 Section M provides for recency for past performance as "an effort that had a period of performance taking place within the last five (5) years."

Section M, 2.2.3 defines recency of a past performance effort to one performed within the past five years. Furthermore, the adjectival Rating table provides for "Acceptable" as "Period of Performance for work within the last five years," and "Unacceptable" as "Period of performance for work not within the last five years."

However, Section L 4.3 inadvertently describes recency as "not to exceed three

(3) years since completion." Please correct the verbiage in Section L 4.3 to "five

(5) years" to correspond to the detailed evaluation criteria provided for in Section M.

Corrected, five years is the desired period of time to be considered recent.

FA7014‐18‐R‐1011 Solicitation Questions Page 3of 3

Paragraph

Page Reference Question/Recommendation Answers

19 RFP L 4.4 38 "The contractor shall include pricing on unburdened rates for submitted labor categories."

"If the prices to be used are based on a published price list or catalog, the Offeror shall so state, and provide a copy of the document with the price proposal. If the prices are to be based on established market price, not otherwise published, or if prices are applicable only to the proposed contract, the Offeror shall so state. "

Please confirm:

(a) If Offeror has established market prices (published or unpublished) that are directly applicable to this effort, the Offeror may provide evidence of such prices in its proposal submission, and use these prices as the basis for the CLINs X001 so long as Offeror also discloses unburdened rates associated with any labor category prices.

(b) If Offeror has established market prices (published or unpublished) that are directly applicable to this effort, the Offeror may provide evidence of such prices in its proposal submission, and use these prices as the basis for the optional tasks associated with CLINs X002 so long as Offeror also discloses unburdened rates associated with any labor category prices.

Unclear request - for labor categories used to satisfy the requirement unburdened rates must be provided.

20 RFP CLINs X002 L 4.4

2-9, 38 CLIN X002, Campaign Tasks, Contractor shall provide all personnel and support of STORM per section 3 of the PWS.

"The contractor shall include pricing on unburdened rates for submitted labor categories."

"If the prices to be used are based on a published price list or catalog, the Offeror shall so state, and provide a copy of the document with the price proposal. If the prices are to be based on established market price, not otherwise published, or if prices are applicable only to the proposed contract, the Offeror shall so state. "

Given (1) that if the Offeror has established market prices (published or unpublished) that are directly applicable to this effort, the Offeror may provide evidence of such prices in its proposal submission, and use these prices for this effort so long as Offeror also discloses the unburdened rates associated with any labor category prices, and (2) that tasking associated with CLINs X002 are IDIQ and will be based on the same labor categories used to develop CLINs X001; will the Government adjust the CLIN type associated with X002 to IDIQ with issuance of Fixed Price Labor Hour or Firm Fixed Price Task Orders IAW PWS 3.0?

No, the type is CPFF due to the changing nature of Campaign Tasks that could be requested.

21 RFP M 2.2.3 42 "b. Relevancy – For past performance to be considered relevant the offeror should consider the similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and key personnel use. "

M 2.2.3(b) refers to past performance referenced being deemed relevant based on

(1) similarity of product/service/support, (2) complexity, (3) dollar valued, (4) contract type, and (5) key personnel use, yet none of these aspects of past performance appear considered in the adjectival ratings provide in the "Past Performance Relevancy Rating" table. How will the Government consider these five aspects when assessing the relevancy of and Offerors past performance reference?

These aspects will be considered. The use of example tasks was to provide as objective a determination of relevancy as possible.

22 RFP M 2.2.3 42, 43 "Example past performance subjects for STORM include, but do not necessarily require, the following:

1. Campaign Modeling

2. ISO 9001

3. Software Development

4. Help-Desk Support

5. Website Support (Restricted Access)

6. Classroom Presentation & Training Support

7. Courseware Development"

Based on the wording and table provided in M 2.2.3, the seven subjects listed are given equal weight when assessing each past performance citation. Does this reflect the relative importance the government attaches to the desired services in PWS paragraph 3?

These tasks are considered to have equal weight for the purposes of evaluation.

23 RFP M 2.2.3 43 "The offeror’s past performance relevancy will be given an adjectival rating in accordance with the below table:"

Should this sentence read, "The offeror’s past performance relevancy will be given an adjectival rating in accordance with the below table for each effort cited:"?

Yes, it should read for each effort cited. Corrected.