Draft_Docs_Q A.pdf

DCGS Questions & Answers on Draft Documents

FA7037-15-R-0001

# Category QUESTION ANSWER

1 FBO

Posting

The 25 AF DCGS IDIQ solicitation announcement list the NAICS code as 541330. Can you confirm if the government will be utilizing the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons exception, which carries a size standard of $38.5M? The announcement stated $14M, which is the normal size standard, but since this supports the DCGS Weapon System we ask that the exception be utilized.

After a thorough review of NAICS code, definition, the scope of work for this requirement and other resources; this requirement warrants the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapon exception. The size standard will be increased to $38.5M.

2 FBO

Posting

The FBO posting for the referenced solicitation states that questions are due by Monday, 6 Nov. Monday is the 3rd while the 6th is on Thursday. Requesting clarification.

This was corrected on FBO on 30 Oct 2014.

3 FBO

Posting

Your recent Draft RFP for solicitation FA7037-15-R-0001 stated in the last paragraph below Questions/comments must be submitted no later than 1700CST, Monday, 6 Nov 2014. However, November 6 is a Thursday and Monday is November 4th. Can you please clarify which date it is?

This was corrected on FBO on 30 Oct 2014.

4 NAICS Our simple request concerns the choice of NAICS as 541330 for FA7037-15-R-0001. We believe there may have been an oversight in not including the exception for “Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons” which would change the ceiling from $15.0M to $38.5M (effective 14 Jul 14).

We have invested significant time and effort in fielding a team that includes Booz Allen Hamilton and General Dynamics. AOCE’s revenue average over the past three years has been over $17M. I have attached our Sources Sought response from last fall that offers our rationale for the NAICS choice and exception.

After a thorough review of NAICS code, definition, the scope of work for this requirement and other resources; this requirement warrants the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapon exception. The size standard will be increased to $38.5M.

5 Section L Reference Draft Section L, Paragraph 2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits table states 10 pages for Volume I - Executive Summary, which is inclusive of the narrative summary, master table of contents and master glossary. Paragraph 2.2.5 Indexing and paragraph 2.2.6 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms states that these “do not count against the pages limitations for their respective volumes.” Please clarify that the table of contents

Paragraph 2.2.1 states: Each page shall be counted except the following: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQs); Cover Pages; Table of Contents; List of Tables, Figures, and Exhibits; Glossaries; Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent; Tabs;

Dividers; Blank Pages; Sample Task Order and glossary are not included in the 10 page limit for the executive summary volume as well.

Back Up Data; and Cost and Pricing Data.

6 Section L Reference Draft Section L, Paragraph 3.1 Narrative Summary states, “The narrative summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding cost/price.”

Please verify that this narrative summary should only be for our technical and past performance volumes and is not inclusive of cost/price (as stated) or contract documentation volumes.

Paragraph 3.1 states "…excluding cost/price."

7 NAICS Reference, the FBO announcement states, “This action is 100% set aside for small businesses in accordance with FAR 19.502-2, Total Small Business Set-Asides. The applicable North American Classification System (NAICS) code is 541330, with a small business size standard of $14.0M.”. Could the government clarify the size standard and consider small business NAICS code 541330 with the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons exception, size standard $38.5 for this solicitations?

After a thorough review of NAICS code, definition, the scope of work for this requirement and other resources; this requirement warrants the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapon exception. The size standard will be increased to $38.5M.

8 NAICS The government appears to be contemplating the 541530 Engineering Services NAICS code with an associated $15M small business cap. This code is typically used for civil, environmental, mechanical, and other physical engineering endeavors. Would the government considering using 541519 Other Computer Related, which is more closely aligned with the requirements in the PWS?

The Government has carefully evaluated all possible NAICS. NAICS 541330 is the most appropriate based on the preponderance of work.

9 PWS The second labor category in the hours table is “Server Programmer.” We did not see this title listed in the Appendix A Job Descriptions. Is it the Senior Programmer?

This has been corrected in the labor category spreadsheet.

10 Past

Performa nce

Are all teammates required to have 10% of the work or only those teammates w/Past Performance qualifications that the offeror puts forward? Are teaming partners with more than 10% required to submit at least one Past Performance qualification? Ref Attach 3, Sect L, pg 4, para 4.23 subfactor One Mgmt Approach; Attach 3 Sec L, ref 8, para 5.1; attach 4, Sec M, pg 4, para 2.1I

Not all teammates are required to have 10% of the work. Section L, para 4.2.3i states "List all teaming partners expected to perform at least 10% of this effort…" Section L, para

5.1 now states "The offeror and all subcontractors and teaming partners who are proposed to perform 10% or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance is required to submit at least one past performance project".

11 Past Performa nce

Is there a minimum required % of work to be performed by the prime contractor/offeror?

IAW FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.

12 General Will there be an 8a, Small disadvantaged business, veteran owned sb, SDVOSB, WOSB, native American /Alaskan Owned Small Business or any other economically disadvantaged business category workshare requirements?

This is a 100% Small Business Set Aside.

There are no other set asides.

13 General What is the expected contract ceiling value for this IDIQ? The expected contract ceiling is $78M.

14 Section L SECTION L.4.2.3.ii: When Government states that offerors must address the relevant area "Minimize Management Oversight," does that mean offerors are to describe how their approach minimizes the need for Government oversight or describe how their approach minimizes the need for contractor management personnel?

It is stating the reduction of contractor oversight to the contract thus reducing the cost but still ensuring the quality of the work.

This has been corrected in Sections L&M.

15 Section L Section L L.4.2.1.1: Does the Government require a discrete risk narrative in each subfactor or separate risk narrative for the entire technical volume?

For overall contract. However, the contractor shall identify key risk areas for subfactors as appropriate.

16 Section L Section L.5.1: May offerors submit PP information for teammates that will perform less than 10% of the work?

In accordance with Sec L, para 5. "This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors and teaming partners who are proposed to perform 10% or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance."

17 PWS Reference: Draft PWS Section 2.1 MISSION. “The AF DCGS weapon system is the Air Force’s primary ISR, Processing, Exploitation and Dissemination (PED) system.” According to the FBO notification, the government has identified the applicable NAICS code as 541330, with a size standard of $15.0M. This NAICS code also has an associated exception of $38.5M size standard for weapons systems. Since the Air Force has identified this requirement as supporting the AF DCGS as a weapons system, does the $38.5M size exception apply?

After a thorough review of NAICS code, definition, the scope of work for this requirement and other resources; this requirement warrants the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapon exception. The size standard will be increased to $38.5M.

18 PWS PWS, Page 2, Para 2.2 (Scope) indicates that work will span across the AF ISR Organizations and associated units, and then lists these unit locations. While these locations could be served on an as needed basis through temporary duty (Travel), are any of the contract personnel permanently assigned to these units? If so, then what are the current allocations (by LCAT and hours) of these personnel at each location?

Currently all work is performed in the US and this is not expected to change at time of award. This requirement is written into the PWS to allow future work or changes to the existing work to be OCONUS.

19 PWS Related to the above - PWS, Page 2, Para 2.2 lists Germany, Korea, and Japan as units that are supported. Within the Draft RFP there is no Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) Clauses inferred, nor is the Invited Contractors (USFK Reg 700-19) references made. Will SOFA Clauses be incorporated into the Final Solicitation?

SOFA clauses will be included.

20 PWS PWS, Page 10, Para 4.7 (Federal Holidays) provides a list of holidays and PWS Page 9, Para 4.6 provides the intended work hours. If Contractor Personnel assignment requires their work on

The surge is not intended for that use. If a requirement requires contractor personnel to work on holidays, it will be stated at the task

Holidays, does the contractor use the Surge CLIN for hours worked?

order level and contractors such submit pricing accordingly.

21 PWS PWS, Page 6, Para 3.8 Surge seems out of place from a numbering perspective.

This has been corrected.

22 PWS PWS, Page 12, Para 4.13 (Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)) describes items that the Government will provide the contractor, in general terms. It does not specify the computer and software requirements for the ISR Systems Management Integration Support and Web Services task. Is it correct to assume that all computers, peripherals, and software required to support Para 3.1.2 will be provided by the Government and that there is no contractor requirement to provide the same?.

PWS para 4.13.1 has been revised to include computer software.

23 Sample

TO

Sample TO PWS: Page 5, Para 3.1.3.3.2.1 states the minimum requirements include DoD 8570 certified, IAT I. within the PWS Appendix A list of labor categories and the Education and/or Experience Cells there are no Para 3.1.3 positions with this 8570 requirement, all are IAT II. Do the certifications called for within TO PWS’s take precedence over the Master LCAT Quals identified within PWS Appendix A?

The Sample TO PWS, Page 5, Para

3.1.3.3.2.1 has been corrected to read

8570IAT II.

24 Sample

TO

Sample TO PWS: Page 5, Para 3.1.3.3.2.2 and 3.1.3.3.2.3 call for three (3) years’ experience, yet again PWS Appendix A calls for a minimum of five (5) years’ experience. Do the experience levels requested within the TO PWS’s take precedence over the Master LCAT Quals identified within PWS Appendix A?

The Sample TO PWS has been corrected to read 5 years.

25 PWS PWS, Appendix A: Within the Education and/or Experience cell of the ISR System Management Integration Support and Web Services PWS Task 3.1.2, Senior Programmer/Technical Lead, there is note that states that a minimum of 2:1 ratio of developers to testers; however, the Attachment L-7 demonstrates that this ration is not achieved as there are 6 “developers” and 4 “testers.”

Should the hours per category be revised, or is the offer not required to achieve this metric?

The Quality Assurance/Software Test Engineer is not a "tester" and is not counted as part of the 2:1 ratio.

26 PWS PWS, Appendix A: Within the Education and/or Experience for

Senior Software Tester/Integrator, Software Tester/Integrator, and Quality Assurance/Software Test Engineer IGCE Labor Categories, there is no stated DoD 8570 certified (IAT II) requirement. Was that an error of omission, or was it intentional?

This was an omission and has been corrected.

27 PWS PWS, Appendix A: Within the PWS Job Title & Task # description for the Senior Requirements Engineer there is a reference to PWS Task 3.7.3. There is no PWS Para 3.7.2. Was the intent to mark that as a different PWS Para Reference or will a PWS Task 3.7.3 be added to the final PWS.

This has been corrected to read paragraph 3.7.2.

28 Section L Section L: Page 5 and 6 of 16, Section 3.0/3.1, “Executive Summary is required to be considered for award however not evaluated. The salient features should tie in with Section M evaluation factors/subfactors however shall not be used to satisfy the requirements of the other volumes in the proposal”. Can the Government explain the intent of this requirement if it will not be part of the evaluation process?

It is used to assist the evaluators with understanding the contractor's approach.

29 Section L Section L: Page 6, Para 4.2.1.1 Technical Risk, second sentence references Source Selection Procedures Table 3, Technical Risk Rating. Within Section M, Page 4 it appears the Technical Risk Rating is Table 2.

This has been corrected to read Table 2.

30 Section L Section L: Page 8, Para 5.2 (Proposal Information) discusses the PPQ requirements. Is a PPQ response required for each of an offeror’s PP citation to be considered in the determination of a PP Score or is any responses received by the Government considered amplification of the PP citation?

A Past Performance Questionnaire is required for the prime, subcontractor and/or team members performing 10% or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance.

31 Section L Section L: Page 9, Para 5.3 (Recent/Relevant Contracts) provides a list of Areas of interest which includes 3.1 (Weapon Systems and Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) Systems Information Technology Services), 3.3 (Intelligence Support), 3.5 (Staff Support); 3.6 (Studies, Reports, Analyses and Evaluations) and 4.1 (Program Management with emphasis on managing projects in multiple locations. Omitted from this list are

3.2 (Project Management), 3.4 (Security Office Support) and 3.7 (Systems Engineering and SME Support). Of the areas listed Section 3.5 (Staff Support) is not applicable to the Sample Task Order, and of the areas not listed 3.4 (Security Office Support) is applicable to the Sample Task Order. What is the reason that the Government is not interested in the Contractor’s Past Performance on all PWS Sections?

We are interested in all sections, the sample is to give more detail. The Government has selected these areas but has also left two other projects open to offeror's to submit what they feel is critical and will highlight their overall ability on this requirement.

32 Section L Section L: Page 10, Para 6.1 (General Instructions) appears to have a disconnect with Section M Page 9 Para 2.c.3.a. Within the Section L reference it states that “The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) rates as reflected in the worksheet labeled “Hourly Rates” in the DCGS Cost Model, Attachment L-7 will be incorporated as an attachment of the resulting contract award and will be considered “ceiling rates” when pricing subsequent TOs.” While within the Section M reference it states the “Firm Fixed-Price rates in the Cost Model, Attachment L-7 will be incorporated into the contract and will be the rates used to price subsequent task orders” with no reference to “ceiling rates.” Does the Government plan for the contractors to hold their FFP rates constant for future TOs and will allow the Contractor to create different T&M Rates for future TOs?

"Ceiling rate" verbiage has been added to Section M, Volume IV - Factor 4 - Cost/Price, para a. The “ceiling rates” can be less based on the requirement at the task order level;

however, at no time can the labor rates be higher than the “ceiling rates”.

33 Section L Section L: Pages 9 of 16 and 7 of 10, Section5.3, Documents L/M, “Areas of interest 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1”, Are these areas of interest in any kind of ascending/descending order of importance?

They are not listed in any type of order other than numerically based on PWS paragraph numbers.

34 Section L Section L: Page 10, Para 6.1 General Instructions) – The description of the Time and Materials hours states ”The proposed Time and Materials (T&M) rates as reflected in the worksheet labeled “Hourly Rates” in the DCGS Cost Model, Attachment L-7 will be incorporated as an attachment of the resulting contract award and will be the rates used to price subsequent TOs” with no reference to “ceiling rates.”

"Ceiling rate" verbiage has been added to Section M, Volume IV - Factor 4 - Cost/Price, para a. The “ceiling rates” can be less based on the requirement at the task order level;

however, at no time can the labor rates be higher than the “ceiling rates”.

35 Section L Section L: Page 10 of 16, Section 6.1, “Additional labor categories can be added and an estimate of labor hours can be assigned to the proposed categories for the purpose of developing an evaluated cost”. When the government adjusts the labor categories to include additional labor categories will the total number of hours on L-7 remain constant for the evaluation?

Section L, para 6.6.1.2 states "...he hours outlined below will be revised to correspond to the proposed labor categories".

36 Section L Section L: Page 11, Para 6.6.1.1 states the Government’s will set a contract ceiling based upon the proposed hourly rates in Attachment L-7 by the best-estimated quantity of hours for each labor category to obtain the Total Evaluated Price. If this is to be an ID/IQ with future TOs to be released and subsequently competed between from 3-6 Small Business Primes, would not a contract ceiling based upon this approach limit the total extent of the ID/IQ to only the work described and hours prescribed within the draft PWS? Is it not the intent of the Government to make 3-6 awards and release future TOs when contracted services within scope of the PWS emerge? While it is understandable to use the prescribed hours for a price comparison to support making the award, using it to set the contract ceiling seems limiting and will preclude this ID/IQ from ever providing more than 90.5 contracted personnel.

The contract ceiling is inclusive of current work and estimated future work. At time of award, only the labor rates will be incorporated into the contract. This will give awardees the flexibility to use the established labor categories in any way they choose is beneficial.

37 Section L Section L: Page 13 Table within 6.6.1.2 (as well as within RFP Attachment L-7) - Within the Intelligence Analyst I- II;

Intelligence Analysts I-III, and Intelligence Analyst II-III there is a reduction of hours between the Base, and Option Year 1 (for all three LCATs), and an elimination of the Intelligence Analysts I-II

This is based on projected work loads in each of the years.

LCAT in Option Year 2. Within the PWS there is no rationale provided for this reduction of hours across the 3 year period of performance (base plus two option years). What is the Government explanation/justification for this reduction of hours?

38 Section L Section L: Similar to the item immediately above – Section L, Page 16 (as well as within RFP Attachment L-7) shows an increase in the Surge hours required on for Labor Categories across the multiple year POP. What is the Government’s explanation/justification for this increase? Furthermore, why is the increase not consistent between option years, (e.g., it is 20.8% of FFP hours for Base, 26% of FFP Hours for Option Period 1 and from 28.4% of FFP Hours for Option Period 2). This deliberate adjustment of hours would seem to require an explanation.

This is based on projected work loads in each of the years.

39 Section L Section L: Can the Government explain the reason for the drop in hours from 13,440 to 9,600 in OY1 and OY2 for the System Administrator/Spt Engineer?

This is based on projected work loads in each of the years.

40 Section L Section L: Page 14, Para 6.6.2.1 (Cost Model Worksheet) – includes a note that states: “the numbers currently in Row 3 of the cost models are plug numbers only and should not be considered to be indicative of target rates for each category. Can you be more descriptive as to what numbers you are referring to, e.g. which specific spreadsheet and which specific worksheet?

This has been better clarified in Section L.

41 Section L Section L: Page 14 of 16, “The cost proposal should be the same information submitted in Volume II, Technical Section 4.2.6 with all dollar amounts showing”, Can the government clarify if the information in spreadsheet L-6b should be presented in both Volume II and IV?

Section L, para 4.2.6 Subfactor Four, Sample Task Order states "Attachment L-6b is to be submitted in Volume IV, Pricing. The cost proposal shall be included in Volume IV, Cost/Price under its own tab. "

42 Section L Attach L-1: s the Program Manager and/or Site Manager POC information being requested for the Contractor’s or Government’s

PM/SM?

This is the customer's (Government) Program Manager and/or Site Manager.

43 Section L Attach L-2: Are these forms to be sent to each of the personnel

(e.g. Government or Contractor’s? Program Manager and/or Site Manager; Procurement Contracting Officer; and Contracting Officer Representative) identified on Attachment L-1 or will a PPQ response from one of those personnel be sufficient?

A PPQ response from one is sufficient.

However, you must identify all three on the

PPQ.

44 Section L RFP Attachment L-7 - Within CLIN X001, Labor FFP the second Labor category is listed as Server Programmer. While references to this work within the PWS indicate it is Senior Programmer.

Was Server a typo and Senior was the intended word to be used?

This has been corrected to reflect Senior Programmer.

45 Section L RFP Attachment L-7 (as well as within Section L, Page 13) - Within the Intelligence Analyst I- II; Intelligence Analysts I-III, and Intelligence Analyst II-III there is a reduction of hours between the Base, and Option Year 1 (for all three LCATs), and an elimination of the Intelligence Analysts I-II LCAT in Option Year 2. Within the PWS there is no rationale provided for this reduction of hours across the 3 year period of performance (base plus two option years). What is the Government explanation/justification for this reduction of hours?

This is based on projected work loads in each of the years.

46 Section L Similar to the item immediately above – RFP Attachment L-7 (as well as within Section L, Page 16) shows an increase in the Surge hours required on for Labor Categories across the multiple year POP. What is the Government’s explanation/justification for this increase? Furthermore, why is the increase not consistent between option years, (e.g., it is 20.8% of FFP hours for Base, 26% of FFP Hours for Option Period 1 and from 28.4% of FFP Hours for Option Period 2). This deliberate adjustment of hours would seem to require an explanation.

This is based on projected work loads in each of the years.

47 Section M

Sect M: Page 7, (ii) Relevance Assessment. – Same question posed under Section L, Page 9, Para 5.3.

We are interested in all sections, the sample is to give more detail. The Government has selected these areas but has also left two other projects open to offeror's to submit what they feel is critical and will highlight their overall ability on this requirement.

48 Section

M Sect M: Page 9, Volume IV – FACTOR 4 – COST/PRICE – Same question as on Section L, Page 10, Para 6.1.

"Ceiling rate" verbiage has been added to Section M, Volume IV - Factor 4 - Cost/Price, para a. The “ceiling rates” can be less based on the requirement at the task order level;

however, at no time can the labor rates be higher than the “ceiling rates”.

49 Section L Section L, pg 9 states, "Offerors shall submit up to seven (7) recent contracts by the offeror and/or by the subcontractors and/or teaming partners as delineated in Section M Evaluation Factors....". If the 7 recent contracts submit for evaluation are all from Subcontractors instead of the Prime. Will the Offeror still receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating as described in Section M?

Section M, Section 2 Evaluation Factors, C - Past Performance Factor, 2 - Evaluation Process, ii - Relevancy Assessment, states "In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated."

50 Section L Attach L-7: For price estimating purposes, are the numbers included in cost model for travel and material cost included as part of the total evaluate price?

These numbers will be populated by the Government and will be the same for everyone based on the Government's estimate.

They will be part of the total evaluated price.

51 PWS PWS, Attach 1: Are there any Key Personnel? If so, which labor categories will be considered key.

The Government has mission essential personnel but no key personnel.

52 Section M

Sect M, Pg 1: Is there one evaluation team for all volumes or is there separate evaluation teams for each volume?

Not sure how this is relevant to the proposal.

53 General How many days does the Government anticipate between RFP release and Proposal Due date?

Approximately 30 days.

54 General How long does the Government anticipate between contract award and the Transition start date?

It is anticipated the work will start as soon as awarded.

55 Section L Sect L, pg 8, para 5.2: Several government agencies and departments, like the US Navy and the Dept. of Homeland Security, have stated that they will not respond to Contract Office Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) from other agencies or departments and are referring folks to posted CPARs. Question:

In many cases, Source Selection teams will address this situation by leveraging the CPARS and/or arranging phone calls. Is the DCGS team willing to use these (and other) alternative means to achieve the same outcome that would normally come from the PPQ? Question: If a client reference does not provide a PPQ based on their Agency or Department policy, will this have an adverse effect on an offerors confidence rating?

Section M, Section 2 Evaluation Factors, C - Past Performance Factor, 2 - Evaluation Process states "the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officer’s Representatives, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and commercial sources." The Government will attempt to contract POCs listed in the Past Performance Information Sheet, Attach L-1.

However if the Government cannot contact anyone or obtain information from other sources to gain meaningful confidence, the offeror will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

56 Section l Sect L, pg 9, para 5.3: Offerors shall submit up to seven (7) contracts performed by the offeror and/or by the subcontractors and/or teaming partners. Question: Is there a minimum number of past performance references that are required to be submitted by the prime offeror?

No, there is no minimum number. If zero contracts are submitted by the prime offeror, then the offeror would receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

57 Section M

Sect M, pg 5, para 2.b(2)1.VIII: This paragraph talks about DCGS personnel Transition. How long does the Government plan on the Transition period lasting for this DCGS ETIS effort?

Each transition period may be different and will be determined at the task order level.

58 PWS PWS, pg 2, para 2.2: Will the bidders library have the DoDAF

Architecture Framework (viewpoints and models) so the contractor can understand the essential data relationships to support this contract?

The Government does not believe this question refers to this requirement.

59 PWS PWS, pg 12, para 4.13: Will the Government provide a listing of the Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) i.e. software licenses and versions currently being used for this contract?

All licensing and equipment is furnished by the Government.

60 General Would the government provide insight into its choice of a construction-related engineering NAICS code instead of a computer-related IT NAICS code? We would like to ensure we understand the full breadth of the core tasks in the PWS.

The NAICS code chosen is not a construction NAICS Code and was based off of the preponderance of the work.

61 Section L Attachments L-6b and L-7: Will the government furnish a revised spreadsheet to show Fringe, OH and G&A or can we modify the spreadsheet to show our three indirect cost elements?

These items can be and should be overwritten with the offeror's rates.

62 Section L Attach_3-Sect_L, page 15, paragraph 7.1: Will the government provide an editable version of the model contract, with applicable sections A through K?

The official RFP will be pdf.

63 Section L Attach_3-Sect_L, page 15, paragraph 7.0: The instructions in sections 7.1.1 through 7.1.7 reference completion and acknowledgement of individual sections of the model contract.

Are we to include a completed copy of the full model contract AND additional copies of each section (e.g. A-K), or is the intent to simply indicate completion of each applicable section of the model contract?

The intention is to indicate completion of each applicable section of the model contract.

The proposal shall include a copy of the full model contract.

64 Section L Attach_3-Sect_L, page 15, paragraph 7.0: Should the model contract be contained within a single section (non-tabbed) of the Volume V or can it be tabbed to separate the individual sections of the model contract?

The model contract shall be tabbed to separate the individual sections of the model contract.

65 Section L Reference Draft Section L, Paragraph 5.2 Early Proposal

Information states, “Offerors shall complete Section 1 of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment L-2 and email it and the Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter, Attachment L-3 to ALL points of contacts (POCs) the Offeror has listed in the Past Performance Information Sheets, Attachment L-1.” Additionally, this paragraph states, “Offerors shall follow-up with respondents to ensure they have completed the questionnaires. It is required to have PPQs on the Past Performance projects being submitted in paragraph 5.3.” This offeror requests clarification on how to handle a situation where a company has been given specific instructions on who their customers will allow PPQs to be submitted to and/or if they will be completed at all by anyone other than the COR. What will happen if the ACO or PCO will not complete a PPQ?

A PPQ is required for each past performance project. Contractors are asked to send the PPQ to all three POCs listed in the Past Performance Information Sheets because many times the PPQs will not be completed.

The Government will attempt to contact each POC listed to obtain information. However if the Government cannot contact anyone or obtain information from other sources to gain meaningful confidence, the offeror will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

66 Section L Reference Draft Section L, Paragraph 5.2 Early Proposal Information states, “Offerors shall complete Section 1 of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment L-2 and email it and the Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter, Attachment L-3 to ALL points of contacts (POCs) the Offeror has listed in the Past Performance Information Sheets, Attachment L-1.” Attachment L- 1 requires information on the Program Manager/Site Manager, PCO and COR, this offeror respectfully request clarification on the difference between the Program Manager/Site Manager and the COR. In the event that the COR would be listed as both, is it acceptable that we only submit one PPQ, or is it the intent of the Government to have three separate names for these individuals?

If an individual is listed as both the Program Manager/Site Manager and COR, then list the individual in both areas so the Government understands the individual was dual hatted.

67 General Can you advise on the Government’s OCI position; specifically, will/can OCI be handled on a Task Order basis? Would it be acceptable for us to simply exclude bidding on those task orders that have OCI implications?

If a possible conflict of interest exists, the Government will request the SB to provide their plan to mitigate any conflict of interest as soon as they are aware of it.

68 Size

Standard Company A is forming a Joint Venture with an SBA-certified 8(a) Company as part of the Mentor-Protege program. Both companies are VA-certified SDVOSBs. It is our understanding that we will be able to compete for a contract on this solicitation regardless of size of either company due to the nature of our 8(a) status.

This is not an 8a set aside. This requirement is a Small Business set aside. A company may propose for this requirement as long as they meet the Small Business size standard.

69 General Is this IDIQ expected to be primarily continuation of the support being provided by the incumbent? Specifically is this IDIQ expected to produce task orders for primarily administrative, staff augmentation, and O&M support; or, will this include weapons system development, integration, and applications? Additionally, are task orders expected to be issued to support the requirements listed in Attachment 1b, Appendix A (Job Descriptions), to the

PWS?

This IDIQ is expected to consist of continuation of work supported by the incumbent as well as other work. Some positions will work on the future capabilities of the weapon system and the integration of some parts. Attachment 1b, Appendix A (Job Descriptions) is expected to be inclusive of requirements at the task order level.

70 Contract Since this IDIQ requires a Top Secret/ Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (TS/SCI) security clearance , will the Prime have to have a SCIF at their facility?

The Prime is not required to have a SCIF at their facility.