QnA.pdf

CUI

SUBJECT: Questions with responses from contractors in regard to RFP FA7022-24-R-

1 RFP, Section L. Page 50. Para No “DFARS Clauses Incorporated by Reference”

i. Issue/Comment: DFARS Clause 252,215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist

• Question: There is no mention in the RFP Attachment 9 – Section L (ICNTO) about inclusion of a Proposal Adequacy Checklist. Most items required by the Proposal Adequacy Checklist would be addressed in an offeror’s Cost/Price Volume narrative. Would the Government consider deleting this DFARS clause?

• Answer: No, the DFARS Clause is required as prescribed in 215.408 (4), use the following provision. 4) When the solicitation requires the submission of certified cost or pricing data, the contracting officer should include 252.215-7009, Proposal Adequacy Checklist, in the solicitation to facilitate submission of a thorough, accurate, and complete proposal.

a. RFP, Section I. Page 17. Para No “Section I – Contract Clauses Incorporated by Reference”

ii. Issue/Comment: FAR Clauses 52-222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards; 52-222- 43 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards-Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts); and 52-222-44 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards-Price Adjustment

• Question: RFP Attachment 9, Section L (ICNTO) L.4.3 Other Information

(pg14) states: Service Contract Labor Standards Act (SCLSA). Labor under this effort is exempt from the SCLSA. Based on this statement in L.4.3 would the Government delete the SCLSA FAR Clauses 52-222-41, 52-3222-43 and 52- 222-44 from the RFP Section I?

• Answer: Please see RFP Amendment 1.

b. RFP, Section M. Page 10. Para No “M2.0 Evaluation Factors”

i. Issue/Comment: As it is currently written, four of the seven given scope of work areas for the past performance relevancy criteria are focused solely on the development of MOSES Elements (modeling tools), which, as it stands, only the incumbent would be able to provide highly relevant rated past performance artifacts to support. This would seem to represent a clear unfair advantage to the incumbent and render any truly competitive evaluation null. Any other possible past

D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E A I R F O R C E A I R F O R C E T E C H N I C A L A P P L I C A T I O N S C E N T E R

3 October 2024 https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/215.408-solicitation-provisions-and-contract-clauses.#DFARS_215.408 https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.215-7009-proposal-adequacy-checklist.#DFARS_252.215-7009 performance articles that would be relevant to the development of the stated MOSES elements (modeling tools) listed in the scope of work areas would be outside of the recency scope indicated in the evaluation criteria and would therefore be excluded from consideration.

• Question: In order for the government to ensure fair and open competition for the subject solicitation, would the Government modify the past performance criteria in its entirety, as it is currently written. Due to the stated considerations, it would seem to reason that it would be in the best interest of the government to avoid any possible delays to anticipated award date due to possible protest from industry by having the evaluation of corporate experience performing work with the stated MOSES elements and associated software strictly within the technical approach.

• Answer: The Government does not want to change the past performance criteria. The MOSES Elements (modeling tools) is critical to the contract. The Government wants proof that any/all vendors submitting for this contract award can demonstrate relevancy to conducting modeling via previous contracts.

c. RFP, Attachment 1 and 8

i. Issue/Comment: Labor Category Description and Qualifications

• Question: Would it be possible to provide the corresponding labor category description and qualifications

• Answer: The qualifications for each labor category should be determined by the offeror and then evaluated by the Government to ensure it makes sense with their needs. The Description of each labor category is exactly what it appears to be.

d. RFP, Attachment 9, Section L 3.2.2,

i. Issue/Comment: Government Offices, states “L.3.2.2 Government Offices. Provide the mailing address, telephone, e-mail address (if known), and facility codes for the cognizant Contract Administration Office and DCAA for the prime contractor and critical subcontractors. Also, provide the name, e-mail, and telephone for the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).”

• Question: Could the government confirm if the intent is to provide the Offerors cognizant DCAA and DCMA Administrative Contracting Officers (ACO) information in response to this section?

• Answer: Yes it is. This information is required to ensure any/all Offerors have proper security clearances and facility clearances. Additionally, having the information for the critical subcontractors will allow the Government to properly vet them through our security office.

e. RFP, Attachment 9, Section L 5.2.3

i. Issue/Comment: Evaluation Factors and Subfactors, states “Factor 1: Technical Capability.” However, the main heading in Section L 5.0 states “Volume III - Technical (FACTOR 2).”

• Question: Can the government confirm that this sub-section heading should be

Factor 2 Technical Capability?

• Answer: FACTOR 1 is “Cost/Price”. This will be the first element that is reviewed by all Offerors prior to moving to the FACTOR 2 “Technical”.

During the Technical review of submittal(s) their will only be one (1) Factor with three (3) subfactors that will determine the overall technical rating. So the RFP is correct as written.

f. RFP, Attachment 8, PWS TO1 Sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.2

i. Issue/Comment: On page 5 makes the statement “contained in section 2.1.1 (2.1) of the IDIQ.”

• Question: Can the government confirm this is referencing the TO1 PWS and not the main IDIQ PWS?

• Answer: TO 1 Section 2.1.2 referenced 2.1.1 of the IDIQ. That is correct as written. TO 1 Section 2.2.2 reference 2.1 of the IDIQ. That is also correct as written.

g. RFP, Attachment 9, Section L4.2.2 (f)

i. Issue/Comment: Professional Compensation Matrix

• Question: Are all proposed sub-contractors required to submit a Professional Compensation Plan or does this requirement only apply to critical sub-contractors?

• Answer: All sub-contractors apply. As stated in RFP Attachement 9, Section L4.2.2(f), paragraph 2 “Professional Comp Plan (Comp Plan Narrative and Comp Labor Matrix) shall be submitted for all offerors, teaming partners, joint venture (JV) partners, and subcontractors. The prime offeror must ensure that subcontractor submissions address the requirements of the total compensation plan, including providing direct labor rates (base rate hourly salary) and fringe benefits