Responses_to_Questions_-_16_Dec_16.pdf

1) There seems to be a contradiction between the Evaluation factors and the Technical requirements stated below:

Reference : 3.2.2.2 in Evaluation Factor on page 32 states, “Demonstrate the contractors past experience whereby the prime/subcontractor team has successfully attracted, recruited, hired, trained and retained a minimum of 80 fully cleared contractors at the TS/SCI level and has accomplished work similar to requirements in the PWS, across GSU’s both in CONUS and OCONUS.”

Comment: This contradicts 5.2.7 in Technical Factor 1 on page 19, “Show experience where the prime/subcontractor team then prime and subcontractors individually have successfully attracted, recruited, hired, trained and retained a minimum of 80 fully cleared contractors at the TS/SCI level and has accomplished work similar to that is within the scope of the contract.

Answer: We have corrected the verbiage in 5.2.7.

2) Is it the government’s intent that the team as a whole (prime and subcontractor as a team) meets the requirement as stated in 3.2.2.2?

Answer: Yes

3) The FBO notice shows no set aside (but formerly competitive 8a), but the 1449 shows 8(a) checked in block 10. Which is correct?

Answer: This is a competitive 8a Set-Aside

4) Having reviewed both the RFP Instructions and Evaluation notes, and my notes from the Pre-

Proposal Conference, It appears there is a missing factor to the Past Performance evaluation process.

Comment: Sections 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 are replete with references to Demonstrated ability to perform the actions/services required by the PWS and the overall mission. The LPTA evaluation standards for

Technical Acceptability require that such demonstrated capabilities have both evidence and proof to meet the technical and management approach burdens.

Section 3.3.1 cites Table C-2 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 31 March 2016 and the associated NOTE cites FAR 15.305 (a) (2) (IV) to support a neutral rating considered

“acceptable.” However, there does not appear to be a requirement or indication that a Proposal Risk

Evaluation or Confidence Determination will be assessed, as required in the cited FAR reference, to wit:

15.305 Proposal evaluation.

(a) Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. An agency shall evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation. Evaluations may be conducted using any rating method or combination of methods, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights, and ordinal rankings. The relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks supporting proposal evaluation shall be documented in the contract file.

Question: Will the evaluation include a determination of performance risk for each Prime Offeror to ensure a “Propped-up Prime Offerror” with no assessable Past Performance, cannot be presented by an otherwise ineligible contractor?

Suggestion: While the FAR cite allows for a Neutral rating where no Past Performance is available or submitted, the Contracting Officer shall make a determination of risk and that assessment shall be factored into the determination of Technical Acceptability.

Answer: IAW the Source Selection Procedures for LPTA there is no requirement to evaluate risk, therefore there will not be a separate Risk Rating. Past Performance will be assessed in accordance with the provided instructions.

5) My first question goes to the determination of Technical Acceptability for this LPTA evaluated procurement.

Reference page 15 of 67, Section 1.3 Clarity of Proposal. The last sentence appears to be key to the determination of Technical Acceptability… “Demonstration of capability and qualifications that clearly support the offeror’s claims are essential. The absence of such evidence will adversely influence evaluation of the proposal.”

Comment: Demonstration of capabilities and qualifications is always best supported by the existence of performance history in providing support in same or similar (recent/relevant) contracts. Such performance history, supported by past performance submitted with the proposal, and CPARS or other reviews from Government customers significantly reduces risk associated with mission critical support requirements.

Question: In the submittal of an offeror’s proposal that does not have past performance to demonstrate capability in the evaluation factors, particularly those where the offeror is required to

“Demonstrate Ability” and therefore, cannot be a proof offering of capability due to the lack of prior performance. Will the Government maintain that lack of demonstrated capability and qualifications to render a proposal not Technically Acceptable? Will this be a determining factor for the assessment of a Technically Acceptable proposal?

Answer: Technical capability will be assessed IAW Evaluation factors. Technical is not a Past

Performance determination, but a determination on ability to meet the needs of the Government based on experience and how the contractor can demonstrate ability to meet the requirements of the

Government. If the contractor is unable to meet the requirements of the stated evaluation criteria then it will be unacceptable

6) My second question goes to the history of this Contracting Office in providing responses to questions.

Comment: In past procurements the Contracting Office has been delayed in providing responses to questions submitted within the submission deadline as stated in the RFP. This causes significant rework of offerings and in many cases extensions for submission of proposals.

Question: Will the Contracting Office commit to timely responses to questions, i.e., within 48-72 hours of the RFP cut-off for questions?

Answer: The Contracting Office will post responses when all questions are answered and the

Amendment is complete if required.

7) My company is interested in responding to the 25 AF Linguist and Analyst Support Services

Solicitation (FA7037-16-R-0001), but I am unable to locate/access the PPI tool referenced in the

RFP. Could you please help me find it?

Answer: Corrected. The PPI Tool Link has now been uploaded to FBO. Attachment 7 provides the instructions.

8) The Period of Performance is listed as December 1, 2017 through November 30, 2021. Is it correct that this contract will not start until December 1, 2017?

Answer: Yes, that is correct.

9) 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.

Answer: These items are included in 3.2.1.3 of Evaluation criteria and will be evaluated.

10) The overall Past Performance Volume requirements have inconsistency with regard to page numbers and the use of the word Summary. 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 (7.1.2). The volume also seems to require PPI Tool hard copies, and a PPI

Summary (7.3.1) at 5 pages in length. Is this correct? The use of "Summary" with differing page requirements is causing confusion as to how this Volume should be developed in a compliant manner.

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, and PPI Summary etc.

Answer: Corrected. The PPI Tool Link has now been uploaded to FBO. Attachment 7 provides the instructions.

11) 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. The PPI tool has not been uploaded onto FBO. Also, do we have to alter the PPI print out to fit the RFP format requirements or do we leave the PPI printout as the Government designed it?

Answer: Corrected. The PPI Tool Link has now been uploaded to FBO. Attachment 7 provides the instructions.

12) Paragraph 8.1 references Attachment 4 (labor matrix) and Attachment 3 (not specifically identified). RFP Attachment 3 is the DD254, which does not make sense in the context of paragraph

8.1. Please clarify what is meant by "Attachment 3" in 8.1, and provide this Attachment, if not included with the original RFP.

Answer: That was a typographical error and “Attachment 3” should read “Attachment 4”.

13) This paragraph states "Offerors are required to propose a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) amount for

Linguist/Analyst Support Services. Offerors are also required to provide fully loaded FFP labor rates for each labor category included in the labor matrix (attachment 4)." Is the Firm Fixed Price for L/ASS different than the completed Attachment 4? Please clarify why the term "also" is used in this paragraph.

Answer: Offerors need to provide an overall FFP amount for the Linguist/ Analyst Support Services requirement, which would include all of the proposed monthly rates for the languages and locations specified in attachment 4.

14) Since Attachment 4 includes Labor Categories, number of FTE's and annual hours/FTE, what is the purpose of providing the table in 8.2.2? Also, the hours in Section 8.2.2 do not match the Attachment

4 values exactly. Please clarify the relationship between the Attachment 4 LCATS and FTEs and the

"historical usage" data in 8.2.2; please resolve any discrepancies between the two documents.

Answer: Table 8.2.2 is for historical usage only and is no guarantee for future orders, nor is the estimated FTEs in attachment 4. Table 8.2.2 has been deleted.

15) The historical usage table indicates that there are two Program Managers and one Deputy

Program Manager for the Base Year through the Option Year 3; and then only one Program Manager and one Deputy Program Manager in Option Year 4. Is this correct? If the Government wants two

Program Managers, is the Government’s intention to keep the programs (Linguists and Cyber) separated from a management perspective?

Answer: Table 8.2.2 is for historical usage only and is no guarantee for future orders, nor is the estimated FTEs in attachment 4. Table 8.2.2 has been deleted.

16) Attachment 4 requests pricing for "Year 1" through "Year 4", four (4) years total. Table 8.2.2 lists a Base Year and four (4) Option Years, for a total of 5 years. Please clarify / explain the relationship between Attachment 4 and the table in 8.2.2 as it pertains to the Cost/Price proposal submission.

Answer: Table 8.2.2 is for historical usage only and is no guarantee for future orders, nor is the estimated FTEs in attachment 4. . Table 8.2.2 has been deleted.

17) In section 3.3.3 Relevancy of the Evaluation Criteria, states: A Relevancy determination of the

Offeror’s present and past performance (individually and/or in aggregate) will be made based on the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will validate the relevancy information contained in the proposed PPI Summary. The Government is not bound by the

Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevancy for this solicitation is defined as Relevant: Past or present effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort (or portion of effort) and complexities required in this solicitation: The PPI must show the contractor has supported a requirement that has provided at least 80 FTEs at geographically separated units (GSU’s) in the CONUS and OCONUS. Please confirm if each PPI reference must meet the relevancy requirement, OR does at least one of the PPI references need to meet relevancy requirement, OR does it mean that taken all together the PPI presented must add up to 80+ FTEs relevancy requirement? This seems to be unclear in several sections of the RFP.

Answer: The relevancy definition has been corrected. A relevancy determination is made for each PPI submitted. To be relevant, yes the PPI must meet the standard but we have updated the information to state show conus and oconus combined. The Gov’t is not asking contractors to show past performance with 80 FTE’s CONUS and 80 FTE’s OCONUS but 80 FTE’s combined. Keep in mind, this solicitation if for approx. 180 FTE’s CONUS and OCONUS with TS/SCI clearances, so we are only requested a subset of what is actually needed.

18) Since Attachment 4 (labor matrix) is pre-populated, what is meant by the statement, "Contractors shall propose based on their own technical approach?"

Answer: Appendix B has been removed from the PWS along with the statement, "Contractors shall propose based on their own technical approach." Please propose as presented in Attachment 4.

19) The "estimated quantities" on App B do not match Attachment 4, the labor matrix. For example, Appendix B references 1,920 hours/year (we assume this is the Full-Time Equivalent) but Attachment

4 states 1,864 hours/year. There are also slight discrepancies in the "estimated quantity" headcount for Linguists and Managers. Please clarify or resolve the discrepancies between PWS App B, Attachment 4, and Section 8.2.2.

Answer: Appendix B and table 8.2.2 have been removed from the PWS. Attachment 4 has been corrected to show an FTE is 1,920 hours/year.

20) What are the items "Security+" and "Network+"? These items don't appear on Attachment 4 or in

Section 8.2.2. Please clarify.

Answer: Appendix B has been removed from the PWS.

21) Should the Offeror propose ODCs as part of its Attachment 4 pricing? If so, please indicate the types of ODCs that should be included in our response. Given this is LPTA, we suggest the

Government provide a fixed, "plug-in" number for ODCs.

Answer: Attachment 4 should include your fully burdened monthly rates.

22) What type of orders will be placed against this contract? (FFP only, or all types)?

Answer: FFP with Cost Reimbursable CLINS for Travel and Base Support.

23) What is the role of the Cyber Mission Forces language Analyst? What languages are involved?

Does the Language Analyst need all of the Cyber training?

Answer: That information is specified in the PWS and Cyber Languages are identified on Attachment 4.

24) Attachment 4 indicates that an FTE is 1864 hours, but the historical chart in Section 8.2.2 seems to use 1920 hours. Please clarify.

Answer: Attachment 4 has been corrected to reflect 1920 hours.

25) The SF 1449 shows the size standard under NAICS 541930 to be $7,000,000. The size standard should be $7,500,000. Will the government provide a corrected SF 1449 to be used for submission?

Answer: Yes, we have made the correction.

26) There are references made to “Schedule C” within the first three CLINs. Should this instead read

Attachment 4, Labor Matrix?

Answer: Yes, we have made the correction.

27) Clause 52.212-1 states "Text used for call-outs on graphics and exhibits shall be no smaller than

Times New Roman, 8-point in height after final reduction." We interpret this to apply to the “call-out” of the graphic (i.e., caption). Can the government clarify what the font point in height restrictions are for table, graphic, illustration and/or exhibit?

Answer: yes, the 8-point height restriction cited in clause 52.212-1 refers to table, graphic, illustration and/or exhibit."

28) Clause 52.212-1 states “Font shall be Times New Roman, no smaller than 12-point with normal proportional spacing.” Can headers and footers be except from the 12-point restriction?

Answer: No

29) For the electronic copies (CDs) of the entire proposal, can the Offeror submit volumes in searchable Adobe PDF with the exception of Attachment 4 (pricing) for Volume IV, Price/Cost, which will be in Microsoft Excel? If no, please provide the desired file type of the electronic submission files for the CDs.

30) The Offeror acknowledges the sample curriculums are excluded from Volume II, Technical, 45 page limit; therefore, can the Offeror submit hard copies of each sample curriculum in a separate binder as appendices to Volume II for ease of evaluation?

31) Will the government accept links to .wav and video files within a curriculum? If no, can the government please provide guidance on how the Offeror should submit .wav and video files within a curriculum?

Answer: No, the Government will not accept links. All files must be loaded onto a CD.

32) Should 5.2.4 read as "5.2.4 Describe your knowledge and experience in providing personnel who are trained in telecommunications fundamentals, wireless technology, network technology and network analysis as related to USCYBERCOM Cyber Mission Forces (CMF) CLAs."

Answer: No, it should read as it’s stated.

33) We found discrepancies within Table B-2, Cross-Reference Matrix. Can the Offeror make the following changes to the Matrix?

•Subfactor One: Technical Approach, column references Clause 52.212-2 Paragraph 5.2, should reference 3.2.1.

•Subfactor Two: Management Approach, column references Clause 52.212-1 Paragraph 5.3, should reference 5.2.5.

•Subfactor Two: Management Approach, column references Clause 52.212-2 Paragraph 5.2.5, should reference 3.2.2.

Answer: All references have been reviewed and corrected. Please review the updated sections in the

RFP.

34) The Offeror would like to point out there are several inconsistencies in the instructions (52.212-1) for Section 7.0, Volume III Past Performance. We respectfully request the government please revisit these instructions to ensure clarity is provided so Offeror’s may submit a compliant response.

Questions below highlight some areas:

- Item # 2., states the “Past Performance Summary: Not to exceed two (2) pages per submission, max of

5 submissions." However, on page 22, 7.3.1, PP Summary, states "Offerors shall submit a single five (5) page narrative." Please clarify. – Words changed to clarify.

- 7.1.1 instructs Offerors to include a detailed matrix that depicts Relevancy as defined in para 3.3.2 of

52.212-2. Please note para 3.3.2 defines Recency; 3.3.3 defines Relevancy. Is the matrix part of the PPI

Summary discussed in 7.3.1 on page 22? Please confirm where the matrix should be included within

Volume III and is it part of the 20 page limit for this volume. – Section 7.0 has been updated to clarify what is needed by the Gov’t. Please review the revised section of the RFP.

Yes, matrix is part of the PPI Narrative.

- Within the draft solicitation the Government provided a Past_Performance_Information_Attach_8.

Will the Government be providing a final PPI Template or should the PPI be pulled from the online PPI

Tool? – Section 7.0 has been updated to clarify what is needed by the Gov’t. Please review the revised section of the RFP. Attachment 8 had been removed.

- Section 7.2 states to submit the PPI as “Offeror Name-Volume Name-PPI X) as part of the electronic copy of the Past Performance Volumes.” However, 7.2.2 states “Save the PPI database file as prime contractor name + RFP number + .accdb). Please clarify how the electronic copy of the PPIs should be submitted to the government. Should the PPIs not be integrated into Volume III but rather on the CD as separate files? Which file naming convention is the Offeror to use? – Section 7.0 has been updated to clarify what is needed by the Gov’t. Please review the revised section of the RFP.

- States the PPI tool is posted on FedBizOpps as “ppi_tool.accdb”. Please note the tool does not appear on FedBizOpps. Will the government provide the .accdb file separately? – Link has been uploaded

- States “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 the RFP and should be Tab 1 of the Past

Performance volume.” Section 7.1 does not list the PPIs as part of the information required for Past

Performance Volume. What is the page limit for each PPI once printed from the PPI Tool? Are the PPIs included in the overall 20 page limit for Volume III? – These are the required PPIs, maximum 2 pgs

- 7.2.4 instructs Offerors to list contract numbers of similar complexity and relevance to this acquisition which have been performed in the last 5 years not to exceed five examples. Is this list intended to be separate from the PPI references submitted via the .accdb tool? Please confirm where this list should be included within Volume III and is it part of the 20 page limit. – No, it’s the same list

Answer: Section 7.0 has been updated to clarify what is needed by the Gov’t. Please review the revised section of the RFP. The link for PPI Tool has been uploaded to FBO.

35) On Pg. 23, 8.1 General Instructions, should the reference made to “Attachment #3” instead read

Attachment 4?

Answer: Yes, and has been corrected.

36) Does the rounding of labor rates to the nearest dollar refer to the monthly rate provided in

Attachment 4? This question is raised because the hypothetical example provided on page 35 of 67, Section 3.4.5.1, shows hourly labor rates that are not rounded to the nearest dollar. Therefore, please confirm the Offeror is only to provide monthly unit rates that are rounded to the nearest whole dollar in Attachment 4?

Answer: Attachment 4 requires fully loaded monthly rates, the hypothetical example has been removed as well as the rounding information in 8.1.5.

37) The totals for CLA/Analysts and Managers do not tie to the breakouts provided below. For example, the individual components of the CLAs/Analysts totals 289,920, not the 261,120 indicated.

Similarly, for the Managers listing, the individual components tally 27,840 hours, not the 25,920 hours listed. Moreover, the total FTEs presented in paragraph 8.2.2 (151 for linguists/analysts; 14.5 for managers; and 4 for instructors) do not tie to the total FTEs shown in Attachment 4 (161 for linguists/analysts; 15.5 for managers; and 4 instructors). Please confirm the Offeror is to price to the positions listed in Attachment 4?

Answer: Historical data is for information only. Table 8.2.2 has been deleted. Price what is in

Attachment 4.

38) In Section 9.3, Completed Solicitation/Contract, the instructions state we submit the following

"Completed Sections B through J" as part of Volume V. The solicitation is not labeled by these section letters. To ensure the Offeror is compliant with instructions, please clarify the location of the solicitation that is required for submission as part of this volume.

Answer: Verbiage corrected for commercial format.

39) On Pg 34, 3.4.1: Should the references to “Appendix C” be changed to read as Attachment 4?

Should the reference to 52.212-1 para 8.2.3 read as para 8.2.2? For evaluation purposes, the solicitation states that the hours in 52.212-1 will be extrapolated against the labor rates in Appendix

C. The hours are not equivalent between the 52.212-1 reference and what is shown in Attachment 4, nor are the FTEs.

Answer: Yes, the references have been corrected. The historical data is for information purposes only and should not be compared to Attachment 4. Table 8.2.2 has been deleted.

40) The Service Contract Act clauses are included, but no Wage Determinations are provided. Can the

Government confirm whether these clauses should be removed along with 52.222-17, as under (e) (1) on page 41 includes the Exemption from the Application of Service Contract Labor Standards clauses?

Answer: This clause will be removed.

41) In Attachment 4, the total FTEs exclude the information contained in cells AT4, BJ4 and BN4.

This leads to incorrect totals. Similarly, in cell BS4, the totals are missing cells AU4, BC4, BG4, BK4 and BO4. What is the total number of months meant to present? Is it to present one 12-month period per site or the number of 12-month periods per FTE per site? If it is the latter, then the computation needs to be changed to reflect the number of FTEs per site. Can the government update this attachment to reflect the correct computations?

Answer: Attachment 4 has been updated.

42) Is the Matrix excluded from the page count for the PP Summary?

Answer: See revised section 7.0. Yes, the matrix is included in the page count.

43) Please provide the PPI tool. It is currently not posted on Fedbiz opps.

Answer: The link for PPI Tool has been uploaded to FBO.

44) Is it the governments intent that the Site Leads responsibilities be an additional duty for a CLA or is this a dedicated Management position? If so, please provide a description of duties and candidate qualifications.

Answer: Site Leads responsibility is an additional duty and there is no requirement for further candidate qualifications – it’s a role used by contractor to lead the other contractors.

45) Will a company who submits acceptable past performance receive a higher confidence rating than a company who submits no past performance?

Answer: Please read Solicitation Instructions regarding past performance. No confidence rating will be assigned.

46) Please indicate which labor categories require the Security+ and Network+ Certifications.

Answer: Appendix B has been removed from the PWS.

47) Please define the role of the Cyber PM. It is our understanding that the current requirement is for the Cyber PM to be at Lackland, would it be more advantageous to the mission if the Cyber

PM is co-located with Cyber Analysts?

Answer: The role of a CMF PM is the same as a non-CMF PM (see PWS). And it is not advantageous to have them at a different site than Lackland.

48) Is there a requirement for the Deputy PM to be at particular site location, or can they be stationed at any duty site?

Answer: This information has been added to the PWS

49) The current document has a response date of 3 Jun 13. Please provide an updated due date for the PPQ.

Answer: This has been updated

50) Will PPQ’s for work performed as a subcontractor be accepted?

Answer: Yes, if it is work of reasonable size and scope

51) Section 1.3 of the PWS states that the “contractor shall provide personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision and other items and services required to provide foreign language linguist and analyst services.” However, Section 4.2 states that the “Government will provide all the necessary facilities, equipment, materials, and logistics required” and

Section 4.3 states that the “Government will provide communications equipment and capabilities including classified and unclassified telephone service, to include facsimile if available.” Can the Government please clarify which items will be provided by the

Government and which items are the responsibility of the Contractor?

Answer: All government is provided equipment and materials are listed in 4.2 and 4.3.

52) PWS states “CAT II and III linguists shall have and maintain a minimum proficiency in the target language Interagency Language Roundtable (ILRT) level 3 in listening and reading.”

Does the Government require proficiency testing in any additional skills? Or, per the PWS

- a qualified linguist must maintain a minimum proficiency of ILR 3 (in the SCRL) and

ILR 2+ (in English) for listening and reading?

Answer: No additional proficiency testing is required.

53) Can the government please confirm all proposal volume printed originals and copies shall be delivered to the following:

25 AF/PK

Attn: Ms. Chiretta Boclair & Ms. Carissa Lechner

102 Hall Blvd, STE 268

Lackland Joint Base San Antonio, TX 78243-7030

In addition, can the government confirm offerors can use either Ms. Boclair’s OR Ms.

Lechner’s phone number as reference for shipping purposes?

Answer: Delivery instructions in the RFP have been updated to reflect all necessary changes.

54) Paragraph 8.1 of the RFP states that “The proposed rates in the offerors’ Attachment #3 will be incorporated as an attachment of the resultant contract award and will be the rates used to price subsequent task orders.” Attachment 3 is the DD254 Form. Could the Government please clarify if

Attachment 4 should be referenced here, instead of Attachment 3?

Answer: Yes, it has been updated to reference Attachment 4 (Labor Matrix).

55) If the Offeror proposes different rates for different locations on Attachment 4, will each of the location specific rates be incorporated as part of the contract?

Answer: The entire Attachment 4 will be incorporated as part of the contract.

56) Although the government is requesting fully loaded labor rates be included in Attachment 4, the government also mentions “Offerors may submit any other pricing data that they believe is prudent and necessary to justify their cost/price proposal.” Does the government require a separate

Cost/Price narrative as part of Volume IV-Cost/Price? Or would Attachment 4 be considered the entirety of our Volume IV submission?

Answer: Please see 52.212-1, instructions to offerors to determine how many volumes are required.

Any other data required is left to the contractor’s discretion.

57) In Paragraph 7.1, the RFP states that Volume III Past Performance include four elements – 1) Table of Contents, 2) Past Performance Summary, 3) Subcontractor/Team Partner Consent Letter, and 4)

Organization Structure Change History.

However, in a subsection to that paragraph, paragraph 7.1.1 Summary, offerors are instructed to

“Describe the roles of the references submitted for the Offeror, subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners in relation to proposed performance for the subject requirement. Include a detailed matrix that depicts how each PPI meets the relevancy criteria defined in paragraph 52.212-2 para 3.3.2. Also include a detailed explanation of how the combination of all submitted references meets the relevancy criteria.”

In addition, paragraph 7.3.1 (titled “PPI Summary”) states “Offerors shall submit a single five (5) page narrative that provides frank, concise statements regarding the Contractor(s)’s performance on all of the PPI references provided.”

These “Summaries” seems to speak to our overall Past Performance, rather than the individual past performance reference summaries mentioned in number two of paragraph 7.1. Can the government confirm offerors should include an additional five page limit narrative of their overall past performance as a separate element within Volume III Past Performance, in addition to the four mentioned in paragraph 7.1?

Answer: Section 7.0 has been updated to clarify what is needed by the Gov’t. Please review the revised section of the RFP. The change should answer your question. The PPI narrative (summary) is explained in section 7.0. The summary is in relation to your PPI’s, which is your past performance.

58) Offerors are required to submit Past Performance Information (PPI) PPI Sheets on “contracts considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform Linguist/Analyst Services.” Does the government require PPI sheets to match the three to five past performance references the offeror submits under paragraph 7.1?

Answer: Yes, it is the same. PPI is your Past performance. Section 7.0 has been updated to clarify what is needed by the Gov’t. Please review the revised section of the RFP.

59) Can the government please provide additional detail on the information to include on the Past

Performance Information Sheets requested in paragraph 7.2?

Answer: The PPI Tool has been uploaded into FBO per the instructions in Attachment 7. If you click on the database it will guide you through what information is needed.

60) Under Table B-1, Volume III Past Performance is limited to 20 pages. Under paragraph 7.1, this

Volume includes a Table of Contents (1 page limit), Past Performance Summaries (2 page limit, up to 5 submissions for a potential total of 10 pages), Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter (1 page per partner), and an Organization Structure Change History (2 page limit). In addition, paragraph 7.3.1 requires an additional narrative summary of all of our references that has been given a 5 page limit.

Depending upon the number of partners on an offeror’s team, this may cut into an offerors ability to meet the 20 page limit cited in Table B-1. Would the government consider:

1. Excluding the Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letters from the Volume page limit? YES

2. Providing additional clarity around the elements of the Volume defined in Paragraph 7.1 to include

5 page summary required in Section 7.3.1?

Answer: Yes, it is the same. PPI is your Past performance. Section 7.0 has been updated to clarify what is needed by the Gov’t. Please review the revised section of the RFP.

61) The Pricing Notes state that, “Hours per position based on 155.33 hours/ month; 1864 hours per year per FTE”. 1,864 hours per year per FTE is lower than the typical hours for an FTE and represents

10 holidays and 17 PTO days. Most companies don’t offer 17 PTO days for new employees and therefore, the 1,864 hours per year per FTE would be too low. We recommend that the hours per year per FTE be increased to 1,920.

Answer: Attachment 4 has been corrected.

62) The PPI Tool instructions states that, to download the PPI Tool, offerors must “Locate the ‘ppi tool’ link from the ‘All Files’ column on the solicitation’s ‘Notice Details’ tab” on the solicitation’s

FedBizOpps page. However, there does not appear to be a link to this tool in that location? Can the government please provide this link?

Answer: The PPI Tool link has been uploaded to FBO.

63) Please provide Labor Category descriptions to differentiate between TS and TS/SCI level resources.

Answer: All Labor Categories are TS/SCI.

64) Please provide the PPI Tool Link on FBO.gov

Answer: The PPI Tool link has been uploaded to FBO.

65) Not all items in the RFP 52.212-1 para 5.2 are included in the Cross-Reference Matrix. Question:

Are Offerors allowed to add to the PWS Requirements in the Cross-Reference Matrix?

Answer: No, the Government has specified what they require.

66) The para # referenced in the columns for the Clauses for 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 are incorrect.

Question: Will the government correct the references or should the Offeror?

Answer: Yes, the references have been corrected.

67) 7.2.3 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ). The Government will use a PPQ (Attachment 6) as a tool for conducting Past Performance telephonic or email interviews only on PPI’s that do not have a

CPAR. In the event a PPQ is used, it will be treated as source selection information IAW FAR Part

3.104. Question: If CPAR is available for a contract used in PPI, is a PPQ required?

Answer: Yes, but it will only be used if no CPAR is available

68) 52.212-2 para 3.4.1 references estimated hours as shown in 52.212-1 para 8.2.3. The historical usage table is included in 52.212-1 para 8.2.2. Question: Should the reference in 52.212-1 3.4.1 be

52.212-2 para 8.2.2?

Answer: Yes, it should read para 8.2.2

69) Schedule B references Schedule C for fixed labor rates. In 52.212-2 para 3.4.1 states "The base year evaluated price will be established by using the estimated hours as shown in 52.212-1 para 8.2.3 multiplied by the offeror’s labor rates incorporated in Appendix C. The contractor’s FFP rates in

Appendix C will be incorporated into the contract and will be the rates used to price subsequent task orders."

Question: There is no Appendix C or Schedule C in the RFP. Should Appendix C and Schedule C be replaced with Attachment 4?

Answer: Yes, it has been corrected to Attachment 4.

70) The RFP Schedule B references Schedule C. PWS Appendix B says that "The historical workload data provided is for informational use only and is based upon historical data. Contractors shall propose based on their own technical approach."

52.212-2 para 3.4.1 states that estimated hours shown in the Historical Usage table will be used, and the Attachment 4.

Attachment 4 has its own data for FTE and month that differs from hours listed in the Historical Usage

Table.

Question: What hours should be used for Pricing?

Answer: This has been corrected and Attachment 4 should be used for pricing.

71) 7.4 Relevant. To be relevant, each recent past performance citation submitted by the offeror, teaming partner or subcontractor will be reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed against the Linguist/Analyst PWS and technical subfactors. Consideration will be given to past performance of similar size and complexity. The PPI must show the contractor has supported a requirement that has provided at least 80 FTEs at geographically separated units (GSU’s) in the CONUS and OCONUS

Question: Are both CONUS and OCONUS required under one PPI?

Answer: Yes, but we have updated the information to state show CONUS and OCONUS combined.

The Gov’t is not asking contractors to show past performance with 80 FTE;s CONUS and 80 FTE’s

OCONUS, but combined. Keep in mind, this solicitation is for approximately 180 FTE’s CONUS and

OCONUS with TS/SCI clearances, so we are only requesting a subset of what is actually needed.

72) Will Task Orders be FFP for each period of performance or FFP Fixed Labor Rate using estimated

Workload Data?

Answer: FFP

73) SF1449 Box 10 states Size Standard as $7,000,000.

52.212-2 1.2 para 1.2 states a Small Business Size Standard of $7.5M.

Question: What is the Small Business Size Standard?

Answer: $7.5M – this has been corrected

74) Due to the holiday season for offerors and PPQ Points of Contact, will the Department of the Air

Force, AMIC DET 2 extend the due date of the proposal?

Answer: The due date of proposals has been extended due to Government need

75) 7.2.1 Past Performance Information (PPI). Submit information on contracts you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Each relevant contract shall have a minimum of 2 years of active performance within 5 years preceding the (Linguist Analyst

Support Services/LASS) final solicitation issuance date. This includes contracts that were awarded prior to this period, but still had performance occurring as of this time.

Comment: The requirement for active performance in the PP has increased from six (6) months in section 7.2.1 of the draft RFP to two (2) years in section 7.2.1of the final RFP.

Question: As this is an 8(a) set-aside contract, this new requirement severely restricts competition.

Respectfully, we ask the government to lower the threshold back to six (6) months.

Answer: Please note this solicitation is for approximately 180 FTE’s across both CONUS and

OCONUS locations with TS/SCI clearances. The lower threshold would not provide the necessary past performance to show contractors past efforts at filling a contract of this size and scope. Also, in 6 months most contracts would not have received a CPARs rating or may not have shown the ability to completely fulfill the requirements. The ability to fill these mission critical languages at the TS/SCI level requires a contractor with the right past performance as outlined in the RFP.

Based on market research and historical RFP’s for this requirement, the Government feels there will be multiple qualified offerors proposing on this solicitation.