23R0013 Questions and Answers 5123.pdf

FA7014‐23‐R‐0013

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

QUESTION # QUESTION RFP REFERENCE PAGE ANSWER

There appears to be a requirement for Safeguarding at the Secret level (See reference below).

The PWS is silent on safeguarding at SECRET. Moreover, the PWS does not have a requirement to establish an off-base facility for support contract employees.

Question 1: Will the Government confirm that this was an accidental inclusion into this

RFP?

Question 1a: If this was not an accidental inclusion, will the Government consider removing the requirement for safeguarding at SECRET, i.e., change instructions paragraph 3.1.4 Security Requirements/DD254 to: All contractors are required to hold at a minimum a facility clearance level of TOP SECRET with safeguarding at SECRET.

Question 1b: If the Government will not change the safeguarding at SECRET requirement, will the Government allow this requirement to be met by offerors subcontractors who: 1) have facilities in the NCR and 2) have safeguarding at SECRET?

Attachment 2 DD 254 1. Reference to safeguarding was in error. ITO para 3.1.4 is corrected to remove safeguarding.

1a. Question no longer applicable 1b. Safeguarding is determined not required, therefore question is not applicable.

Under Section 3.1.1e, Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, Applicable Designations, should offers provide the SAM Unique Entity ID (UEI) in lieu of DUNS?

Attachment 5: ITO and Evaluation Criteria Section 3.1.1b

3 ITO para 3.1.1 is updated to read "SAM Unique Entity ID

(UEI)"

Offerors are instructed to complete the DD254 (Blocks 6 and 8).

If an Offeror is proposing a Subcontractor, should the Subcontractor information be included in Block 7a/b/c (Subcontractors)?

Offerors are instructed to complete the DD254 (Blocks 6 and 8).

4 Yes. Subcontractor information needs to be included in the

DD254.

Per the PWS, the place of performance will be identified at the task order level however, the contractor can expect accomplishment of the effort contained in this PWS requires work at Government facilities within National Capital Region (NCR). Based on this, can the Government verify if an Offeror should complete Block 8 (Actual Place of Performance) of the DD254? If an Offeror does indeed need to complete Block 8, should the Offeror include the locations of any proposed Subcontractors as well?

Attachment 1:

Performance Work Statement Section 4.1

19 Please mark as N/A. Performance to be accomplished at Government facilities.

Offerors are instructed to ensure all required representations and certifications have been filled-in/completed and provided in their proposal.

Question 1: Does the Government require individual Representations and Certifications from only the Prime Offeror, or shall proposals include Representations and Certifications from the Prime Offeror and any proposed Subcontractors?

Attachment 5: ITO and Evaluation Criteria Section 3.1.5

4 Reps and certs only required for the Prime. The Prime is to validate the proposed subcontractors.

Attachment 5 Sections 3.2.4.1.1 and 3.2.4.1.2 state that pricing shall be provided by mapping proposed Labor Categories to GSA OASIS Labor Categories. Additionally, Attachment 4, Price List, does not include any proposed Labor Categories.

Question 1: This is a stand-alone Multiple Award IDIQ Contract. Can the Government clarify why pricing is being requested for all GSA OASIS Labor Categories?

Question 2: Will the Government provide a list of all Labor Categories that an Offeror shall propose pricing for? This is further needed as if an Offeror is not currently a GSA OASIS contract holder as they do not have a current listing of Labor Categories on this contract.

Attachment 5: ITO and Evaluation Criteria Section 3.2.4.1.1 Section 3.2.4.1.2

RFP Attachment 4, Price List Tab 1 – Price List Tab 2 – PECP / Fringe Benefits

6 Q1: Para 3.2.4.12 revised to reflect: BLS SOC.

Q2: List of all labor categories are at the Offeror's discretion and expertise to meet the PWS.

Can the Government clarify what the period of performance is for each contract/fully burdened rate year? Currently, for Year 1 it references “Jan – Dec 2023.” If proposals are due in April 2023, should each anticipated contract year be updated?

RFP Attachment 4, Price List Tab 1 – Price List

The contract has a 5 year order period. Period of Performance will be identified at the task order level. The Offeror has full discretion to determine the Rate Years. The Government just asks that the Pricelist covers the 5 year ordering period.

Offerors are required to fill-in fully burdened labor rate(s) for each labor category proposed to included team members or subcontracts. Further, team member/subcontractor labor categories shall be identified.

Within Attachment 4, where shall a Prime Offeror identify team member/subcontractor labor categories?

Attachment 5: ITO and Evaluation Criteria Section 3.2.3

Attachment 4 is a template, adding additional cells to identify team member/subcontractor categories can be added at offeror's discretion.

Can a Prime Offeror add a tab to Attachment 4 to include the fully burdened labor rates for each category that a team member/subcontractor is identified against as these rates will typically be less than the Prime Offeror rate due to pass-through/indirect burdening applied? For example, the fully burdened labor rates for a Labor Category may be $10.00 which includes the Prime and all Subcontractors however, the Subcontract fully burdened labor rates may be $8.00 due to the Prime Offeror’s application of pass-through/indirect burdening. How should this information be disclosed to the Government to ensure a Subcontractor’s Sealed Proposal Volume/Subfolder submission reconciles to the Prime Offeror’s Volume/Subfolder as the Subcontractor’s proposal will reflect $8.00.

RFP Attachment 4, Price List Tab 1 – Price List Tab 2 – PECP / Fringe Benefits

N/A Yes, Attachment 4 is a template. Offeror's price list should reflec the Prime's fully burdened price. The Government is only requiring Subcontractor's unburdened rates for the PECP realism determination. For example:

For Pricelist:

Prime sys engineer $10.00 Sub sys engineer $11.50 ($8.00 + Prime overhead)

For PECP:

Prime's direct sys engineer: $X.XX Subcontractor's sys engineer: $X.XX (subktr to gov)

A Prime Offeror is required to submit a Price Volume/Subfolder that includes 1.) Price List (Attachment 4) and 2.) Price Narrative (PECP, Supporting Data, etc.).

Can the Government confirm, that in addition to the Prime Offeror’s submission (stated above) that each proposed Subcontractor shall also submit directly to the Government a sealed Subcontractor Price Volume/Subfolder that includes 1.) Price List (Attachment 4) and 2.) Price Narrative (PECP, Supporting Data, etc.).

Attachment 5: ITO and Evaluation Criteria Section 3.2.3

RFP Attachment 4

6-8

N/A

Yes, Proposed Subcontractors shall also submit labor rates and PECP pricing directly to the Government.

"Note: Subcontractor/team partner(s)(if applicable) shall submit this information directly to the Government Points of Contact identified in this RFP."

Is there a minimum validity period required for this proposal and should an Offeror include a statement regarding the proposal validity period in the Cover Letter or under Volume I Price Narrative, Section 3.1.1?

Attachment 5: ITO and Evaluation Criteria Section 3.1.1

3-4 FAR 52.212-1 Addendum has been updated to state: The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

The ITO Section 3.1.4 states “All contractors are required to hold at a minimum a facility clearance level of TOP SECRET with safeguarding at SECRET”. However, the DD254 lists “none” in block 1b and PWS 4.1 states that all work will be done at government facilities, making it appear that secret safeguarding should not be required. Can the government please update the ITO and eval criteria to reflect the need for a TS facility clearance but no requirement for safeguarding?

This requirement would severely impact small businesses and restrict competition when it does not appear there is an actual need for secret-level safeguarding. If safeguarding is in fact required, can the government please clarify that any member of the team (prime, major sub, etc.) can meet this requirement?

Atch 5: Page 4; section 3.1.4; DD254: Block 1b;

PWS: Section 4.1

See Question 1

Table 1 in section 2.6 shows that offerors are to organize their proposal submission into different volumes, folders, and subfolders, but there are no instructions on how these elements should actually be submitted. Are the folders/subfolders referenced in this table meant to be actual folders/zipfolders that contain the elements listed in the “title” column as separate files (e.g. Volume I: Administrative Folder is a folder/zipfolder that contains the five separate files listed under it in the table; Volume II Evaluation Folder is a folder/zipfolder which contains 3 separate subfolders which all contain the separate files listed under them in the table)?

Atch 5: Page 2-3;

Section 2.6, Table 1

Yes, the Volume/Subfolders referenced in Table 1. Proposal Organization are the folders that should contain the elements listed in the “Title” column as separate files.

Atch 5 section 2.3 includes the points of contact and instructions offerors should use in order to submit questions via email, however, there are no instructions in section 2.5 or anywhere else in the ITO for how offerors are to submit their proposal.

Q1: Can the government please clarify if offerors are to email their proposals to the points of contact in section 2.3, or clarify the method of proposal submission (i.e. DOD

SAFE)?

Q2: If email is the required method of submission, can the government please clarify the maximum file size for submitted folders/documents?

Q3: Additionally, if subcontractors will be providing proprietary rate data, are they permitted to submit that information directly to the government?

Atch 5: Page 1-2;

Section 2.3, 2.5

Q1. Para 2.1 revised to instruct submission Q2. Government will not limit document size. PIEE is a great resource to upload package. Please send emails to the referenced POCs to get dropoff link for any files greater than

5MB.

Q3: Para 3.2.4.3 states "Note: Subcontractor/team partner(s) (if applicable) shall submit this information directly to the Government Points of Contact identified in this RFP".

Section 3.2.1.2.1 states, “The Offeror shall submit proposed qualifications and justification for the Key Personnel for review to show their understanding of the requirement” and section 2.3.1.2.1 states, “The Government will evaluate how well the proposed Key Personnel represent an understanding of the requirement”. However, the PWS states that, “Key positions will be identified at the task order level” and lists no information regarding LCATS or position descriptions for personnel. Can the government please remove the requirement for key personnel from the Atch 5 since key personnel are not required at the IDIQ level or clarify how offerors are expected to address this requirement?

Atch 5: Pg 5, section 3.2.1.2.1; Pg 14, section 2.3.1.2.1; PWS pg 13;

section 1.4.5

Please see revised Atch 5 Instruction to Offerors and Atch 1

PWS.

This section requires that offerors, “populate Tab 2 by mapping proposed Labor Categories to GSA OASIS Labor Categories”. However, this opportunity did not release on the OASIS vehicle. We recommend the government update this requirement to remove the OASIS LCAT reference. Will the government be providing a list of Labor Categories or qualifications requirements for the offerors to develop pricing against?

Atch 5: Pg 7, Section 3.2.4.1.2

See Question 6

On page 16, Total Evaluated Price (TEP), Section 2.3.3.1.1, the Government indicates it will evaluate TEP based on the average of the sum of all proposed labor rates. Without a consistent set of positions/categories for offerors to create rates against the basis for average rate may differ drastically across proposals based on their assessment of the type and experience of labor required to perform the tasks. We recommend the Government provide a standardized basis for labor categories and rate development to ensure an equivalent basis for price evaluation.

page 16, Total Evaluated Price (TEP), Section 2.3.3.1.1

See revised Attachment 4 Price Spreadsheet - TEP includes 17 labor categories.

On page 17, Unbalanced Pricing, Section 2.3.3.1.3, the Government indicates it will evaluate price balance by reviewing the line item prices for each labor element. Given this is an IDIQ, how will the Government assess unbalanced pricing given there is no standardized model for defining the quantity or type of labor anticipated across the IDIQ (e.g., IDIQ level categories and plug hours for evaluation of the total rate/price model)?

page 17, Unbalanced Pricing, Section 2.3.3.1.3

See revised 2.3.3.1.3. Unbalanced rates.

We recommend the Government provide a uniform set of functional positions for the IDIQ that establish a baseline of education and experience required in order to ensure uniformity in the price evaluation.

PWS, General See question 15

Attachment 4, Price Spreadsheet (Read First Tab, Note 1) indicates that offerors are highly encouraged to propose offsite pricing, however, the PWS states that performance will be done at government locations. Can the government please clarify?

Attachment 4, Price Spreadsheet

Offsite pricing will provide ceiling rates.

On page 17, Unbalanced Pricing, Section 2.3.3.1.3, the Government indicates it will evaluate price balance by reviewing quantity matrix factors. Given the pricing spreadsheet (Attachment 4) does not require a quantity allocation by line item can the Government please further define this evaluation criteria and how it will be applied?

page 17, Unbalanced Pricing, Section 2.3.3.1.3

See question 18

On page 1, Section 1, the Government indicates FFP IDIQ contracts are contemplated.

We recommend the requirement for subcontractor-specific price information (p. 7, Section 3.2.4.1.1) be amended as only necessary for any cost-type subcontracts.

Atch 5, pg 1, section 1 Firm Fixed prices will be established. Cost Type Subcontracts will not allowed accepted. Commercial terms and conditions apply.

Section 3.2.4.2 (p. 8) and 2.3.3.1.5 (p. 17) require documentation to be provided by first-tier subcontractors. Can the Government please define first-tier subcontractors for purposes of this solicitation (those directly subcontracted to the prime offeror or other definition)?

Atch 5, Section 3.2.4.2

(p. 8) and 2.3.3.1.5 (p.

17)

See FAR 52.204-10

Section 2.3.1.1 (p. 12) references demonstrating an understanding of the certifications required by the PWS tasks. The PWS references certifications on p. 12 (as part of PMR status updates) and p. 22 (maintaining a DSS-certified FSO as part of the management team). PWS Section 4.7 (p. 22) also notes the range of security clearance requirements anticipated across the IDIQ. Can the Government please clarify the instruction for demonstrating understanding of certification requirements?

Atch 5, Section 2.3.1.1

(p. 12)

Atch 1; 4.7.1, pg. 23 - The Contractor shall be responsible for understanding security obligations and shall assist in the formulation of adequate procedures for the safeguarding of classified defense and other protected information.

Section 3.2.4.1.1 (Tab 1 Price List) indicates offerors are required to fill-in fully burdened labor rate(s) for each labor category proposed to include team members or subcontractor. Is the Government indicating that the prime’s price list submission should show subcontractor ceiling rates defined separately from the prime’s categories and rates?

Atch 5, pg 6-7, Section

3.2.4.1.1 (Tab 1 Price List

Yes, the prime’s price list submission should show subcontractor ceiling rates defined separately from the prime’s categories and rates.

Reference Section 2.3.3.1.4 (Completeness) the Government indicates the Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. Given that the only pricing input required are offeror-defined rates can the Government further define how traceability to the technical volume will be evaluated?

Atch 5, pg 17, Section 2.3.3.1.4

Prime's proposed labor categories and skill mix shall show the tracebility to the technical volume.

On page 17 of the Solicitation, under FAR Clause 52.212-5, the Contracting Officer has inserted X’s in front of multiple sub paragraphs within the clause that have no text, e.g.

52.215-5 (b)(14) on page 17 has an “X”, but does not contain any language indicating what is applicable as a result of said “X” being placed. Please confirm that there is not language missing and that the X’s were placed in error. Please provide any missing language.

Solicitation, pg 17 Due to the Contract writing system the X applies to the following clause X (14) (i) 52.219-6, Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (Nov 2020) (15 U.S.C. 644).

This is common through out the dcoument as you can see in (b)18 and 22

In reviewing the RFP for FA7014-23-R-0013, I note the requirement for a Top Secret facility clearance with Secret safeguarding at time of proposal submittal (L.3.1.4) to be eligible for award.

1. The DD254 specifies None in Block 1.b. Should that be marked Secret?

2. Please confirm that the will Government allow the safeguarding requirement to be met by a subcontractor or teaming partner as long as both they and the Offeror hold a Top Secret facility clearance?

3. Given that the NAICS 541611 and size standard $24.5m, most small businesses will not have an existing storage capability. Will the Govt consider removing or sponsoring the container requirement?

4. Given that the Place of Performance is primarily at Government facilities, please explain the requirement for the Offeror to have safeguarding capability.

Please see question 1

We noticed the task areas in the final solicitation Performance Work Statement (PWS) are not all inclusive of the tasks in the draft PWS released with the RFI. Specifically, we are referring to the senior leader support, cyber security support, ITAM and EIT portfolio management support, and governance and audit support. Are you able to provide information on how these services will be procured?

Please reference the final PWS.

Can you please confirm that prime/small businesses offerors who fall under the 541611 / $24.5M NAICS code, can partner with large business companies as their subcontractors?

In other words, do prospective subcontractor partners for this requirement have to also be under the 541611 / $24.5M NAICS code size?

The NAICS requirement helps to confirm the size of the prime, so in this case, the onus is solely on the prime.

FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting is incorporated in this requirement.

This paragraph refers to the “AF A2/6 Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) and Cyber Effects Operations (CEO) (ICE) Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS)” requirement, which is a different name than appears on the front page of the PWS. That is, this paragraph omits reference to Electromagnetic Spectrum Superiority.

Please clarify the official name of this solicitation.

Atch 5 ITO, Pg 2, Para 2.5.2

Revised.

While Table 1 (p. 3) shows Volume II as “Evaluation Folder,” paragraph 3.2 shows Volume II as “Evaluated Folder.” Please confirm the correct name of this volume is “Evaluation Folder.”

Atch 5 ITO, Pg 4, Para 3.2

Yes, the correct name of the volume is Evaluation Folder

While this paragraph refers to ASPECT 10 as “Warfighting Integration Governance Support,” PWS paragraph 1.2.10 (PWS p. 11) refers to this requirement as “Requirements Analyst/ Capability Development Coordinator.” Please confirm PWS paragraph 1.2.10 is discussing the same requirement shown in ASPECT 10.

Atch 5 ITO, Pg 13, Para 2.3.1.1.2

Confirmed. PWS 1.2.10 is discussing the same requirement shown in ASPECT 10

While this paragraph refers to ASPECT 2 as “Spectrum Support,” PWS paragraph 1.3.1 (PWS p. 11) refers to this requirement as “Air Force Spectrum Management Office (AFSMO).” Please confirm PWS paragraph 1.3.1 is discussing the same requirement shown in ASPECT 2.

Atch 5 ITO, Pg 13, Para 2.3.1.1.3

Confirmed. PWS 1.3.1 and ITO 2.3.1.1.3 Aspect 2 are describing the same requirement

This requirement refers to “The entire and complete proposal, composed of Volumes I through IV.” However, Table 1 (p. 3) specifies only two volumes. Please clarify the intended number of volumes.

Atch 5 ITO, pg 1, Para 2.1

Atch 5 para 2.1 revised to read: Volumes I and II

Please confirm that the clauses on pp. 7-28 that require completion belong in Volume I in the Contract Documents section.

Solicitation, DFARS Clauses Incorporated by Reference, pgs 7-28

Confirmed

Please confirm that the clauses on pp. 30-50 that require completion belong in Volume I in the Reps and Certs section

Solicitation, Representations, Certification, & Other Statements, pgs 30-50

Confirmed

Please confirm that Offerors may use 11-point Times New Roman font, with a minimum o 10-point font for tables and graphics. If there are any other requirements pertaining to proposal layout, please share them.

N/A Font sizes are at Offeror's discretion.

While this paragraph specifies the need for Top Secret FCL “with safeguarding at SECRET,” Box 1.b of the DD254 indicates the level of safeguarding is “None,” and Box 11.a is checked, implying access at the government site or SCIF is acceptable. Please consider removing the secret safeguarding language from ITO 3.1.4.

Atch 5 ITO , Pg 4, 3.1.4 See question 1

Please confirm that the initial paragraph, a., and c. are the only requirements for 3.1.1.

for Narrative Summary as "b" is missing.

Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cri 32223, Section 3.1.1

Confirmed. See revised

Section 2.1 states, "The entire and complete proposal, composed of Volumes I through IV, shall be submitted by the date and time stated in Block 8." However, Section 2.6 does not reflect four volumes, just two volumes with Volume II having three "Subfolders."

1. Please clarify how many Volumes vendors need to submit and clarify titles for each Volume.

Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cri 32223, Section 2.1 and Section 2.6

See question 35

The ITO does not provide any formatting instructions. Does the government have a preference for margins, font size/type for text, font size/type for graphics, tables, charts, etc.

Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cri 32223

See Question 38

Please confirm that for submission, vendors should submit electronically to the three points of contact noted in the RFP.

Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cri 32223

Confirmed

In the Technical Capability volume, should vendors referece "subfolder" or "subfactor" as "subfolder" is referenced in the Instructions and "subfactor" is referenced in the evaluation section.

Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cri 32223

Proposal submission should be labled subfolders.

For submission, please provide the maximum file size limit. Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cri 32223

File Size is at Offeror's discretion. For files greater than 10MB, recommend Offeror's to coordinate with all 3 POCs to get a DoD SAFE invite.

Section 3.2.1.2.1 Staffing Plan states, "The Offeror shall submit proposed qualifications and justification for the Key Personnel for review to show their understanding of the requirement."

1. Could the government please clarify what they are seeking from vendors with this requirement.

Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cri 32223, Section 3.2.1.2.1

See question 15

To comply with 13 C.F.R. § 125.2(g), which requires that the capabilities, past performance, and experience of first tier small business subcontractors be considered if the offer is from a small business prime contractor and includes a team of small business subcontractors, can the Government please confirm that small business Offerors may meet the requirement of Section 3.1.4, which requires offerors to hold a minimum facility clearance level of TOP SECRET with safeguarding kept at SECRET, if the Offeror proposes a named first-tier small business subcontractor with such facility clearance if it does not independently hold such clearance?

Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cr 32223, Section 3.1.4

See question 1

Will the Government consider an offer where the prime contractor has a SECRET Facility Clearance, but proposes a named small business subcontractor that holds a TOP SECRET Facility Clearance to perform the security work (i.e., the TS/SCI positions/roles in accordance with the PWS)?

Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cr 32223, Section 3.1.4

The PRIME must have TOP SECRET CLEARANCE to be awardable.

To comply with 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)(4), which states that a joint venture may be awarded a contract requiring a facility security clearance where the individual partner to the joint venture that will perform the necessary security work has a facility security clearance, can the Government please confirm that joint venture Offerors may meet the requirement of Section 3.1.4, which requires offerors to hold a minimum facility clearance level of TOP SECRET with safeguarding kept at SECRET, if the joint venture partner that will perform the necessary security work has a minimum facility clearance level of TOP SECRET with safeguarding kept at SECRET.

Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cr 32223, Section 3.1.4

See question 1

Please clarify Section 2.1.2, which states that if the “Offeror (and its *subcontractor(s)/teaming partner(s), if applicable), does not have an active TOP SECRET Facility Clearance (as verified by the CAGE code) at the receipt of proposal submission, the proposal will not be evaluated.” Does the Government intend to require all offerors and all of their subcontractors/teaming partners to possess an active TOP SECRET Facility Clearance at the top of proposal submission, regardless of which positions such partners will perform? Or does the Government only intend to require evidence of the facility clearance for the partner that will actually perform the security work?

Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cr 32223, Section 3.1.4

See question 1

Given that no draft was provided with sections L & M and the size and complexity of the RFP, will the government provide an additional two (2) weeks for small businesses to respond to the governments request?

Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cri 32223

Please see amendment 1

In the Evaluation Criteria, Section 2.3.1.2.2 Management Plan, the third bullet is incomplete. Please complete this bullet.

Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cri 32223, Evaluation, Section 2.3.1.2.2

ITO is corrected to read, "Ensure personnel and tasks are compliant with regulations, as identified in the PWS"

Section 3.2.2.1(iii) asks for Contracting Agency/Customer Point of Contact or reference having knowledge of contract performance. Is the government looking for Contracting Agency and Name for Point of Contact? Please clarify.

Atch 5 ITO and Eval Cri 32223, Section 3.2.2.1(iii)

Confirmed. Governemnt is looking for the Contracting Agency/Customer point of contact or reference having knowledge of contract performance

To what extent is the contractor supporting this effort? For example, will the FTE be solely responsible for the functionality of the DCIPS program or is the customer requesting more in-depth/innovative approaches to using DCIPS as a backbone for a larger workforce development strategy?

Atch 1 A26 PWS Section

1.1.2 DCIPS

PWS 1.0.3 Objective - The objective is to provide specialized expertise to complement the organization’s inherent resources for mission accomplishment, introduction of innovation, and enhancement of technical competence. The contractor shall support the HAF A2/6 Intelligence Enterprise over the entire spectrum of HAF A2/6 operations as necessary to support the respective Government organizations

Section 1.0.2. Scope states "The contractor shall provide all personnel, labor, supervision, and management to perform onsite business system application support services, in the form of Management and Professional Support Services, Studies, Analysis, Evaluations, and Engineering and Technical Services." Section 1.4.10 Contractor Personnel Administration states "The Contractor shall provide for the management and support of personnel. This includes, but is not limited to: providing for employees during designated Government non-business days or other periods where Government offices are closed."

Please clarify if the Contractor is required to provide secure facilities to conduct services off-site from US Government provided facilities, and if the cost of the telecommunications equipment and service to connect to Government networks is born by the Government or the Contractor.

Also, could the government confirm that if the Government facility is closed, vendors will still have access to the facility (i.e., Open and Close Authority for the Facility).

Atch 1 A26 PWS Section

1.0.2. Scope and Section

1.4.10 Contractor

Personnel Administration

Contractor is NOT required to conduct secured/classified performance on designated Government non-business days or other periods where Government offices are closed.

Access will NOT be provided on designated Government non-business days or other periods where Government offices are closed.

Section 2.4.4 states "The Contractor shall permit the CO or authorized representative access to all work areas, records, and data used in the performance of the contracted services." Is the Contractor to provide secure facilities and data stores to house all work, records, and data, outside of Government facilities?

Atch 1 A26 ICE PWS, Section 2.4.4 Access

Offeror's shall have the capability. See question 1

Section 4.10 Teleworking states: Ad hoc teleworking as a result of inclement weather, base closures, or special work assignments at alternate duty locations is permitted on a case-by-case basis with the approval of the COR. Regularly scheduled teleworking for certain positions can be authorized by the COR on a short-term or long-term basis. The Contractor shall allow 3 business days for the government to review and approve / disapprove each request for regularly scheduled teleworking. The government will consider the security, surveillance, and asset availability implications for each request.

Security reviews will consider each area of paragraph 7.13 of this PWS as it pertains to teleworking. Surveillance reviews will consider the government’s procedures to verify the Contractor’s ability to perform the tasks required by the PWS. Operating costs associated with the Contractor using alternative duty locations will not be assumed by the Government. All equipment must be authorized by the Government for use. Costs associated with travel between the alternate work location and the government location in paragraph 3.4 to which the Contractor would normally be assigned will not be assumed by the Government. The provisions of paragraph 3.5 apply to travel between the alternate work location and any TDY location. The Contractor shall maintain availability during core hours via email and phone. All expenses for Internet, telephone connectivity, and other equipment services shall be provided by the Contractor.

The PWS does not include a paragraph 3.5 or 7.13.

Atch 1 A26 ICE PWS, Section 4.10 Teleworking

Please see revised PWS.

Would the government share example tasks/scenarios for each of the areas to help bidders better understand and respond to the RFP?

Sample PWS are provided.

Will the government share past or anticipated head counts for each area to allow respondents to better respond to the RFP?

Headcounts if related to FTEs is not necessary. Seeking technical capability and pricelist only.

Can the government define or describe the estimated level of simultaneous Task orders to allow respondents to better respond to the RFP?

See ordering guide and FAR 52.216-19.

How will the government evaluate the costs for this RFP if the size, quantity and number of parallel tasks are not defined in the RFP for evaluation purproses? We recognize that labor cats and rates allow cost analysis but how will ability to execute be determined for total headcount?

Seeking Pricelist only to get a pool of vendors for future competiton.

In the instructions to offerors, section 3.2.1.1 Technical Approach states “Offerors shall provide a legible, clear, and coherent narrative describing its approach to fulfill the technical requirements of the Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.1 through 1.4.”

However, PWS 1.4 is “Project Management” and in Section 3.2.1.2.2 Management Plan the instructions state that the offeror must provide a plan to perform the requirements stated in Performance Work Statement paragraphs 1.4 through 5.0. Will the government clarify where the offeror is supposed to address PWS section 1.4 Project Management?

Att 5 ITO 3.2.1.1 Technical Approach and

ITO 3.2.1.2.2

Management Plan

Atch 5 ITO is revised to reflect para 1.1 to 1.3

In the instructions to offerors, section 3.2.1.2.2 Management Plan states that the offeror must provide a plan to perform the requirements stated in Performance Work Statement paragraphs 1.4 through 5.0. However, 2.0 – 5.0 consist of Delivery Summary, Government Furnished Information, General Instructions, and the Glossary of Terms. Will the government clarify if there are any PWS sections beyond PWS 1.4 Project Management that need to be addressed in the Management Plan?

Att 5ITO 3.2.1.2.2 Management Plan

Management Plan should cover sections 1.4 through 1.5.

In the instructions to offerors, section 3.2.1.2.1 Staffing Plan states “The Offeror shall submit proposed qualifications and justification for the Key Personnel for review to show their understanding of the requirement.” However, PWS section 1.4.5 Key Positions states “Key positions will be identified at the task order level.” Will the government clarify if Key Personnel qualifications are to be submitted with the proposal and identify the Key Positions?

Att 5 ITO 3.2.1.2.1 Staffing Plan and PWS

1.4.5 Key Positions

See question 13

In attachment 4 Price Spreadsheet, Tab 1 Price List and Tab 2 Fringe Benefits both have a column for OASIS Labor Category. In the instructions to offerors, section 3.2.4.1.2 Tab 2 PECP states “The Offeror shall populate Tab 2 by mapping proposed Labor Categories to GSA OASIS Labor Categories.” Please confirm that mapping to GSA OASIS Labor Categories is an error as this is not an OASIS procurement.

Att 5 ITO 3.2.4.1.2 Tab 2 PECP and Att 4 Price Spreadsheet

See Question 6.

Section 3.2.1 says Technical shall consist of two (2) documents: Technical Approach and Staffing/Management Approach. This implies these are submitted as separate documents and not one inclusive Technical Volume. Will the government clarify if the Technical Capability is two separate documents or two separate sections in 1 document?

Att 5 ITO 3.2.1 Subfolder 1: Technical Capability

Two (2) documents.

The table shows Volume II Evaluation folder as having 3 subfolders. Can the government clarify how the subfolders are to be submitted? For instance, is the government asking for 3 separate documents to be submitted for Volume II or 1 document for Volume 2 that contains all “subfolders” as sections within the Volume II document?

Att 5 ITO 2.6 Proposal Volume Organization/ Page Limitations

Yes, the Government is asking for 3 subfolders with separate documents to address each element as provided.

The intent is to send out specific documents to different individuals for evaluation without having to scroll through pages looking for sections.

Will the government clarify what is meant by “Other than Certified Cost Pricing Data, if and when applicable” that is listed in Subfolder 3 Price? There is no mention of this in section 3.2.3 Subfolder 3 Price instructions.

Att 5 ITO 2.6 Proposal Volume Organization/ Page Limitations

Instructions for the Other than Certified Cost and Pricing Data will only be provided if and when applicable. The CO will advise when it is applicable. The Offeror is notified to comply if or when the CO advises its applicability.

The instructions for the Management Plan ask for the offerors approach to manage the IDIQ an perform the PWS requirements in 1.4. However, many of the requirements in 1.4 are staffing related. Will the government confirm that staffing related requirements in PWS section 1.4 can be addressed in the “Staffing Plan” section rather than the “Management Plan” section?

Att 5 ITO 3.2.1.2 Staffing/Management Plan

The Offeror's approach to the Staffing should be addressed in the Staffing Plan. The Offeror's approach to managing task orders and PWS requirements should be addressed in the Management Plan.

For each Volume may the offeror provide a Title Page and Table of Contents that are outside of the page count?

Att 5 ITO 2.6 Proposal Volume Organization/ Page Limitations

No, please respect the page limitations. There are only 2 documents with restrictions.

Will the government confirm the Cover Letter is to be provided as a standalone document for submission and not embedded in Volume I or Volume II?

Att 5 ITO 2.6 Proposal Volume Organization/ Page Limitations

Yes, the Cover letter is intended to be a standalone document.

Considering this is a 100% small business set-aside, please provide additional details regarding the purpose and the need to provide separate teaming/subcontractor rates. It is our understanding that each labor category will only have a single ceiling rate per year and that is the maximum labor rate provided on the contract independent of whether the prime offeror or a subcontractor/teammate is staffing that particular labor category.

Att 5 ITO 3.2.4.1.1 Tab 1 Price List

Government's intent is to establish pricelist with labor categories set with a single ceiling rate per year and that is the maximum labor rate provided on the contract independent of whether the prime offeror or a subcontractor/teammate is staffing that particular labor category. Government's intent is to give the Offeror's full discretion on how they provide it based on is business model.

Would the government please provide a 1-2 week extension to allow small business to develop an adequate response for the significant sized technical and management approach areas.

General Yes, see amendment 1

The ITO states “Note: Subcontractor/team partner(s)(if applicable) shall submit this information directly to the Government Points of Contact identified in this RFP.” Would the government provide additional information about what “this information” is referring to or would the government please remove this requirement if no separate sealed subcontractor information is required for this procurement?

Att 5 ITO 3.2.4.3 Supporting Pricing Data

No change. Note is to the supporitng pricing information.

Clarify the purpose/intent of the different reporting requirements for notification of projected vacancy in PWS para 1.4.5 (at least two weeks prior to vacancy/turnover) and PWS para 1.4.13 (within one business day of the position becoming vacant).

PWS, 1.4.5. and 1.4.13, pgs 13 and 15

Para 1.4.5 is corrected. Statement regarding 2 weeks is removed.

Para 1.4.13 is corrected to read 3 business days.

PWS para 1.4.5 notes that personnel turnover shall not exceed 10% of the annual support hours per FTE; the PWS Services Summary table, item SS 2 directs that no positions will be left vacant more than 15 business days, which is a more stringent requirement. What is the purpose/intent of 10% reference in PWS para 1.4.5?

PWS, 1.4.5 and Services Summary table, pgs 13 and 16

Statement removed from para 1.4.5 and revised to and applied to para 1.4. as "Any vacancies resulting in greater than 10% turnover rate within the Period of Performance and any positions left vacant for more than 15 business days require CO/COR approval."

How is the 10% turnover is calculated? PWS, 1.4.5, pg 13 See question 77 and Service Summary 2.1: "No more than 10% turnover rate within the Period of Performance and no positions left vacant for more than 15 business days without CO/COR approval."

PWS para 1.4.1 directs a kickoff meeting within 10 days after contract award; PWS para 2.2, Deliverables, notes a kickoff meeting is required within five days of award. Which is the Government’s intent?

PWS, 1.4.1 and 2.2, pg 13 and 17

PWS para 1.41 corrected to read 5 days

Section 3.1.3 states: “Offerors shall address all assumptions and proposed exceptions to the Contracting Officer through the Questions and Answers process prior to proposal submission. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.” If offerors are to address all assumptions and proposed exceptions through Questions and Answers, what content is the offeror required to provide in its proposal in the “Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements” section of their proposal?

Attachment 5, Section

3.1.3 Exceptions to

Solicitation Requirements, pg 4 of 17

No further exceptions to solicitation is expected.

Section 2.1 Proposal Submission Due Date and Time states: “The entire and complete proposal, composed of Volumes I through IV, shall be submitted by the date and time stated in Block 8 of FA7014-23-R-0013, SF 1449.” The table in Section 2.6 Proposal Volume Organization/Page Limitations lists only Volumes I and II. Can the Government please confirm that there are only two proposal volumes?

Attachment 5, Section 2.1, pg 1 of 17

Attachment 5, Section 2.6, pg 2-3 of 17

Para 2.1 revised to read Cover Letter, Volume I, and Volume

II.

Can the Government please confirm that offerors are to submit proposals in 4 separate files (Cover Letter, Volume I, Volume II, Excel Price Spreadsheet) and that the files are to be submitted via email to Margaret Santos, Shataya Butler, and Timothy Prymak?

Attachment 5, Section 2.1, pg 1 of 17

Attachment 5, Section 2.3, pg 1 of 17

Attachment 5, Section 2.1 revised

Can the Government provide vendors the “digital Air Force initiative” strategy or conops referenced in this section?

PWS 1.0.1, pg 5 This is an overarching PWS for the entire program; detailed requirements are described throughout the PWS and in the service summary section. Requirements will be further described in the individual PWS for each Task Order.

What are the underlying information technology (IT) systems the Government is referring to?

PWS 1.0.1, pg 5 See question 83

Will the Government provide a list of business systems application support services currently being used?

PWS 1.0.2, pg 5 See question 83

What are the Government accuracy, timeliness, and completion metrics of all tasks? PWS 1.0.2, pg 5 See question 83

87 Can the Government clarify what the “introduction of innovation” boundaries are? PWS 1.0.32, pg 6 See question 83

Does the Government desire new systems for the introduction of innovation? PWS 1.0.3, pg 6 See question 83

Does the Government desire new work flow processes for the introduction of innovation? PWS 1.0.3, pg 6 See question 83

Does the Government desire new organizational change for the introduction of innovation?

PWS 1.0.3, pg 6 See question 83

Will the Government provide a copy of the Unified Intelligence Strategy for Aviation to vendors as it is not publicly available?

PWS 1.1.1, pg 6 See question 83

Will the Government provide a copy of the organization construct of the HAF A2/6 organization and NAI2O to vendors?

PWS 1.1.1, pg 6 See question 83

SLA is not defined. Does this refer to the Senior Language Authority? PWS 1.1.3, pg 7 The acronym SLA does refer to Senior Language Authority

PWS para 1.1.3 is revised.

Will the Government identify the underlying information technology (IT) systems referenced?

PWS 1.1.4, pg 7 See Question 83

Is DCDS meant to be DCGS or another system? PWS 1.1.5, pg 8 Yes, Distributed Comm Ground Systems (DCGS). PWS para

1.1.5 revised

ITO Section 3.2.1.1 instructions notes that we have to provide an approach to PWS paragraph 1.1 to 1.4. However, when one reviews the associated evaluation factors under

2.3.1.1 which states how the technical approach will be evaluated, the section is silent on being evaluated in this section.

Can the Government confirm that this was an accidental inclusion as part of Technical Approach? Further, this content is typically covered in a Management Plan. Can the Government place PWS 4.1 under 2.3.1.2.2 Management Plan, since PWS 4.1 is a referenced as an evaluated section under this section?

ITO / PWS 1.4 , N/A See question 63

Can the Government provide their metrics for how they will be evaluating quality?

Section 2.3.2.3 doesn’t detail this.

Attch 5, pg 15 The quality of an Offeror’s past performance may be reviewed and evaluated using systems such as the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition or other sources, or databases known to the Government. Interviews may be conducted with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, Defense Contract Management Agency, or other sources known to the Government.

Section 2.3.2.2. – Relevancy states that in order to obtain a very relevant rating for past performance, one must “Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.” Since this requirement is a small business set aside, and small business primes typically do not have contracts that equal this scope and magnitude ($99M), can the Government confirm that small business prime offerors can score a very relevant rating if, in the aggregate across our team, our past performance submissions covers the scope and magnitude of this requirement?

Attch 5, pg 14 IAW Atch 5 ITO Section 2.3.2 Factor 2: Past Performance states "The Government will consider the offeror’s past performance as an entire team (in the case of joint ventures or where primes propose with substantial subcontractors) or on an individual basis for offerors proposing on their own. "

Can the Government verify that the Prime Contractor must only have a Top Secret Facilities Clearance at the start of the contract?

Attch 5 ITO & Evaluation Criteria - 2.1 Step 2 Attch 2 DD254 Attch 1 A26 ICE PWS, Attach 5 ITO & Evaluation Criteria 2.1.2, the DD254.

Correct, the prime contractor must have a Top Secret facility clearance granted prior to any work being started.

Can the Government please verify that this is in reference to any direct subcontractor? If not can the government define what a first tier subcontractor is?

Attch 5 ITO & Evaluation Criteria, Pg 8, " The prime and first-tier subcontractors shall further provide

See FAR 52.204-10

Can the Government please accept, 10 pt font for text and 8 pt for graphics and tables for an acceptable font size? In addition, can any font style be used?

Attach 5 ITO & Evaluation Criteria - There are no instructions for font type or size.

See question 38

Can the Government confirm that 3.1.5 Representative and Certifications states "Offeror shall ensure all required representations and certifications have been filled-in/completed and are provided in their proposal." is only required for the Prime company offerer?

Attach 5 ITO & Evaluation Criteria, Pg 4 - 3.1.5

Reps and Certs to be completed by Prime

Can the Government clarify if there are Key personnel required, and if so what positions with any associated requirements?

Attach 5 ITO & Evaluation Criteria, Pg.5 & 14 Attch 1 A26 ICE PWS

1.4.5 - Attch 5

See Question 15

Can the Government clarify which statement is correct, (1) business day or three (3) business days?

PWS Pg 13, PWS Pg 15 - PWS Section 1.4.6 Personnel Maintenance states “Once a Contractor knows that an employee is leaving and will no longer support a task, the Contractor shall provide written documentation to the CO and COR within three (3) business days of the employee advising the Contractor of his/her intent to leave.” which contradicts 1.4.13 Staffing states "The Contractor shall provide written notification to the Government to include the TO COR, PM, and CO of any vacancies within one (1) business day of the position becoming vacant or upon receipt of employee resignation or any knowledge thereof."

PWS Pg 13, PWS Pg 15 - PWS Section 1.4.6 and 1.4.13

PWS para 1.4.13 revised

Can the Government provide the Non-Disclosure Agreement template referenced?

The PWS 4.9 Section mentions a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) states "See NDA at Attachment X". We were not able to locate this attachment.

PWS Pg 24 - NDAs to be provided at Task Order

Can the Government provide an updated copy, with checked boxes to facilitate compliant Offerer fill-ins?

Pg 30, Pg 33, Pg 48 - The following Representations, Certification, & Other Statements were not checked by the Government in the copy posted for these areas:

•FAR 52.204-20 Predecessor of Offeror. Aug 2020 •52.209-7 Information Regarding Responsibility Matters. Oct 2018 •52.219-1 Small Business Program Representations. Oct 2022

Solicitation Please edit the file to insert checks.