Final RFP Questions Answers.pdf

Ite m

RFP Reference, if given in response Question/Comment/Recommendation Government Response

1 Is it possible to get the Draft RFP in Word format? No, the only format available for the Draft RFP is the PDF document posted on FedBizOps.

2 Is the correct size standard for this opportunity 1,500 or 500 employees?

1500. This NAICS code allows for multiple size standards and based on OTES requirements, the size standard of 1,500 was selected.

Reference Section L, paragraph L.3.1.1, Table L3.1.1, and paragraph L.7.3

There is no page requirement provided for the concise narrative for Volume II, which precedes the Table of Contents. This appears to be a subset of the Executive Summary. Will the Government consider removing the requirement for a narrative for Volume II and use the Executive Summary for Volume I in its place, or provide a page count for this requirement?

The narrative is removed from Volume II and Offerors shall use the Executive Summary for Volume I in it's place. The Executive Summary has a 10 page limit.

Reference Section L, Table L3.1.1;

and paragraphs L2.1 through L3.1.1, L7.3.3.1, and L7.3.3.2

Volume II is allotted a total of 60 pages. 30 pages for Subfactor One

– Task Order Solutions and 20 pages for Subfactor Two – Technical Solutions. This would leave only 10 pages for Subfactor Three – Management Approach. However, the asterisk section of Table L3.1.1 indicates that the Management Plan (L7.3.3.1) has a page limit of NTE 10 pages and the Transition Plan (L7.3.3.2) has a page limit NTE 5 pages. This would mean that Subfactor 3 – Management Approach requires a total of 15 pages. In order to properly address all 19 management elements/sub-elements listed in L7.3.3.1 through L7.3.3.1.14; PWS 3.1 through 3.1.4, 5.3 through 5.3.2, and 6.0 through 6.2.2; H-130, H-260 and H-270; as well as the 10 elements/sub-elements listed in L7.3.3.2 through L7.3.3.2.5; and considering the text font, line spacing, margin restrictions, etc., we request the Government increase the page allocation for Subfactor 3 – Management Approach to 15 pages and the total Volume II page count to 65.

The total page count is changed to 65 pages for Volume II.

Reference Section L, paragraph L7.3.3.1.9

This is a subset of L7.3.3.1.2. Would the Government consider eliminating this requirement or renumbering it to L7.3.3.1.2.1?

Offeror's will need to address this item, but it is not required to be renumbered.

Offerors may address this as a subset of L7.3.3.1.2, but it must be identified as a response to L7.3.3.1.9.

Reference Section L, L.7.3.3, Subfactor Three:

Management Approach, paragraph L.7.3.3.1.3; H-270 Key Personnel; and Task Order #1 and

“Personnel used to support this contract and their specific experience and skills relevant to this effort. Provide position descriptions for all direct personnel supporting technical requirements.” Question:

Should these descriptions actually be provided for ALL direct personnel who may support this contract, which could be a very large number of people, or only for key positions? If so, please define key positions. Question: Section H-270 requires the offeror to agree “to assign to task orders those key personnel listed in paragraph (e).” It also states that Key Personnel will be defined in individual task orders. No key personnel were defined in the two Task Order RFPs.

Will the Government provide definitions for the Key Personnel?

1) Only provide position descriptions for personnel proposed to support technical requirements directly. In other words, only personnel who will be providing services directly related to the technical requirements. Do no submit position description for ALL personnel supporting this contract in its entirety.

2) This clause is only to be used when the Government identifies key personnel positions. Since key personnel were not identified on either task order, this clause does not apply to the initial proposal, but may apply to subsequent task orders.

Reference Section L, L.7.3.3, Subfactor Three:

Management Approach, paragraph L.7.3.3.1.7

“Anticipated subcontractors required over extended periods of time and their function. Describe the criteria used to select subcontractors.” Question: Are these subcontractors different from the teammates on the offeror’s presented team? If so, what is the intent of this requirement?

This requirement applies to those Offerors proposing as a Prime/Sub team, not a joint venture type team.

Reference Section J, Task Order #2, paragraphs 3.2.4 and 3.2.5; and Section C, Descriptions and Specifications, paragraphs 3.2.6 and 3.2.7

The text in the Task Order #2 paragraphs aligns more correctly to the text in PWS requirements 3.2.6 and 3.2.7 respectively. Please clarify the actual intended requirements.

The numbering is incorrect and should reflect 3.2.6 and 3.2.7. This correction will be made at time of award.

Reference Attachment L7, DOL OFCCP

EEOC Clearance Request Information Form and paragraph L9.0 Volume IV –Cost Proposal

Instructions for filling out this form were not attached. Also this form was not referenced in Paragraph L9.0. Will the Government please provide instructions on how to fill out this attachment? Additionally, since we are to provide our cost proposal based only for the two Task Orders provided, how would we provide Attachment L7 Proposed Award Amounts for a base year and for six option years?

1) Instructions are not available for this form.

2) It is not identified in L9.0, but it is identified in L6.2.7.

3) Provide proposed amounts for the base year and each option for each task order. Form may be modified to include this information. The form is only a template and can be modified. Although it states 6 option years, this acquisition is only for 4 years. Task orders are base year plus 3 options.

Reference Contract Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254, block 10k, and Section 13, Security Guidance, cont’d, block 10k

This form specifies that contractor will require access to SIPRNET at the locations identified in Block 8a. Block 8a, Actual Performance Location, lists Contractor’s Facility. Is it the government’s intention that contractors have SIPRNET access within their facilities? What are the geographic locations where the government intends for contractors to have facilities that have SIPRNET access? Will the government provide sponsorship for contractors that are awarded a contract for their facilities that do not currently have SIPRNET access?

1) No;

2) The DD254 will be corrected at time of award to remove "Contractor's Facility" from Block 8a.

3) The Government will provide SIPRNET access only in Government facilities.

Offerors are not required to have SIPRNET in their facilities.

General: Draft RFP Questions and Responses, Dated 24 May 2010, Answer to Question # 9

Further, we will need visibility into the projected cost throughout the Period of Performance (a monthly spend plan).

Please advise if the “monthly spend plan” refers to the Monthly Status and Funds and Man-Hour Expenditure Report listed in RFP, PWS 3.7 Performance Objective for PWS 3.1.1 and CDRL A002. Is a monthly spend plan required to be submitted in the Cost / Price Proposal for Task Orders 1 and 2?

The monthly spend plan does not refer to the report. It is required to be submitted in the Cost/Price proposal for both task orders.

12 C.2, Performance Plan, 2.3.7.3

[Contractor] Maintains and implements a Quality Control Plan (QCP) to ensure the contract services conform to the requirements of the PWS.

Please clarify whether the Quality Control Plan is part of the Management Plan (CDRL A001) or a separate CDRL.

The QCP is part of the management plan (CDRL A001), not a separate CDRL.

13 L.8.2.6

The draft RFP included: To avoid potential conflicts, Offerors are exempt from sending Past Performance Questionnaires to other potential competitors of this acquisition. In this situation, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to find an alternative method of providing the Government the same or similar information.

Please consider reinstating these statements into the final RFP to avoid conflicts that could arise as a result of a company being required to evaluate the performance of a competitor.

Offerors are free to select the past efforts which best represent relevance to perform OTES. The highlighted language will not be reinstated.

14 L.8.3

Offerors shall include their rationale why the contract, or a specific portion of the contract submitted, is relevant for consideration in demonstrating their ability to perform the OTES requirements The Offeror shall complete the relevancy matrix similar to that included as Attachment L6 . (Underlines for emphasis).

Please clarify whether Offerors may revise Attachment L6 to reflect the Offerors’ proposed relevancy criteria.

Offerors may revise Attachment L6

15 L.9.2.8.2.3

All proposed dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.

Should hourly labor rates also be rounded to the nearest dollar?

No, hourly labor rates are not rounded to the nearest dollar. Dollar amounts referenced in this statement refer to total calculated dollar amounts.

Attachment L1, Cross Reference Matrix

The matrix requires the Cost / Price proposal volume, page and paragraph to cross reference to the major PWS sections and Sections L and M, Mission Capability subfactors; however we are unable to locate a requirement for the task orders to be priced by PWS. Please clarify how this requirement may be met.

The PWS references in the cross reference matrix identifies both the basic contract PWS and task order PWSs. The cost/price proposals are only directly related to the task order PWSs.

It states in section H-270 KEY PERSONNEL (e) Key personnel will be defined in individual task orders, as required. Currently neither Task Order 1 nor 2 identify any Key Personnel. Please Advise.

This clause is only to be used when the Government identifies key personnel positions. Since key personnel were not identified on either task order, this clause does not apply to the initial proposal, but may apply to subsequent task orders.

Large IDIQ’s of this magnitude typically provide a list Labor Categories that cover the life of the IDIQ, either with qualifications listed or requested. Will that be provided?

No, the OTES PWS gives a table of the core competenices required.

Section H – Cost/Price Page 63 – H-100 Task Order Proposal Procedures (MAR 2008), paragraph D, 5th bullet – “Cost/Price proposals shall utilize Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) approved Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs) or approved billing rates for both labor and all indirect rates…”

If the contractor does not have an FPRA or approved billing labor/indirect rates, can we assume that another DCAA-approved estimating methodology is acceptable?

Yes, if an Offeror does not have an approved FPRA, another DCAA approved methodology is acceptable. However, please note, this clause only applies after award. Please refer to Section L for proposal instructions for this RFP.

Section J – Task Order 1 and Task Order 2 Performance Work Statements Pages 100 and 106

– PWS 5.4.2 Funds and Man-Hours Expenditure Report (A002) and PWS

5.4.3 Status Report

(A003)

Please clarify if these reports are due 15 work days after the end of the reporting period.

The report is due 15 calendar days, not work days, after the end of the reporting period. The task order PWSs will be updated at time of award to provide further clarity.

Section J – Task Order 1 and Task Order 2 Performance Work Statements Pages 101 and 107

– PWS 6.3 Phase-In and PWS 6.4 Phase- Out

Please define the periods for Phase-In and Phase-Out for Task Orders 1 and 2.

The Phase in or transition period is 49 days from contract award. This is tentatively set for Dec 1. For task order #2, the phase out paragraph will be removed from the PWS as it is not required. For task order #1, the phase out period cannot be identified at this time. It will be identified in the final year of performance.

Section C – OTES Performance Work Statement Section J – Task Order 2 Performance Work Statement Page 9 – PWS 3.2.6 and 3.2.7, Page 103

– PWS 3.2.4 and 3.2.5

PWS 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 in the Task Order 2 PWS do not map to the OTES PWS 3.2.4 and 3.2.5; rather, they map to the OTES PWS 3.2.6 and 3.2.7. Will the Task Order 2 PWS be updated to reflect the appropriate OTES PWS paragraph numbers?

See response to Question 8.

Section L – L3.0 Proposal Volume Instructions and Other Required Documentation Page 123, L3.1.1 Proposal Volumes Organization, Number of Copies, and Page Limits – Volume II, Mission Capability

Please confirm that the “Management Plan” referenced in the proposal organization table in the second row as well as in the notes section of the table the same as Subfactor Three: Management Approach referenced in section L7.3.3, which is split into the management plan and transition plan. If so, please confirm if the NTE 10-page limitation referenced in the proposal organization table note section is to include the transition plan or is the transition plan page limitation in addition to the 10-page limitation for the management plan. If it is in addition to the management plan, then the total pages allowable for Volume II adds up to 65 pages versus 60.

Please clarify.

See response to Question 4.

Section L – L3.0 Proposal Volume Instructions and Other Required Documentation and L7.0 Volume II – Mission Capability Page 123, L3.1.1 Proposal Volumes Organization, Number of Copies, and Page Limits – Volume II, Mission Capability and Page 126, L7.3 Volume Organization

Please clarify the page count for the “concise narrative of the volume.” It remains unclear as to whether the “concise narrative” is included in the 60-page limitation given the page limitations for each section within Volume II (which appear to exceed the 60-page limitation at the maximum values).

Please clarify what the Government is expecting in the “concise narrative” as there is no description given in the RFP. Is the expectation for the “concise narrative” to be similar to an executive summary? Please provide further details.

The concise narrative only related directly to the volume. Providing a concise narrative for the volume. See response to Question 3.

Section L – L6.0 Volume I – Executive Summary & Contract Documentation Page 125, L6.2.6 Affirmative Action Plan, L6.2.7 Department of Labor EEOC, and

L6.2.8 VETS-100

Report

Please clarify if the term “Offeror” as it relates to the above Section L requirements is defined as Prime Contractor alone or if it includes subcontractors as well. In other words, should the information required in L6.2.6, L6.2.7, and L6.2.8 also be provided for each subcontractor?

Yes, this information should be provided for each subcontractor.

Section L – L6.0 Volume I – Executive Summary & Contract Documentation Page 124 – Model Contract

The requirements for the Contract Documentation portion of Volume I do not address where to include sections of the model contract that need to be completed by the offeror with the exception of Section K (e.g. page 61, Section G – TIN). Should we only include the sections not called out in the Section L instructions on the CD-ROM?

Yes, all required fill-in information required to be completed by the Offeror shall be included.

Section L – Volume III – Past Performance Page 129, L8.2 Content of Past Performance Volume – Specific Content, 1 page

The past performance content described in the content table includes “Specific Content” as the last row of the table. Please verify that the “Specific Content” being referenced in the table is the same “Specific Content” being referenced in L8.2.5.1 and should be included in the past performance information sheets (PPIS), which are allowed to be three pages total (one page for the contract data and two pages for the narrative) versus the one page maximum referenced in the content table.

Paragraph L8.2.5.1 references the specific content to be included in the PPIS. The last line in table in L8.2 should be ignored. The page limitation for the PPIS is 3 total pages. One for the table and 2 for the narrative (specific content)).

Section L – Volume III – Past Performance Page 131, L8.2.8 Consent and Client Authorization Letters – “For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a Client Authorization Letter…”

If a company is a subcontractor to the contract being referenced in the past performance volume, they would typically send the past performance questionnaire to the prime contractor versus directly to the government. In this scenario, would the prime contractor be considered a commercial customer, and thus need a client authorization letter authorizing them to release the offeror’s performance information, even if the contract was being performed for a government customer?

Yes, but the letter is not to authorize the release of the prime's informaiton, it is to allow the Government to release or discuss subcontractor past performance information with the Offeror (Prime) during any exchanges. In addition, completed past performance questionnaires whether for the prime or sub should be submitted directly to the Government to ensure the protection of information.

Completed questionnaires should not be submitted to the prime.

Section L – Volume III – Past Performance Page 131, L8.2.8 Consent and Client Authorization Letters – “For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a Client Authorization Letter, Attachment L5 in Section L…”

Attachment L5 in Section L is still the sample consent letter versus the client authorization letter. Should we come up with our own client authorization letter or does the government intend to provide one?

Offerors should develop their own letter. The consent letter provided is only a sample.

Section L – Volume III – Past Performance Page 121, L2.1.1 Text – “Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document … text lines shall have 1.5 line spacing,” and Page 140 – Attachment L2, Present and Past Performance Information template

Please clarify if the 1.5 line spacing applies to the past performance template since the template in the solicitation document is not currently setup that way.

1.5 line spacing with Times New Roman, size 12 font is required, except in tables, which may use Times New Roman, size 10 font. As this is a table, size 10 font is acceptable without the 1.5 line spacing.

What security levels does the Government anticipate for performance on the 2 Task Orders in the RFP? If numbers of each type of clearance cannot be provided (based on current execution), will the Government provide percentage of total within each task order for each of the following categories: no clearance required, Secret, Top Secret, TS/SCI, and SAP?

Top Secret is the minimum requirement. Contractor employees must be eligible for SCI/SAP.

According to section L7.3.3.1.1, a proposed organizational chart is required, identifying the responsibilities in the PWS section 3.1.

When referencing section 3.1, section 3.1.1 states “Prepare task order proposals in support of task order performance requirements in accordance with the task order procedures set forth in Section H”.

When referencing section H, bolded letters at the top of the page state “This clause will only be used after initial award. Do not use this clause to complete your proposal”. Is the Government’s intention to eliminate nameless resumes from the overall Management Plan, but allow them in the specific task order #1 and 2 responses within this proposal? Or is it the Government’s intention to disallow nameless resumes completely in this proposal and have position descriptions only, allowing nameless resumes in only task orders bid after the initial award (starting with task order #3)?

For proposals submitted in response to this RFP, only position description are to be submitted. Nameless resumes will not be accepted. After initial award, nameless resumes may be accepted as part of the request for task order proposal submission procedures. Specific instructions will be provided at time of request.

Considering the amount of content required for inclusion in the Management Approach, would the Government consider expanding the page limit for the Mission Capability volume by 10 pages with a NTE amount of 20 pages for the management plan, for a total of 70 pages? (ref Table L3.1.1 and Section L7.3.3 and subparagraphs)

See response to Question 4.

The Government anticipated release of the Final RFP on 1 June 2010 with a corresponding turnaround of 45 days, resulting in a due date of 15 July 2010. The 2 June 2010 release and the 7 July 2010 due date on the Final RFP gives 36 days turnaround. Will the Government consider extending the due date to Friday, 16 July 2010 to recapture the original 45 day turnaround?

The original date of 15 July 2010 was only an estimate. The response date will remain 7 July 2010.

On the Standard Form 33 (SF33), Block 9, the provision of a hand carried (delivered) proposal does not have a depository location identified. Is it the intention of AFOTEC to allow hand carried delivery of the proposal; and if so, what is the depository location?

The depository is the address located in Block 7. Proposals must be received NLT 4:00pm MDT on 7 July 2010. Physical location is Building #20130, Rm 125.

36 L.7.3.3.2.2

The government provides an outline for Volume II, which includes writing a Concise Narrative. This narrative is not listed as a section excluded from the page count; however, no page limitation is given.

The government references the page count for Volume II in their responses to draft RFP questions (Response 6) but again the Concise Narrative is not included in the subsections with specified page counts nor listed among subsections exclude from the page count. Is the Concise Narrative included in the 60 page limit? If so, what is its NTE page count?

The concise narrative for Volume II is removed. The Executive Summary in Volume I will be used in it's place. See response to Question 3 and 4.

PWS

ATTACHMENT

L2, In the Description of Effort block, sentence “ Offerors shall submit Present and Past Performance data to support Factor 2, including all Mission Capability Subfactors, and Factor 3, Cost/Price.”

Is “Factor 2” correct, or should it be “Factor 1”? Please confirm or clarify.

It should read as Factor 1. Offeror's may list the COTR/COR/QAP or Program Manager as the Point of Contact for Past Performance.

L8.2.5 PAST

PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION

SHEETS

Limits on Performance Information Sheets are as follows:

If subcontractors are to be used:

- Two (2) from each subcontractor who will be completing 20% or more of the technical work.

If subcontractors are used, are two Performance Information Sheets required, or is that the “limit” (i.e., one is acceptable)? Please clarify.

It is only a limit. See response to Question 37 for more information concerning this attachment. Also reference Section L8.2.5.

L9.2.5 TAB 5 –

FINANCIAL

CAPABILITY

The requirement to provide all of the information required by DFARS 232.072, DFARS 232.072-2(b) and 232.072-3 is clearly excessive for the task ordering contracts contemplated by the RFP.

Will the Government consider modifying this requirement by allowing Offerors to provide sufficient information to meet the requirements of FAR 9.104-1? Recommend deleting DFARS requirement.

The DFARS requirement is removed. Offerors are only required to comply with

FAR 9.104-1.