Responses to Industry Q_A Posted 16SEP2023.docx

Industry Questions

The Government will post an acquisition schedule and at will include High Level acquisition strategy information prior to 30SEP2023

1. Question: The draft evaluation factors shown on the last slide indicate that a Top-Secret facility clearance will be required. To ensure the widest possible participation from the small business vendor pool, would the government consider relaxing this FCL requirement to Secret, where appropriate?

Response: A Top Secret Facility Clearance is a FIAR Follow on requirement. How the Government communicates and evaluates this requirement or the ability to achieve this requirement is currently under review. The Government will solidify the details of this requirement in the draft RFP. We did receive strong Industry feedback concerning this requirement. As such we are having internal discussions related to the topic.

2. Question: Would the government consider an available audit tool for this effort? If yes, would the government be open to a demonstration of the existing audit tool?

Response: At this time the Government does not wish to invest in additional audit tools. A listing of currently used tools will be included in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

3. Question: Is the work performed at specific locations or can it all be done remotely?

Response: Our requirements do not allow for Remote work. This is a requirement of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) which will be released in draft form early 1st QTR FY24.

4. Question: Does the FIAR related work requirement apply to sub-contractors?

Response: The Government will not have a contractual /legal relationship with sub contractors. That relationship is one between the Prime and Subcontractor. What requirements the Prime contractor flows down to subcontractors is determined by the Prime.

5. Question: Do sub-contractors need a facility clearance?

Response: A Top Secret facility clearance is a FIAR Follow on requirement. How the Government communicates and evaluates this requirement or the ability to achieve this requirement is currently under review. The Government will solidify the details of this requirement with the draft RFP. We did receive strong Industry feedback concerning this requirement. As such we are having internal discussions related to the topic.

6. Question: Would the Government clarify if it intends to share the most current Audit Roadmap and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) as part of its Request for Proposal (RFP)? ( Response: The government is reviewing the Roadmap for releasability.

7. Question: Would the Government clarify if it intends to provide its basis for determining Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR)-related work?

For example, the Government should consider the performing of Department of Defense (DoD) financial statement audits to be FIAR related work as it provides the Government with vendors and personnel with insights into financial statement auditing standards, issue development and root cause analysis, an understanding risks and controls, as well as of the expectations of Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG)/ Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the Independent Public Accountants (IPA), among other benefits.

Response: Scope of FIAR work will be determined by review of the FIAR Follow on PWS against what a potential “customers” requirement are. FIAR Draft PWS will be released early 1st QTR FY24.

8. Question: Would the Government confirm whether the other 25% must be performed by a small business?

Response: The charts released at Industry Day contained draft information. Prime contractors will be encouraged to have strong Subcontracting Goals likely minimum of 25%. (when applicable).

9. Question: Course of Action (COA) 1 includes a requirement that the Prime shall perform no more than 75% of the work. Would the Government clarify if it intends to eliminate the 50% requirement from 2017 to allow the prime vendor to attract the best teaming partners, whether large or small businesses? If not, then has the Government considered the risks and benefits of establishing a minimum amount to be performed by the prime?

Response: The charts release at Industry Day contained draft information. Prime contractors will be encouraged to have strong Subcontracting Goals (when applicable)

For example, in the scenario where 51% is completed by the prime and 25% is completed by small businesses, this limits large business teaming arrangements to 24%. This percentage would be further diluted when multiple large business subcontractors are teamed, which may result in the primes not being able to attach the best-in-industry, at the company and personnel levels, to support the United States Air Force’s (Air Force) audit goals.

10. Question: Would the Government consider limiting the awardees to a maximum of three to five vendors? This benefits the Government by providing vendors that offer a breadth of experience, while also limiting the volume of Task Orders responses requiring evaluation.

Response: No final strategy has been approved and the Government is considering all alternatives regarding the number of awardees. As well as pros & cons related to the topic. OCI issues throughout the life of the procurement is always an area we strive to mitigate.

The Government should consider a higher range of five awardees if any of the requirements could create an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) as part of COA 1. By awarding to five vendors, the task areas that create an OCI would be competed and supported, while also allowing the other tasks to be competed between three to four vendors over the life of the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) to the benefit of the Government. This ability for the Government to have competition at the Task Order-level will drive each vendor to deliver the right solution/people and prevent complacency.

11. Question: Consistent with our responses to the previous RFIs, the Government would benefit from evaluating price as part of the IDIQ award process. This would also be consistent with the Court of Federal Claims’ recent decision and interpretation of National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Section 876, indicating that cost is an important evaluation factor for large-scale IDIQ procurements (see SH Synergy LLC v. United States). 41 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 3306(c)(1)(B) requires agencies to consider price as an evaluation factor when awarding Federal contracts, except for certain narrow circumstances (Id.). This includes, as relevant here, for “certain indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity multiple-award contracts …. for services acquired on an hourly rate basis” that will “feature individually competed tasks or delivery orders based on hourly rates” (Id.).

As noted in our response to the second RFI, dated May 17, 2022:

To protect the Government’s interest, We recommend the Government perform a price realism evaluation in addition to a price reasonableness evaluation. This allows the Department of the Air Force (DAF) to evaluate the risk of poor performance and lack of technical understanding/qualified personnel by also making a price realism determination (in addition to price reasonableness) to evaluate whether an offeror’s price is too low.

Price realism benefits the Government by helping to determine that an offeror’s technical understanding is correct by confirming the price is not too low. Evaluating offers for realism will ensure bidders are not proposing unrealistically low rates or hours for the individuals proposed to perform the work. Although risk will remain on the contractor for any primary Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) work, it is imperative the Government selects a Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firm with appropriate Federal experience at a price that reflects an accurate understanding of the work.

Additionally, we suggest the Government include Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, to verify that proposed salaries are realistic for the work to be performed and align with a reasonable price that supports an expert technical solution. By subjecting approved subcontractors to the same general pricing scrutiny, the Government can ensure that awardees cannot “bait and switch” through the unfair or unrealistic pricing of subcontract labor.

Further, consistent with our response to the first RFI, dated January 14, 2022:

Yes, the Air Force should conduct a price realism analysis. The Air Force should also require vendors to submit discounts from their Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) rates, Special Item Number (SIN) 541219, Budget and Financial Management Services (formerly SIN 520-13, Complimentary Financial Services). Discounts should be evaluated based on realism, ensuring vendors provide an explanation for why they believe their rates are realistic in terms of being able to recruit and retain qualified personnel to perform required services over the life of the contract.

Price: The Government should require vendors to submit discounted rates using their approved FSS rates, SIN 541219, Budget and Financial Management Services. Discounts should be evaluated based on realism, ensuring vendors provide an explanation for why they believe their rates are realistic in terms of being able to recruit and retain qualified personnel to perform required services over the life of the IDIQ.

To ensure the Air Force obtains desired outcome of having non-price factors evaluated as more important than price, We recommend including the following instructions (Section M): “Individual factors for past performance, key personnel, and technical approach, evaluated individually, are each considered to be significantly more important than price in tradeoff evaluations.”

Response: There are many topics within this question. The Government has not finalized evaluation criteria or the factor order of importance. We continue to assess risks associated with all evaluation criteria and factor order of importance. We have noted the Industry feedback and appreciate the level of detail provided.

12. Question: In our review of the COAs, we note that COA 2 introduces all the risks of a single award contract/IDIQ and eliminates the multiple awardee benefits offered by COA 1.

The requirements mapping indicates a workload split of approximately 10% for an Integrator contract and 90% for a FIAR Support contract. This results in a one-time competition at the start of the contract/ordering period as a part of the bid process. This results in the Government accepting all the risks of a single award, including complacency of the prime FIAR Support vendor. Then, if the Government feels a change is necessary, COA 2 does not allow for a change without a recompete.

Whereas COA 1 remains competitive for five years, allowing the Air Force to leverage the benefits of a competitive process to garner consistent performance for the life of the IDIQ.

Response: The Government recognizes the limitations of each COA presented at the July Industry Day. The industry day charts contained draft “groupings” of work/tasks. We have heard Industry feedback regarding COA 2 – COA 2 as presented could significantly limit competition. Work/Task groupings and how the Government contracts for each work/task grouping is critical. One major risk with this COA it could present a false appearance of competition. This is NOT a desired outcome for the FIAR follow on acquisition strategy.

13. Question: would the Government clarify the “Material Weaknesses/Significant Deficiencies” bullet?

Response: Material Weaknesses/Significant Deficiencies refers to tasks within the Performance Work Statement (PWS). During Industry Day the FIAR Mission Partner briefly described each work/task grouping. The government will post a draft PWS to Sam.gov early 1st QTR FY24.

14. Question: As written, the slide does not clearly identify how key personnel is incorporated into the current evaluation factors. Would the Government clarify how they intend to evaluate key personnel?

As previously noted in our RFI responses, we recommend: Staffing and Personnel: Key personnel should comprise a blend of individuals with both experience across and knowledge of DAF processes and procedures gained by executing those procedures at multiple levels within the DAF. Key personnel should also include CPAs with DoD audit experience who understand Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) and what the DoD Office of Inspector General (OIG) requires from its audit contractors and, thus, what will be required for the DAF to pass an audit. This blend of experience will combine to give the DAF a clear vision of the finish line and how to get there, with a core group of DAF experts who can drive efficiency and eliminate the need for DAF personnel to educate their support contractor on how the DAF does business today. This should be considered critical in the evaluation of key personnel qualifications. Key personnel should be considered more important than technical approach in the evaluation process and be objectively rated in trade-off evaluations.

Key personnel with experience helping the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies move from disclaimer to unmodified opinions (as the auditor or audit readiness support contractor) are far more important to the success of the program than key personnel without this blend of experience. This should be considered critical in the evaluation of key personnel qualifications. Key personnel should be evaluated as more important than technical approach and adjectively rated in trade-off evaluations.

Response: Strategy and evaluation criteria have not been finalized. One of the intentions of the July Industry Day was to get Industry feedback. We appreciate the Key personnel suggestions.

15. Question: The Government indicates on slide six its intent to require FIAR-related work, but its evaluation is not included in slide 10. Would the Government clarify this?

For instance, would the Government clarify if it intends to evaluate Past Performance as part of its Gate assessment?

Response: The Government has not finalized the strategy or evaluation criteria for the FIAR follow on acquisition.

16. Question: As part of past performance, we recommend the Government consider rating vendors with DoD financial statement audit experience more favorably than those without direct experience issuing audit opinions.

It benefits the Government to have vendors and key personnel who know “what right looks like” to design and implement enduring, sustainable corrective actions that resolve audit weaknesses and deficiencies. This requires personnel with a combination of current (i.e., last three years) Federal and DoD financial statement audit and audit readiness experience resulting in unmodified opinions.

Response: Strategy and evaluation criteria have not been finalized. One of the intentions of the July Industry Day was to get Industry feedback. We appreciate the detailed “relevant” past performance suggestions.

17. Questions: Given the Government’s intent to solicit bids from large businesses against a General Services Administration (GSA) FSS, those firms will necessarily have a small business subcontracting plan incorporated into their GSA Schedule pursuant to FAR 52.219-9. Because FAR 52.219-9(i) states that no more than one subcontracting plan can exist for a contract (i.e., a GSA Schedule order), would the Government confirm or clarify that any small business goals of any resultant award will be governed by the terms of the successful large business awardees’ approved Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) Small Business Subcontracting Plan?

As required by FAR 52.219-9(c)(1), this plan “separately address subcontracting with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns,” ensuring that the resultant IDIQ vehicle, the DAF, and awardees are working towards the Government’s small business goals. Accordingly, to require an individual subcontracting plan for this IDIQ would be counter to the requirements of the FAR.

Response: The Government has not finalized the acquisition strategy or evaluation criteria. Including the details of a COA 1 or 2 and how we will solicit. How the government will motivate subcontracting opportunities has not been finalized and continues to be an important topic within our strategy.

18. Question: Alternatively, would the Government confirm or clarify that this small business subcontracting requirement will be incorporated into the MA-IDIQ as a participation plan and not as a separate subcontracting plan?

Response: The Government has not finalized the acquisition strategy or evaluation criteria. However, the Government does understand the requirements of FAR 52.219-9.

19. Question: The Industry Day e-mail noted the “Government is not prepared to provide an Acquisition schedule.” Given the anticipated November 2024 start date, would the Government provide an estimated release date for its Acquisition Schedule?

Response: While the Acquisition strategy has not been finalized, which includes an acquisition schedule, we can share that the Government intends to release Draft RFP documents. We do estimate a final RFP release in 1st QTR FY24. Draft RFP document likely to be posted early 1STQTR FY24. The Government is preparing an acquisition schedule for Industry that will be post prior to 30SEP2023 that will include high-level acquisition strategy information.

20. Question: Would the Government confirm that it intends to procure this vehicle using the identified North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541990—All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services?

Alternatively, would the Government consider procuring this under a more appropriate NAICS, such as 541211—Offices of CPAs, or 541219—Other Accounting Services, which are more suitable for the FIAR work being purchased? The previously identified SIN 541990 is broad for this type of work and the Government may be better served by ensuring it purchases from financial management professionals, as opposed to the more technically inclined firms that typically use 541990.

Response: The NAICS assigned to the FIAR Follow-on has not been finalized but appreciate the feedback regarding the current contract NAICS code and interpretation of what some interpret as more appropriate NAICS codes. When finalized that will be released with draft RFP documents.

21. Question: Would the Government clarify if it intends to provide a draft RFP to industry for comment?

Response: .Draft RFP document likely to be posted early 1stQTR FY24.

22. Question: It appears as though this is 2 awards, there would be an integrator award and there would be a FIAR support award. Are you saying COA 2 is not really that and that fire support could be multiple award and integrator? PMO could be multiple award. Yes, you could award that to a small, but you're basically making fire support, single award and 80 to 85% of the current $1B vehicle would be single award, which was the COA that we thought was going away.

My question is really, if so, let's say it's a $1B award and if I lump those first four under integrator, that is somewhere between 10 and 18% of the work, FIAR support is the other $800 to $850M over your five years? If that's not multiple award, basically one large is going to win all that work, right? When we assumed COA one, we assumed lower level than NFR remediation. NFR remediation could be broken down as low as the work streams like fund balance with treasury property, OMNS, University of transactions like there are lots of ways to break it down in the FIAR support side so that you could have multiple larges so that if somebody doesn't successfully deliver work after 12 months, you can switch to one of your other primes on the $850 million side. But if you only make an integrator and a fire support award, the fire support is the $850 million beast that you have a single award.

You might as well single award and a small award at that point.

Is there not an advantage then of a COA 3 where audit road map and IMS become small business set aside and the rest of FIAR support strat comms change management role to multiple award. And the bigs are competing for the $800 million and you've got $100 million small business set aside you can make.

Response: The Government recognizes the limitations of each COA presented at the July Industry Day. The industry day charts contained draft “groupings” of work/tasks. We have heard Industry feedback regarding COA 2 – COA 2 as presented could significantly limit competition. Work/Task groupings and how the Government contracts for each work/task grouping is critical. One major risk with this COA it could present a false appearance of competition. This is NOT a desired outcome for the FIAR follow on acquisition strategy.

23. Question: Twice you've said minimums performed by primes, but the eval criteria in both COA 1 and 2 two only mentioned 75% maximum and then they point towards goals. There was a 50% or 51% five years ago on the last one that said to Prime had to perform that much. It doesn't say that in the documentation we have. Do you have a minimum 50% prime target in mind? Because we see the 75% maximum by prime, but there it doesn't say minimum in any of the eval stuff you sent us. Just wanted your opinions and thoughts.

I understand what you're trying to avoid, but as a vendor and as a large business, let's say you went down the path of COA 2 and you gave small to the first half the PMO piece and FIAR became basically a single award or maybe there's two awards, by making the prime award perform 50% of the work and 25% small business goal set aside.

Then for a large to partner with other larges, there's only 24% of the work left.

So no, you know, we can't get a KPMG and IBM or an Oracle or somebody to sub for 6% of work, right?

So if you do make it 51 and 25, you just have to understand the other larges that will come to the fight to help support the Air Force are small or they're not going to team.

They're going to take shots at priming unless you make it multiple award.

You also want the biggest and best teams to show up to the fight to support the Air Force and the biggest and best teams don't show up if all the other larges are limited to 20%. .

Response: The data in the Industry Day charts contained draft information regarding all percentages. As we near acquisition strategy approval we will release draft RFP documents.