Consolidated_Questions.pdf

RFP Section # Page # Question Suggestion Change (if applicable) Response

1.2 & 3.1.2 28 & 29 Section 1.2 states "The Government intends to award the

LINGUIST/Analyst Support Services single award ID/IQ contract to one 8a Small Business." However, section 3.1.2 states "If at least five (5) of the lowest priced proposals are technically “Acceptable” and have an “Acceptable” Past

Performance rating, and are fair and reasonably priced, the

Government may award with or without discussions, starting with the lowest priced proposal and each subsequently lowest priced proposal until a target of five (5) proposals are selected for award."

Please confirm that it is the Government's intent to make a single award to only one contractor (not five).

It is the Government's intent to make a single award. We will reword for clarity.

6.1 20 Table B-2 asks for the following items: "Understanding CMF

Language Analyst Roles ISO USCC," and "Training requirements for UCSS CMF team positions." However, these items are not included in the evaluation criteria.

Please clarify whether the Government intends to evaluate these items. Sec L, 5.2.9 and 5.2.16 ref roles and training, respectively.

7 20-21 The overall Past Performance Volume requirements are confusing. We request that the Government review this section and clarify what is required. To start, Volume III requires a Past

Performance Summary, not to exceed 2 pages per submission.

The volume also requires PPI Tool hard copies, and a PPI

Summary 5 pages in length. In addition, the Government has provided Attachment 8. However, the Volume is limited to 10 pages, which conflicts with the aforementioned instructions.

Please clarify the page limit of Volume III, and please clarify which of the following should be included: Past Performance Summary, PPI Tool hard copies, Attachment 8, PPI Summary.

Revised page limit to 20 pages.

7.2.2 21 Section 7.2.2 states "Submit a separate PPI input using the PPI tool...Hard copies of the pages generated from this tool shall be used as the hard copy of the Past Performance volume subject to the limitations outlined in this RFP and should be Tab 1 of the

Past Performance volume." However, the Government has also provided Attachment 8, which seems to serve the same function.

Please confirm that it is the Government's intent that hard copy projects be submitted using the form in Attachment 8 or the printout of the PPI

Tool.

Attachment 8 is a by-product of the PPI Tool and we will therefore delete the attachment.

7.3 & 3.3.2 21 & 32 Section 7.3 defines a recent project as occuring within the past 3 years. However, the evaluation criteria in 3.3.2 defines a recent project as occuring within the past 5 years.

Please confirm that it is the Government's intent to consider projects completed within the past 5 years as stated in the Evaluation Criteria.

5 Years - mistake was corrected.

FAR 52.216-7 54

What type of orders will be placed against this contract? (FFP only, or all types) Define the type of orders that will be placed against the contract.

FFP-LOE and COST Reimbursable for Base Support and Travel CLINs at

Task Order Level.

Draft PWS pg. 3/2.1.3

What is the role of the Cyber Mission Forces language Analyst?

What are languages involved? Does the Language Analyst need all of the Cyber training?

Need more specificity on the task of the Language Analyst assigned to

Cyber Mission Forces.

Please refer to the PWS. Yes the languages are identified. Training is as required.

RFP Paragraph 5.2.3 pg 18 RFP Para 5.2.3 states “Provide two (2) samples of curriculum in

English to include lesson plans, quizzes, tests, and student results (increase/decrease in proficiency) for refresher and acquisition type courses.” Can the Government provide additional clarification on the specifics to the training requested in regards to duration, frequency, recency, scope, class size/number of students, and specific subjects or languages desired?

This is in reference to Global Language Training (1 referesher) and (1 acquisition) type courses. The course duration should be commensurate with the type of course being taught (refresher or acquisition). The frequency or number of times the course will be taught will depend on the number of students needing training. The curriculum submitted for evaluation should be the most current version as curriculum should be continuously reviewed and updated. Class size/number of students will vary depending on the number of students needing training. The scope and subjects should be commensurate with the type of course being taught (refresher or acquisition). The list of languages on this contract has been provided. If you don’t have curriculum for one of the contract languages, you may submit curriculum for 1 refresher and 1 acquisition type language training course you have developed and taught in a language other than those on the list of languages for the contract.

Questions from Industry in Response to Draft RFP FA7037-16-R-0001

RFP Paragraph 5.2.16 pg 19 RFP Para 5.2.16 states “Describe your management approach to plan to provide USCYBERCOM required training and certification external to training provided by the government

(NSA/ADET) for personnel assigned as USCYBERCOM CMF

Language Analysts.” Is the Government asking for the offeror’s management approach to provide additional CYBERCOM training not currently provided by NSA/ADET? Can the

Government provide additional clarity to this requirement?

Yes, we would like the offeror to be able to describe to us how they intend to provide trained and qualified linguists that can meet the expectations that

USCYBERCOM has for its cyber linguists.

There is a mandatory training pipeline that all military and civilian cyber linguists serving on the Cyber Mission Forces' (CMF) Combat Mission

Teams (CMT) must complete in order to considered qualified and certified.

This training is available to all of them via NSA/ADET training courses;

unless you are a contractor. This is because only some of that training can be provided to contractors due to the policy that contractor developed courses that ADET offers cannot be taken by contractors. That being the case, any additional training/qualification needs to be provided by the contractor themselves, hence the need for the contractor to be able to provide us a management plan on how they intend to do this. This will also demonstrate to us that they know about and are familiar with unique USCYBERCOM training requirements and the issues with dealing with ADET training courses as a Contractor.

RFP Paragraphs 7.2.1 and 7.3 pg 21 RFP Para 7.2.1 regarding Past Performance states “Each relevant contract shall have a minimum of 6 months of active performance within 5 years preceding the (Linguist Analyst

Support Services/LASS) final solicitation issuance date.”

However, RFP Para 7.3 states “Each relevant contract shall have active work/services that was/were performed during the last three (3) years from the final solicitation release date.” Could the Government clarify whether offerors should use past performance references that took place only in the past three years, or can we provide examples from the past five years?

Duplicate question, answered above.

RFP Paragraph 1.1 pg 27 RFP Para 1.1 states “This competitive best value source selection will be conducted using the Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process…” which seems to be a contradiction. Could the government clarify whether this solicitation will be evaluated as Best Value or LPTA?

This is a LPTA Source Selection seeking the best value for the Government.

No trade-offs will be utilized.

RFP Paragraph 1.2 and

Paragraph 3.1.2 pg 28 & 29 RFP Para 1.2 states “The Government intends to award the

LINGUIST/Analyst Support Services single award ID/IQ contract to one 8a Small Business.” However, RFP Para 3.1.2 states “If at least five (5) of the lowest priced proposals are technically “Acceptable” and have an “Acceptable” Past

Performance rating, and are fair and reasonably priced, the

Government may award with or without discussions, starting with the lowest priced proposal and each subsequently lowest priced proposal until a target of five (5) proposals are selected for award.” Can the Government clarify whether it is planning to make this a single or multi-award contract?

Duplicate question, answered above.

Volume III – Past

Performance

Table B-1 of Paragraph 3.1.7 provides a maximum page limit to

Volume III Past Performance as 10 pages. In Paragraph 7.1, it cites the required subsections to include a one page Table of

Contents, Past Performance Summaries of up to two pages each for up to five submissions, and Organization Structure Change

History of up to two pages and Subcontractor/Teaming Partner

Consent Letters. If offerors include five submissions, these responses would be over the 10 page limit. In addition, paragraph 7.3.1 asks for an additional PPI Summary which is “a single five (5) page narrative that provides frank, concise statements regarding the Contractor(s)’ performance on all of the PPI references provided.” Is this in addition to the other pages described in Paragraph 7.1? Could the Government please provide additional clarity around the requirements and page limits assigned to Volume III Past Performance?

Revised the page limit to 20 pages so that requirements can be met without exceeding the limit.

PWS paragraph 2.2.2 1. Does the contract require fully loaded rates for all LCATs at all locations? There is no differentiation in Linguist and Analyst

Skill Level in the LCATs. Are the experience requirements or other differentiators desired aside from the DLPT requirements listed in the PWS paragraph 2.2.2?

Fully loaded rates are required for all Languages and locations. There are no differentiators for skill levels required, as each Cryptologic Language Analyst must meet the requirements outlined in the PWS.

RFP 8.2 23 Cost/Pricing Content, para 8.2.3 states “for the purposes of evaluation only, we will assign the following hours to each classification of labor.” The table following does not appear to be factoring in all hours. For example, the total for

“Linguists/Analysts” is 261120, however if all the hours listed below from Arabic + dialects to Intelligence Analyst are summed, the total is 289920. In addition, Labor Matrix

Attachment 4, includes languages and “cyber” labor categories not listed on the historical figures provided in 8.2.3. Will the

Government be releasing a revised table with projected hours for all labor categories in Labor Matrix Attachment 4?

The Table shown in section 8.2 lists historical values. They are not the actual number of hours of the upcoming requirement, as those may vary. There will be a labor matrix attached to the final RFP that will list all labor categories to include the cyber language categories.

How many awardees are on the current (incumbent) contract?

Who is/are the incumbent on the current contract? What is the total contract value of the current contract?

The current contract is valued at approximately $56M, with the single awardee being Premier Management Corporation.

How many task orders have been awarded to date and how many/how frequent are task orders anticipated on the new contract?

There have been eight task orders awarded to date on the current contract, typically one per year for both the Linguist Task Orders and the CMF Task

Orders respectively. It is unknown how many task orders will be awarded on the new contract, there will be a guarenteed minimum of one task order.

RFP Base support

RAF Mildenhall and

Kadena, CLIN 0005 &

4, 5 Will DBA insurance be evaluated separately from total cost, and for cost realism? Will the contractor have to submit DBA costs included in their total labor costs?

DBA insurance will not be evaluated seperately, it needs to be included in your fully burdened labor rates.