Clarification_Questions_A&T_8Feb19.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 82 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SAF/CDM Analytical & Technical (A&T) Services IDIQ Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA7146-19-R-0001
About this file
This document contains clarification questions and responses related to a solicitation for analytical and technical services to support the Secretary of the Air Force's Concepts, Development, and Management Office. Key details include:
-
The solicitation is for an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity multiple award contract to provide analytical and technical services such as strategic planning, research and development, and leveraging of commercial technologies. The period of performance is up to 10 years.
-
Labor categories, composite labor rates, and fully burdened rates for both on-site and off-site work are required for cost reimbursement and firm-fixed price line items. Ceiling rates apply and will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism.
-
Task orders will have separate negotiations for total negotiated ceilings. The two sample task orders focus on commercially enabled intelligence and a research environment for concept development and management.
-
Major subcontractors performing over 10% of work must submit compensation plans and rates. Clarification was provided on the definition of major subcontractors.
-
The final solicitation and any amendments must be reviewed carefully to propose compliant and comprehensive responses addressing all requirements by the amended due date, as no extensions will be granted.
Clarifications
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 27
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| # | Topic (RFP Section and Heading) | Statement/pg# | Question | USG Response |
| 1 | L.4.0 | NOTE: It is the Prime Offeror’s responsibility to review all of their team members’ proposals for accuracy and format. For any supporting data that a major subcontractor may not be willing to provide directly to the Prime Offeror, the Prime Offeror shall instruct the major subcontractor to provide that information directly to the Government in accordance with the terms and conditions of the solicitation. | Under the draft RFP, a “major subcontractor” was defined as a subcontractor, other than the Offeror itself, that will perform ten (10) percent or more of contract scope based on total costs, however this language was removed from the final RFP. |
1) Under the final RFP, does the ten (10) percent of more of contract scope remain the correct threshold?
2) Given that Task Orders are not priced, should Offeror’s apply this ten (10) percent threshold to the anticipated value of the IDIQ in order to identify major subcontractors?
3) Given that the Offeror’s proposed IDIQ rates cover each of their subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners, what cost/price information is the Government requesting from subcontractors? Section L.4.2.5 has been updated to indicate a major subcontractor is defined as one who will perform 10% or more of contract scope based on the anticipated total cost of the IDIQ.
At this point, the Government is requesting the rates meant to cover each of their subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. Cost and pricing information is required for all pricing information used to develop the rates. If the proposed rate factors include prime as well as subcontractor rates, then the build-up should contain all pricing information from both prime and sub on how the rate was developed.
2 L.5.6 The Prime Offeror and Major subcontractors shall submit their Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees as Attachment 1 to Volume III. Please confirm the percentage of work a subcontractor must receive in order to be defined as a “major subcontractor” and please confirm if this percentage is at the Task Order or IDIQ level.
Please confirm that major subcontractors are authorized to submit their Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees as Attachment 1 to Volume III via a sealed package submission.
| Please see response to question #1. Major subcontractors are authorized to submit their total compensation plans for professional employees via a sealed package submission. | ||||
| 3 | Section M 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.2 | 3 | Both M3.2.1.2 and M3.2.2.2 require a schedule to be developed for Task Order 1 and 2, respectively. The Offeror assumes that the same level of detail is required for each schedule. If this is correct, will the Government modify M3.2.1.2 to read “Clearly defined schedule that details the task level 1 effort” to be consistent with M3.2.2.2? | Negative, TO1 instructions purposefully allow for more detail. |
| 4 | IDIQ PWS 2.3.2 TO2 PWS A.3 | 6, TO1 PWS Pg 8, TO2 PWS pg 11 | IDIQ PWS 2.3.2 refers to a Contractor On-Site Task Order Lead, while Task Order PWS section A.3 (of both Task Orders) refer to a Project Manager. Will the Government please confirm that these are the same position and clarify which title Offerors should use? | TO1 & TO2 PWS Section A.3. updated to read "on-site lead". Offeror's should use this title. The on-site lead does not have to be a separate position. |
| 5 | Section L | Section L does not provide a definition for major subcontractors. Since TO pricing is no longer required for proposal submission, will the Government please consider removing all references to major subcontractors at the IDIQ level? | Please see response to question #1. | |
| 6 | Section L1 | 1 | There appears to be a discrepancy in L1.0, line 19, between the ordering period and the period of performance. Will the Government please clarify if the period of performance is 9 years with a six-month extension or 10 years with a six-month extension? | The wording is correct. There could be up to a 9-year ordering period if all options are exercised. Task orders can extend for up to 1 year after the end of the ordering period which is the total period of performance of the contract (10 years). Individual task orders can be extended by 6 months if the USG determines it to be necessary. However, the total PoP shall not exceed 10 years. |
| 7 | Section L3.4.1 | 6 of 10 | Can the Government please clarify the meaning of the statement (found in L3.4.1) “The Offeror shall propose a technical approach, potential solutions.” Does the Government desire alternative solutions to the Scenario, or just one unified solution? | In accordance with M.3.2.4.1, the USG will evaluate the offeror’s 'clearly defined technical approach to assessing the scenario and proposing technical solutions to its execution, including reference to similar efforts previously conducted by the Offeror'. |
| 8 | Section L4.1 | 7 | The Offeror assumes that fee will be determined at the TO level. Will the Government confirm this is correct? | Since the Government is only evaluating rates at this time, fee will be determined at the task order level. |
| 9 | Section L4.2.5 | 8 | Regarding Section L4.2.5 (line 369), does the Government intend for Offerors to submit an elemental cost breakout for both the CPFF and FFP-LOE rates? | No, elemental cost breakouts are only required for CLINs that will be evaluated using Cost analysis & realism. |
| 10 | Section L4.1 | 7 | Regarding Section L.4.1 (lines 313 and 324), can the Government please confirm that only the Prime Offeror is to submit rates at the IDIQ level? | Both Section L.4.1. (1) and (3) requires rates for the Prime Offeror, and each of their “subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners.” |
| 11 | Section LL2.2.6, L3.6 | 4, 7 | Section L requires both a Glossary of Terms (L2.2.6) and an Acronym List (L3.6). Will the Government please confirm that the Glossary of Terms and the Acronym List are the same glossary per L2.2.6, and remove requirement L3.6? | Providing the information in L2.2.6 for each volume will meet the requirements in L3.6 and L4.2.2. |
L3.6 will be removed.
| 12 | TO2 PWS 1.5 | 2 | Regarding TO2 PWS section 1.5, will the Government please confirm that “58 larger projects” should read “5-8 larger projects”? | TO2 PWS Section 1.5 has been updated to read “5 to 8” as opposed to “58”.” | |
| 13 | TO2 PWS 1.3 | 1 | Regarding TO2 PWS section 1.3, will the Government please confirm that “supply change risk management” should read “supply chain risk management”? | TO2 PWS Section 1.3 has been updated to read “supply chain risk management" | |
| 14 | XXX requests a modest extension of two to four weeks for the Air Force CDM A&T Services Mac (Solicitation No. FA7146-19-R-0001) due date to ensure we provide the best possible compliant and technically compelling response that address all PWS and Sections L and M requirements. | No extension will be granted. | |||
| 15 | Section L1 | 1 | The document stated the acquisition does not meet the criteria for a SB set-aside. The solicitation is using NAICS 541990 with a size code of $15M. Please clarify that this CDM effort is a full and open competition. | Yes, this is a full and open competition. Language has been added to Section L1.0 line 23. | |
| 16 | Section L1 | 1 | This is a MAC contract and we are not sure which subcontractor(s) may be used. It is dependent upon the technology requirements and TOs released. What is your definition of a major subcontractor? Would you consider deleting this because it is TBD? | Please see response to question #1. This information is required for pricing and compensation validation. | |
| 17 | Section_L_1-24-19_Final, Section L.4.1, page 7 | CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001 (CPFF) - IDIQ RATES: Offerors shall complete workbook Rates/Factors Matrix (RFP Attachment 3) to propose fully burdened composite labor rates (excluding fee). The rates shall include fully burdened labor rates for all labor categories required by the Prime Offeror, including each of their subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. The Government will perform cost realism analysis on cost-reimbursement contracts IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). All labor rates proposed will be Not to Exceed (NTE) rates. | Establishing ceilings to CPFF labor rates, at the IDIQ level prior to fully understanding the scope and complexity of future task orders artificially limits Offerors' ability to bring to bear resources that are needed for task order requirements and is not in the best interests of the Government. For example, if the task needs a resource who exceeds the minimum qualifications of a labor category, they may not be able to afford to bring that resource to the project because of the ceiling. This is likely to harm the government by limiting their access to specialized resources that were not envisioned during the IDIQ proposal phase, but would otherwise be easily accommodated by a CPFF order that does not have ceilings. Would the Government consider removing the requirement for ceilings to CPFF labor rates? | No, the tiers within each labor category are meant to allow the offerors to price for higher skill sets that may be needed. | |
| 18 | Section_L_1-24-19_Final, Section L.4.1, page 7 | CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001 (CPFF) - IDIQ RATES: Offerors shall complete workbook Rates/Factors Matrix (RFP Attachment 3) to propose fully burdened composite labor rates (excluding fee). The rates shall include fully burdened labor rates for all labor categories required by the Prime Offeror, including each of their subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. The Government will perform cost realism analysis on cost-reimbursement contracts IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). All labor rates proposed will be Not to Exceed (NTE) rates. | FAR 16.301 defines cost reimbursement contracts as establishing “an estimate of total cost for the purpose of obligating funds and establishing a ceiling that the contractor may not exceed (except at its own risk) with the approval of the contracting officer.” Would the government instead establish and apply ceilings at the total task order cost level, consistent with FAR 16.301? Additionally, this would allow offerors to tailor a ceiling price that is specific to the scope and needs of a specific task order. | The Government views this as 2 separate issues. The Government is establishing ceiling rates for individual labor categories. However, each task order will have a negotiated total ceiling that will include the priced labor category rate-based on the category you propose, fee/profit and proposed hours to establish the ceiling for purposes of obligation. | |
| 19 | Section_L_1-24-19_Final, Section L.4.1, page 7 | CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001 (CPFF) - IDIQ RATES: Offerors shall complete workbook Rates/Factors Matrix (RFP Attachment 3) to propose fully burdened composite labor rates (excluding fee). The rates shall include fully burdened labor rates for all labor categories required by the Prime Offeror, including each of their subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. The Government will perform cost realism analysis on cost-reimbursement contracts IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). All labor rates proposed will be Not to Exceed (NTE) rates. | CPFF work is invoiced using a cost summary by cost element approach where direct labor is detailed and indirect costs are accumulated in lump-sums. This approach does not generate hourly CPFF labor rates per individual or labor category in the format requested in Attachment 3. | ||
| If the ceiling is not removed, please clarify how the ceiling rates will be monitored and applied during task order performance and invoicing. | Negotiated labor rates of the IDIQ base contract will be used on future task orders. Invoicing will be based on actual costs. Invoicing will be IAW actual costs. | ||||
| 20 | Section_L_1-24-19_Final, Section L.4.1, page 7 | CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001 (CPFF) - IDIQ RATES: Offerors shall complete workbook Rates/Factors Matrix (RFP Attachment 3) to propose fully burdened composite labor rates (excluding fee). The rates shall include fully burdened labor rates for all labor categories required by the Prime Offeror, including each of their subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. The Government will perform cost realism analysis on cost-reimbursement contracts IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). All labor rates proposed will be Not to Exceed (NTE) rates. | |||
| CLIN 0003, 1003, 2003 (FFP-LOE) IDIQ RATES: Offerors shall complete workbook Rates Matrix (RFP Attachment 3) to propose fully burdened labor rates (including profit). The rates shall include fully-burdened labor rates for all labor categories required by the Prime Offeror and each of their subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. | Since the government is requesting NTE CPFF and FFP-LOE which essentially operate like Time and Materials (T&M) contracts, would the government consider changing the requirement to a T&M rate card for ease of review and use on future task orders? | No, CPFF and FFP-LOE were selected based on the requirements. | |||
| 21 | Section_L_1-24-19_Final, Section L4.1 page 7 | CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001 (CPFF) - IDIQ RATES: Offerors shall complete workbook Rates Matrix (RFP Attachment 3) to propose fully burdened composite labor rates (excluding fee). The rates shall include fully burdened labor rates for all labor categories required by the Prime Offeror, including each of their subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. The Government will perform cost realism analysis on cost-reimbursement contracts IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). All labor rates proposed will be Not to Exceed (NTE) rates. | Please confirm if composite labor rates means that there will be a single copy of RFP Attachment 3, which will contain a single rate per labor category, per year, and per site (onsite/offsite), which will affect a ceiling that applies to all team members (prime, major sub, minor sub) working under that labor category / year / site. | Yes, that is correct. | |
| 22 | Section_M_1-24-19_FINAL, Section M4.1.4, page 5 | 1) The Offeror’s CPFF rates (CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001) will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism, and an adjustment may be made. The Offeror’s FFP-LOE IDIQ rates (CLINs 0003, 1003 and 2003) will be evaluated for reasonableness, but will not be evaluated for realism. The Offeror’s rates will be evaluated by the Government dollarizing the Offeror’s rates at the CLIN level. This will be accomplished by the Government calculating a CLIN price for the prime Offeror based on the following: the Rates Matrix (RFP Attachment 3) and the Government’s expected Labor Category Usage (LCU). The expected LCU will not be disclosed to Offerors. | |||
| a) LCU: The Government has estimated the total annual hours expected to award during a typical contract year. The Government will assign annual labor hours to each labor category based on the percentage of expected usage of each labor category. The Government’s assigned LCU percentages will not be disclosed to Offerors. | Please confirm that both the onsite and offsite labor rates will be evaluated and used in the LCU. | Yes, both on-site and off-site will be evaluated to include CPFF & FFP-LOE. | |||
| 23 | Section_M_1-24-19_FINAL, Section L.1.7, page 3 | The Prime Offeror will provide a copy of the Defense Security Service (DSS) letter granting an interim or final Top Secret Facility Clearance in Proposal Volume III – Contract Documentation. If a Prime Offeror is unable to demonstrate the Interim Top Secret Facility Clearance or the plan to have a Top Secret Facility Clearance, then the Prime Offeror will be eliminated from the competitive range and ineligible for award. | Please confirm that this requirement will be added to the evaluation criteria in Section M. | Section M5.0 has been updated. | |
| 24 | Section_L_1-24-19_Final, Section L.4.2.4, page 9 | The Offeror shall state whether the estimating, purchasing and accounting systems have been approved by the Government and shall provide evidence of the approval. The Offeror shall provide any known/cited system deficiencies and identify any deviations from the Offeror’s established/standard procedures used in preparing this proposal. For known/cited system or methods non-compliances, provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the Offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues. The Offeror shall state whether the current Cost Accounting Standards Disclosure Statement has been approved and provide evidence of the approval. | Please confirm that this requirement will be added to the evaluation criteria in Section M. | Section M4.1.3 has been updated. | |
| 25 | PWS, Section 4.7, page 19 | Travel. Cost Reimbursable travel shall not include a profit or fee bearing cost element: | |||
| Other Direct Costs - Materials, Equipment, and Supplies. Cost Reimbursable material can include a profit or fee bearing cost element. | Please confirm that offerors are allowed to apply indirect burdens consistent with approved cost disclosed practices as these are not fee/profit elements. | Yes, as required on future task orders. | |||
| 26 | Section_L_1-24-19_Final, Section L5.6, page 9 | L5.6 COMPENSATION PLAN |
The Prime Offeror shall submit a plan for total compensation of professional employees pursuant to FAR 52.222-46. The Prime Offeror and Major subcontractors shall submit their Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees as Attachment 1 to Volume III. The Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees will not become part of the awarded contract. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements since it may impair the Offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees.
| Please clarify what constitutes a major subcontractor. If offerors are not proposing task orders at present, how is workshare percentage determined? | Please see response to question #2. |
| 27 | Section_L_1-24-19_Final, Section L5.6, page 9 |
L5.6 COMPENSATION PLAN
The Prime Offeror shall submit a plan for total compensation of professional employees pursuant to FAR 52.222-46. The Prime Offeror and Major subcontractors shall submit their Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees as Attachment 1 to Volume III. The Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees will not become part of the awarded contract. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements since it may impair the Offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees.
| Since the Compensation Plan is no longer included in Section M as part of the evaluation criteria should it be removed from Section L as well? If required, would the government consider submission of the Compensation Plan at the task order proposal level where actual resources are being proposed for the specific task order requirements? | Section M 5.0. has been updated. | |||
| 28 | 3-AT_Rates-Matrix1-11-19 | Attachment 3 has columns broken out by year for 10 years. The period of performance in Schedule B states the base period is 15 Sep 19 – 14 Sep 20. Do the years in Attachment 3 represent calendar years or should they match the contract periods or government fiscal year? | The years are calendar years as task orders may span multiple years of performance. | |
| 29 | Section_L_1-24-19_Final, Section L5.8, page 9 | Department of Labor Equal Opportunity Employment Clearance (EEOC), and Section J, Attachment 9 | Please confirm that the contractor should use the anticipated obligated value of $21,000,000 (Section L.3.5.1) for each of the nine years of the total contract ceiling. Additionally, please confirm that the Contractor can tailor the DOL EEOC Clearance Request Information form to represent the base period of 5 years and the two -- two year option periods. | Yes, the contractor should use the anticipated obligation value of $21M as an estimate. Yes the contractor can tailor Attachment 9. |
| 30 | 4_-_TO1_Commercially_Enabled_Intelligence-1-24-19, Section A.2, page 8 | A.2. SECURITY LEVEL OF TASKING REQUIREMENT: Work related to these tasks shall require TOP SECRET/SCI clearances. | There are requirements in both task order 1 and task order 2 that are potentially best met by uncleared SMEs. The current language requires that all personnel have TS/SCI clearance. This may limit the Government’s ability to access a broad range of expertise and industry’s ability to provide cost effective solutions. Would the Government consider easing security requirements such that only personnel working in CDM SCIFs and/or using CDM classified systems and networks requires the TS/SCI clearance? | Exemptions to the clearance requirement are discussed in PWS Section A.4.” |
| 31 | 5_-_TO2_CDMA_Research_Environment_-_1-24-19, Section 1.5, page 1 | 1.5 Historically, CDMA receives between 58 larger projects | Does the government mean 5 to 8 or 58? | Please see response to question #12. |
| 32 | 3-AT_Rates-Matrix1-11-19 | In the Labor Category Descriptions and Onsite – Rate tabs, there is a HUMINT Scientist labor category, but in the Offsite – Rate tab there is a Sr HUMINT Scientist labor category. Please clarify which one is the correct title. | It should be HUMINT Scientist with the 4 levels, junior, Journeyman, Senior and SME. Attachment 3 has been updated. | |
| 33 | RFP, Section L | Pg. 3, Sect L2.1 | In the table, Volume II, Factor 2 Cost/Price Volume does not provide instruction for Hard Copies. |
| Will there be a Hard Copy requirement for this Volume (as there is for the other two volumes)? If so, please advise. | Section L.2.1 has been updated. There is no requirement for a hard copy of the cost/price volume | |||
| 34 | RFP, Section L | Pg. 7, Sect L4.1 | Section states "The rates shall include fully burdened labor rates for all labor categories required by the Prime Offeror, including each of their subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners." |
Does "all labor categories required by the Prime Offeror" mean offerors should populate/price only the LCATs required by the two TOs?
| If so, how will the Government determine a TEP with limited and differing LCAT pricing from offerors? | Offerors should populate the rates for all of the labor categories requested in the Rates Matrix, not just those applicable to the two task orders. Section L updated for clarity. | ||||
| 35 | RFP, Section L | Pg. 7 | Will the Government provide an Other Direct Costs (ODC) CLIN to allow pricing of nontraditional subcontractors without established Government approved rate structures? | Subcontractors will not be allowed to bill as an ODC. Any need for additional types or tiers of the labor categories may be considered at the Task Order level. | |
| 36 | RFP, Section M | Pg. 1, Sect M1.3 | States "Trade-offs may be made between Task Orders and Cost/price, if the superior performance warrants the price differential. Factor 1, Technical Capability is significantly more important than Factor 2, Cost/Price." Also states "Trade-offs may be made between Factor 1, Subfactors 1, 2 and 3 (Subfactors 1, 2 and 3 are of equal importance), and Factor 2 Cost/Price, if the superior approach warrants the price differential. The remaining Technical Subfactors, 4 and 5, will be rated as “Acceptable/Unacceptable.” | ||
| The two appear to be contradictory and a typo. Our assumption is that the first sentence should be deleted. Please confirm/clarify. | M1.3. has been revised to delete this language. | ||||
| 37 | PWS_CDM_A&T_Services | Pg. 5, Sec. 1.2 | The final PWS includes a change from the draft to the title of the first focus area. It is now "Strategic and Operational Enablers". |
For clarity, please elaborate on some of the types of technical capabilities that would fall into this focus area. PWS Sec 3.3 and 3.4 as well as other section 3 areas include multiple examples of leveraging existing commercial technology that could potentially support this focus area.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .