RFP_Questions_as_of_29_July_2014.pdf

QUESTION #1: Reference Section L.6.6; Can we include Letters of Commitment from Subs as an Attachment to SB Participation Plan?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #1: Yes, however, stay within the page limitations.

QUESTION #2: Reference Section L.5.1, L.6.1, L.7.1 and L.8.1; An Executive Summary is requested in each volume, with each having a page limit of 5 pages. Please clarify that the Executive Summary in Volume 1 is to represent a summary for all 4 volumes, and that the Executive Summary for Volumes 2, 3, 4 are to be for that particular volume only. Or, do we repeat the same Executive Summary in all 4 volumes, while adding Price to the Volume 4 Executive Summary only?

GOVERNMENT REPONSE TO QUESTION #2: Section L adjusted for clarification.

QUESTION #3: Reference Section L.3.11; There is a statement that says “Proposals shall also be sent to your Corporate Administrative Contracting Officer (CACO) and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)”. Will AFICA be sending a copy to DCAA, or will we be expected to do this? Please clarify.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #3: No. Offerors are expected to submit copies to DCMA CACO

& DCAA.

QUESTION #4: Reference Section L.7.2 and L.7.4; To keep the burden on the government down, can final CCASS/CPARs evaluations or previous PPQs for the exact project be used instead of new PPQs?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #4: No. New PPQs are required.

QUESTION #5: Reference Section L.5.10; What is required to be submitted in this section (5.10 Contractor Responsibility) of the proposal?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #5: Section L, 5.10 updated to reflect the required submission.

QUESTION #6: Reference Section L.3; Please verify that the following do not count in page count: inside coversheet, glossary of acronyms, and tabs separating sections (as long as there is no text other than the section information on the tab).

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #6: A blank inside cover sheet does not count (as already defined).

A glossary of acronyms contains information and does count. Paragraph L.3.3 has been adjusted to address tabs.

QUESTION #7: Reference General Information 4.9; Is the requirement for a psychological evaluation met by completing the standard DoD questionnaire during the normal physical examination?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #7: The reference for psychological fitness was contained in paragraph 4.10. Yes This information is acceptably captured on DD Form 2807-1, “Report of Medical History,” July 2001, or future versions. See also DoDD 6200.04, “Force Health Protection”

QUESTION #8: Reference Section L.1.2; Where do you want us to provide the statement to affirm participation in mandatory post award orientation? As an Attachment in Contracting Volume or Price Volume?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #8: Please include as your submittal to Volume I, 5.10 Contractor Responsibility. Section L, 5.10 updated to reflect this change.

QUESTION #9: Reference Section L.6.6 and Section M.2.5; Can the Government confirm whether the Offeror is to submit a Small Business Participation Plan or a Small Business Subcontracting Plan?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #9: The wording in Section M, paragraph 2.5 has been adjusted for clarification.

QUESTION #10: Reference Section C, PWS / Security Clearances / Contractor Vetting, paragraph 1.2.2.1.2.2;

Given the AFCAP Program is structured to provide rapid response within 24 hours CONUS and 48 hrs OCONUS, the Offeror assumes the requirement for active U.S. security clearance applies to key personnel, personnel who require access to government information systems, and those involved in the handling of classified information.

Other American Nationals (such as construction workers) would not require a Security clearance. Is this assumption correct?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #10: This assumption that “other American Nationals” do not need to have a secret clearance is correct if these individuals are under escort on a Government installation or Government facility. The requirement for a secret clearance is for each person who requires UNESCORTED access to the Government installation or facility or access to a Government computer system.

QUESTION #11: Reference Section C, PWS / Access to U.S. Government Local Area Network (LAN), paragraph 4.13; following receipt of classified information at Tyndall is the contractor provided access to SIPRnet and/or JWICS for classified communication between Tyndall and the Offeror's SCIF areas to support AFCAP classified task order activities?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #11: First, the Government will not provide OPSEC/COMSEC/TEMPEST equipment to AFCAP IV contractors. The Government will allow AFCAP contractors access to secure communications capability at Tyndall Air Force Base. Note: For classified AFCAP tasks, the vendor must be able to receipt for classified information at the Air Force Civil Engineer Center vault at Tyndall AFB, FL.

QUESTION #12: Reference Section L, 7. Volume III Past Performance; Given the requirement to submit six project descriptions spanning the broad SOW associated with this program along with the other information requested (organizational roadmap, teaming partner roles), would the Government please consider expanding the page limit for this section from 5 pages to 10 pages?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #12: The 5 page limit is for the executive summary.

QUESTION #13: Reference Section L, Volume I, paragraph 5.3; the solicitation instruction requests the mailing address, telephone and fax numbers and facility codes for the Government Paying Office. Will the Government be providing that in box 25 of an amended SF33 or otherwise provide it?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #13: There are to be no payments on the main AFCAP IV contract.

Government payment office will be identified at the individual task order. Section L, paragraph 5.3 has been adjusted to clarify.

QUESTION #14: Reference Section L, 4.2 Proposal Organization, paragraph 6.2; Regarding the teaming arrangements and the page count of "2 Per Team", is "2 Per Team" to be 2 Pages Per Team? If so, since teaming agreements are much longer than 2 pages each, would the Government accept a summary description of the teaming arrangement along with the actual teaming agreement submitted as an appendix?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #14: Please provide a summary. The page limit column is correct at 2 pages per team.

QUESTION #15: Reference All Volumes; Would the Government consider inclusion of a cross-reference matrix as front matter with each volume and excluded from page count to help facilitate evaluation?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #15: Section L, paragraph 1.3 has been adjusted to prohibit cross-referencing between volumes.

QUESTION #16: Reference Section L, Volume I paragraph 5.8 and Volume II, paragraph 6.4; The Offeror notes that Volume I Section 5.8 (Purchasing System) and Volume II 6.4 (Procurement plan) appear to be requesting the same information to include copies of Government approvals for purchasing systems and appear to be redundant.

Due to the very limited page count available in Volume II and the redundancy of information being requested in these paragraphs, would the government consider referring to the information provided under Vol I 5.8 and eliminating Volume II section 6.4? If this is not acceptable, would the Government allow references to the certifications provided in Vol I so they are not counted within the Vol II Management page count?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #16: No, these are two separate requirements, as one is an administrative requirement of the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the other is part of an evaluation factor for award.

QUESTION #17: Reference Section C, PWS, paragraph 1.2.1.6.14; The requirement states, "Contract Manpower Reporting. The contractor shall report ALL contractor labor hours (including subcontractor labor hours) required for performance of services provided under this contract for the Air Force Contract Augmentation Program (AFCAP) via a secure data collection site. The contractor is required to completely fill in all required data fields at http://www.ecmra.mil." Is this requirement applicable even if the subcontract agreement is awarded as FFP?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #17: Yes. This requirement derives from Section 8108 of Public Law 112-10 of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. This requirement applies to all task orders regardless of task order type (FFP, CPFF, etc.) and regardless of contractor tier.

QUESTION #18: Reference Section L, Volume I, paragraph 5.4, The requirement states, "The RFP document (to include all associated files, attachments, files, amendments, etc.) shall be returned in its entirety". Would the Government please clarify whether the offeror is to complete and submit only the Provisions and Clauses in Section I of the RFP, the Offeror's Representations and Certifications in Section K of the RFP, and the SF33; or is the offeror to submit the RFP solicitation in its entirety?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #18: Please return the RFP in its entirety.

QUESTION #19: Reference Section M, Volume III, paragraph 3.3; Performance Quality Assessment: The requirement states, "An Offeror's quality assessment rating will be unacceptable in the event adverse findings are discovered." However, the requirement goes on to state, "For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements." The first section implies a definitive unacceptable determination in the event adverse findings are identified, whereas the second section provides for consideration of other factors. It is recommended the Government change "will be unacceptable" to "may be unacceptable" in the first statement to correct conflicting language between each section.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #19: Section M, paragraph 3.3 language has been adjusted.

QUESTION #20: Section C, part 1.1 Scope states “requirements shall focus on temporary contingency skills…” Do projects and experience involving more complex, permanent construction or Base Operating Support (i.e.

SABRE or Job Order Contract) services in remote/austere/hostile OCONUS locations demonstrate the capability to execute the less complicated “temporary” level task activities required under this solicitation?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #20: Yes to the extent they overlap. Section C, paragraph 1.2;

Section C Appendix A, definition #63; and Section L paragraph 1.1 have all been updated for clarity.

QUESTION #21: Section H, items c and e; Section L, part 6.5; and Section M, part 2.4: Please confirm that the only Key Personnel position that will be evaluated for this IDIQ proposal is the Prime’s Program Manager?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #21: Confirmed.

QUESTION #22: Section L, part 3.4 states “For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the font size shall be no smaller than Times New Roman ten (10) point.” We have found that graphics are often easier to read in Arial font. Nine (9) point Arial is equivalent to 10 point Times Roman. Would the Air Force consider also allowing 9 point Arial in tables, charts, graphs and figures?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #22: No.

QUESTION # 23: Standard Form 33, item 12 assigns a 60 calendar day offeror validity period. However, Section L, part 5.2 indicates that the proposal and prices will remain in effect for 240 calendar days after the solicitation closing date. Please clarify the period of time for which proposals must be valid.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #23: The offeror must enter a number of days in the blank in Block 12, page 1 of the SF33. Section L, paragraph 5.2 has been adjusted for clarity.

QUESTION #24: It appears the resumes of Key personnel are part of the 50 page limit for the Subfactor 1.2 Management Approach and Subfactor 1.3 Key Personnel. Please confirm if the resumes of key personnel are part of the 50 page limit or are excluded from the page count.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #24: The resumes of the Key Personnel are part of the 50 page limit.

QUESTION #25: The Technical Approach, Subfactor 1.2 includes the Schedule for each sample task. Would the Air Force consider excluding the schedule from the page count?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #25: No.

QUESTION #26: Section M, part 3.1 defines recent projects that are acceptable for past performance as “projects that are on-going or performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.” We ask that the government please consider that many highly relevant projects in contingency environments were performed over the past 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. We respectfully request that the Air Force please consider extending the time frame for acceptable/recent past performance to seven (7) to 10 years so that these highly relevant projects can be considered and evaluated.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #26: The past 5 years is an adequate time frame.

QUESTION #27: Does the Program Manager need to provide proof of a secret security clearance with the proposal submittal or is it acceptable to provide the security clearance after award when we will have an active contract that will allow the Program Manager to obtain a security clearance.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #27: The proposal must include proof the Program Manager has a current security clearance.

QUESTION #28: If we must provide the security clearance for the Program Manager with the proposal, and since an individual cannot receive a security clearance unless he is physically assigned to an active contract, would the government support/sponsor the company’s Program Manager in acquiring a secret clearance prior to submittal of the proposal.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #28: No. The Government will not sponsor a potential Program Manager prior to award of the AFCAP IV contract.

QUESTION #29: Reference Attachment L-5, “Price Model; The Price model provided by the government does not conform to the cost structure of offeror. Specifically, the company provides labor burdens for fringe benefits, taxes and other non-direct payroll costs in a company-wide pool that is allocated to all contracts based direct labor dollars, in conformance with Cost Accounting Standards. May the offeror modify the price Model tables to reflect the offerors cost structure and allocations?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #29:No, please make your data conform to the format provided in Attachment L-5. Please explain any unique practices by added cell comments to the relevant cells.

QUESTION #30: Reference Small Business Participation Plan and Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Section M, paragraph 2.5, Subfactor 1.4; It appears that both a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and a Small Business

Participation may be required. Properly addressing both Plans will likely exceed the 5 page limitation. Will the government consider increasing the page limitation for this section to 15 pages?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #30: See response to question #9. The Government will not consider increasing the page limitation.

QUESTION #31: Reference Technical Volume Page Count, Section L, paragraph 4.2, “Organization and Page Limitation,” It appears that the government has allotted 60 pages for the technical approach. Are the responses to the three (3) sample task orders included in the existing 60 page count limitation, or does the government intend to have separate page limit for each sample task order?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #31: Yes, the 3 sample tasks are included in the 60 pages and the number of pages per sample task may be divided as you decide.

QUESTION #32: Reference Exclusivity of Teaming Agreements, Section H003(f); Does the government intend for all teaming agreements to be exclusive, or only those TAs in which a subcontractor has 20% or more work share?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #32: The Government intent is for you to follow the provisions of H003 as written.

QUESTION #33: Reference Section J, DD Form 254; Does the government intend to provide access to SIPRNET in a government facility, or will the government sponsor SIPRNET access within the contractor’s facility?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #33: See response to question #11.

QUESTION #34: Reference financial deliverables and pricing approach; Section 8.2; Can the sample task price model be adjusted to reflect approved Government indirect rates for cost pools such as fringe and overhead?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #34: No, please make your data conform to the format provided in Attachment L-5 and explain any unique practices by adding a cell comment to the relevant cell.

QUESTION #35: Reference Financial deliverables and pricing approach; Section J, Attachment L-6; Can other labor classifications be added to the fully burdened labor rates on Attachment L-6?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #35: Attachment L-6 has been adjusted.

QUESTION #36: Reference Financial deliverables and pricing approach; what is the purpose of the fully burdened labor rates on Attachment L-6?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #36: Section L, paragraph 8.3 answers this question.

QUESTION #37: Reference Pricing, Attachment L-5, “Price Model,” What is the basis of Non-Productive Labor that is broken out in the sample task order schedules? Can the customer please confirm that whether they are requesting a breakout of leave pay typically captured in an offeror’s Fringe allocation?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #37: A footnote has been added to Attachment L-5 for clarity.

QUESTION #38: Reference Pricing, Attachment L-5, “Price Model,” Are offerors allowed to modify the tables for the Sample Task Order Pricing or are these intended to be used as Summary Tables? If so, can offerors provide additional labor and ODC calculations which justify and are linked to these summary tables?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #38: Reference the answer to questions #34 & 37.

QUESTION #39: Reference Pricing, Attachment L-5, “Price Model,” Should offerors map the Fully Burdened labor rates (through cost) which are included as part of Attachment L-6 PMO Labor into the Sample Task orders?

By mapping fully burden labor rates for the PMO into the sample tasks pricing, PMO labor will receive Labor Indirect Burdens twice based on the current calculations in the Sample Task Order Templates.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #39: Attachment L-5 and L-6 are separate spreadsheets. The PMO rates will not need to be burdened twice on Attachment L-5. There does need to be a correlation between the information provided in Attachment L-5 and Attachment L-6.

QUESTION #40: Reference Pricing, Attachment L-6 PMO Pricing; how will the government calculate the cost of PMO Pricing as part of the total evaluated price?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #40: See Section M, paragraph 4.

QUESTION #41: Reference Sample Task Orders, Are sample task orders awardable?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #41: The sample tasks are representative of potential AFCAP efforts.

QUESTION #42: Reference Labor Categories; Will the government confirm that offerors will be permitted to propose labor categories at the task order level that are outside those proposed within the PMO?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #42: Offerors are allowed to adjust PMO labor classifications on Attachment L-6. Labor categories not associated with the PMO need not be specified but their cost should be included in Attachment L-5 for the sample task orders.

QUESTION #43: Reference Pricing; Attachment L-5, “Price Model,” The Sample Task order templates only allow for the labor and ODC burdens called out in the tables. If offerors have additional indirect elements that are not listed in these tables, where should they be accounted for?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #43: Attachment L-5 has been adjusted to include the potential for indirect costs.

QUESTION #44: Reference paragraph 5.4, The paragraph states: “The RFP document (to include all associated files, attachments, files, amendments, etc.) shall be returned in its entirety.” Please provide clarification on this statement. Does the government truly want an entire copy of the RFP included in Volume 1?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #44: Please refer to the answer to question #18.

QUESTION #45: Reference paragraph 7.2; With regard to the required client authorization letter, will the Government provide a template or offer specifics on the required content of the letter?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #45: No.

QUESTION #46: Reference paragraph 3.1, Will each task order provide an opportunity for contractors to perform physical inspections of potential Government Furnished Property (GFP) assignments prior to responding to Task Order RFP’s?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #46: This will be task order specific.

QUESTION #47: Reference paragraph 52.215-22, 23, and Alt I, Pass Through Charges, Please clarify that the use of TCNs and LNs qualify as “value added” if any subcontractor proposed under the task order performs more than 70 percent of the total cost of work.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #47: The burden of illustrating added value is placed on the offeror by the clause(s).

QUESTION #48: Reference paragraph 1.2.1.4.3, Travel / Trip Reports; Please clarify if the Contractor must execute full personnel mobilization, as proposed, to meet the requirement of “The contractor shall maintain the capability to physically respond to required locations within 24 hours after notification by the Contracting Officer.”

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #48: You must maintain the capability to respond as stated in Section C, paragraph 1.2.1.7. Mobility processing will be task order specific and dependent on the circumstances of the individual task. Section C, paragraph 1.2.1.4.3 has been updated.

QUESTION # 49a: Reference Section L, para 5.6 Estimating System; in a Joint Venture (JV) with multiple offerers, is it a contract requirement that all members of the JV have Government approval of their estimating system?

Reference Section L, para 5.7 Accounting System GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #49A: Offer's must have a DCAA approved accounting system (completed SF1408) to be eligible for award. Joint ventures shall be viewed as new entities and must have their accounting system approved under the new business entity. All Offerors shall provide an SF 1408 with contractor’s portion completed with proposal included in volume 1. (See table 4.1.)

QUESTION #49b: In the case where a Prime offerer does not have a DCMA/DCAA approved accounting system received a DCAA Pre-award Accounting System Survey Audit determination in January 2104 for another USAF project stating that the “offerer’s system is suitably designed in all material respects” - is this satisfactory to demonstrate the contract requirement described in paragraph 5.7?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #49B: No, If the proposed system is not already approved, the system(s) must be approved prior to Basic AFCAP IV contract award.

QUESTION #49c: In the case above, would the contractor with the favorable January determination also need to submit/provide an additional Pre-Review Request for this contract?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #49C: If the proposed system is not already approved, the system(s) must be approved prior to Basic AFCAP IV contract award. Paragraph 5.7 requires “The Prime and any teaming partner who will be performing more than 20% should complete the Prime Contractor Pre-Review to initiate an accounting system review by DCAA.”

QUESTION #49d: Reference Section L, para 5.8 Purchasing System; in a Joint Venture, with multiple offerers, do all offerers have to have Government approval of their purchasing system?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #49D: Paragraph 5.8. does not require that any of the offerors have a government approved purchasing system but it does require disclosure when they do. Paragraph 5.8 requires a “summary description of your purchasing system or methods (e.g., how material requirements are determined, how sources are selected, when firm quotes are obtained, what provision is made to ensure quantity and other discounts).

Also, identify any deviations from your standard procedures in preparing this proposal.” The JV must be legally established and must provide sufficient information about the purchasing systems to be used on this contract to allow the contracting officer to make a responsibility determination.

QUESTION #50: Reference Section C, 1.2.1.6.14, Contract Manpower Reporting; Does the requirement to report ALL contractor labor hours (including subcontractor labor hours) apply to FFP and FPIF task orders?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #50: Yes. This requirement derives from Section 8108 of Public Law 112-10 of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. This requirement applies to all awarded task orders.

QUESTION #51: Reference Section I, Clauses incorporated by full text; AFFARS 5352.237-9001 is currently RESERVED in the most current version of the AFFARS – please confirm that this clause is applicable to this solicitation.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #51: Section I has been adjusted to delete this clause.

QUESTION #52: Reference Section I, Clauses incorporated by reference; FAR clause 52.222-42-Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires requires the Government to identify the classes of service employees are expected to be employed under the contract. Please clarify if this clause will be superseded by a Wage Determination at the task order level.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #52: Section I has been adjusted to incorporate this clause by full text. As stated in FAR clause 52.222-42 is for informational purposes only.

QUESTION #53: Reference Section C, Descriptions and Specifications, paragraph 1.2.1.6.12 Record Keeping; Are we required to provide HIPPA protected medical records?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #53: See Section C, paragraph 4.19.

QUESTION #54: Reference Section L, paragraph 3.3; The solicitation indicates font to be New Times Roman 12

pt. Attachment L-5, Price Model is an EXCEL file. The font and size in the file is a mixture of Arial 10 pt and New Times Roman 10 pt. Is it acceptable to keep the government's format in tact or should the Offeror adjust the file to the instructions in Section L 3.3?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #54: Please reference the answer to question #22. The file has been adjusted to the requested format.

QUESTION #55: Reference Attachment L-5, Price Model for Sample Tasks; If the Offeror's cost structure does not match the lines provided in the Price Model is it acceptable for the Offeror to modify the input line(s)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #55: Please reference the answer to question #29.

QUESTION #56: Reference Attachment L-5, Price Model for Sample Tasks; If the Offeror has provisional rates (OH that includes the fringe benefits) that have been accepted by the DCAA for bidding and billing purposes is it acceptable for the Offeror to modify the Price Model i.e. insert the OH rate and apply the cost in lieu of calculating the individual cost elements (Health & Welfare, Payroll Taxes and Other Labor Burdens)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #56: Please refer to the response to question #29.

QUESTION #57: Reference Attachment L-6, PMO Pricing; If more than one company is bidding on the program in a teaming arrangement is it acceptable to provide multiple rates for each labor category in Attachment L-6 PMO Pricing file, one for each company?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #57: Attachment L-6 only applies to the prime contractor. Teaming arrangements of subcontractors should not be included in Attachment L-6.

QUESTION #58: Reference Section L, Volume IV, Price Proposal, paragraph 8.2; The instruction indicate the offeror is to complete one sample Price Model (Attachment L-5) for each task and "Offerors shall propose all elements of cost/price (including major subcontractor cost/price element breakdown information estimates in the price model format) applicable to prices proposed in the pricing model and provide data other than certified cost or pricing data in Offeror’s format IAW FAR 15.403-3." Please clarify if the Offerer is to submit a separate Price Model File (Attachment L-5) for each Sample task or is it acceptable to incorporate all three price models in one file?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #58: See Attachment L-5; it contains all 3 sample tasks.

QUESTION #59: Reference Section L, Volume IV – Price Proposal, basis of Proposed Rates, paragraph 8.3; The instructions indicate Offeror is to submit copies of DCAA approved indirect and direct rates as applicable. If the Offeror is in a teaming arrangement is it acceptable for each team member to submit their information separately in a sealed package?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #59: Yes.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #60: Please refer to the response to question #14.

QUESTION #61: Reference Sections K & L, FAR Clause 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees; IAW the FAR clause are Offerors required to submit a total compensation plan for proposed professional employees, if so in which volume should it be included?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #61: This requirement will be met through the completion of Attachment L-5, L-6 and information submitted for Technical Sub-factor 1.2.

QUESTION #62: Reference paragraph 1.2.2.1.2.2, which states, “Security Clearances/Contractor Vetting.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 requires vetting of U.S. personnel (military, civilian and contractors) prior to being granted access to U.S. Government installations or U.S. Government network systems. For U.S.

personnel, vetting is accomplished by possessing an active U.S. security clearance. This vetting must be accomplished prior to the Government issuing a Common Access Card (CAC). A CAC is the Government means for granting unescorted access to a Government installation or facility and allows access to a Government computer system. Contractor personnel not possessing at least a current Secret clearance shall obtain an interim Secret clearance prior to being issued a CAC and before starting work. This clearance must appear in the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS). Failure to obtain or maintain an active clearance shall result in removal from this task.” HSPD 12 states the minimum requirement for a CAC is a favorably adjudicated National Agency Check with Inquires. Per Section “1.2.2.1.2.2 Security Clearances/Contractor Vetting” states that all US personnel will require US SECRET clearances which involves a favorably adjudicated NACLC background investigation. Can you please confirm whether ALL US Personnel who require access to a US military installation will need a SECRET clearance and not a favorably adjudicated NACI investigation?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #62: Local Nationals and Other Country Nationals will not be granted a U.S. Secret clearance. A secret security clearance is required for all U.S. contractor personnel requiring a Common Access Card (CAC). A CAC is the Government means of granting unescorted access to a Government installation or facility and allows access to a Government computer system.

QUESTION #63: REFERENCE: Section L, 7. Volume III - Past Performance, 7.2 Past Performance Questionnaire; The referenced Past Performance Questionnaire, section A, contains 2.5 lines for the 'Project Title and Brief Description of Work'. Question - Are Offeror's limited to two and half lines of text or can additional text be added to the form to sufficiently document relevancy of recency of project performance?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #63: A Project Title and Brief Description of the Work is all that is necessary in the allotted space.

QUESTION #64: Reference Section J, Attachment 5, L-5 Price Model with Options; The Excel spreadsheet contains worksheets for Option Year 1 and Option Year 2. Will pricing for Option Year 3 and Option Year 4 be required? If yes, will the government provide a revised Excel file?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #64: The sample BOS Task Order PWS only contains a basic and 2 option years. Option Years 3 & 4 are not required on this BOS Task Order sample task.

QUESTION #65: Reference Section J, Attachment 5, L-5 Price Model with Options; On each of the worksheets some cells are highlighted in yellow, some in gray and some in green. Is there any significance to the color of the shading? If the Offeror makes changes to the worksheets is there a specific formatting convention that should be followed?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #65: The offeror is to enter data into the blocks shaded green. The blocks shaded gray are auto-calculating. The blocks shaded yellow assist in visual referencing.

QUESTION #60: Reference Section L 6.2, 4.2 Organizational Page Limitation; Page 122 - 6.2 Teaming Arrangements indicates a Page Limit of 2 Per Team. Page 125 – 6.2, states “Offerors shall provide teaming arrangements and/or Letters of Intent. For each arrangement, a cover letter describing what AFCAP services would be executed via the arrangement should be provided.” Since Teaming Arrangements are lengthy could the Government please explain what is meant by the Page Limit of 2 Per Team?

QUESTION #66: Reference Section J, Attachment 5, L-5 Price Model with Options; in the format provided the formulas and headers are not consistent between the various worksheets. Will the government provide an updated Excel file?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #66: Attachment L-5 has been corrected.

QUESTION #67: Reference Section M 2. Evaluation Factor 1 –Technical Proposal

2.5 Sub-factor 1.4 – Small Business Participation. The Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan will be determined Acceptable when the Offeror demonstrates it understands the Government requirement for subcontracting CONUS work and understands how to subcontract and manage subcontractor performance for CONUS requirements. In addition, the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan must, at a minimum, meet the goals below in Table 2.1. If a subcontracting plan is required by FAR 19.7, the requirement for small business participation is met when the subcontracting plan and proposal demonstrate the following: (1) The Prime demonstrates a corporate commitment between all parties in providing subcontracting; It appears the RFP requires the subcontracting plan be submitted for evaluation with the proposal, however Table 4.1. Proposal Organization limits the Small Business Participation Plan to 5 pages and does not specify which volume to place the subcontracting plan. Please verify whether the Subcontracting Plan, as defined by FAR 19.7 and 52.219-7 is required to be submitted with the proposal or upon notification from the contracting officer prior to or at award.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #67: There is only one plan requirement. It should be submitted in Volume II, Technical, paragraph 6.6. The page limit remains at 5.

QUESTION #68: Table 4.1 depicts that Volume II – 6.1 Executive Summary and 6.3 Teaming Arrangements are required proposal content, yet no evaluation criteria exists. Question: Please clarify whether 6.1-Executive Summary and 6.3-Teaming Arrangements are evaluation items that will contribute to an acceptable or unacceptable rating under Section M criteria?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #68: In order to be considered for an award, the Executive Summary and the Teaming Arrangements should be part of your overall proposal. See Section L, paragraph 2.4.

QUESTION #69: L.6.4 Management Approach (Technical Sub-factor 1.2) Procurement Plan: Offerors shall describe their methodology for obtaining needed supplies and services at fair and reasonable market prices. Submit a Procurement Plan containing DCAA approved purchasing systems for the prime contractor and all identified teaming partners in accordance with FAR Part 44.3. Question: Please clarify whether all teaming partners require a DCAA approved purchase systems or only the prime contractor?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #69: Refer to the response to question #49d.

QUESTION #70: The key personnel requirements listed under Sections L.6.5 and M.2.4 says that “The on-site task order manager may be evaluated at task order awards”; PWS 1.2.1.5.3 implies the on-site TO manager is a key person; Appendix A-Item 134 Key Personnel only lists the Program Manager as a Key Person; and H.6.e 2.0 Key Personnel Name is completely BLANK. The requirement seems unclear regarding who is a Key Person and whether they are to be addressed under L.6.5 proposal instructions. Question: Please clarify:

QUESTION #70a. Should each on-site task order manager be identified as a key person or only if listed as such in the TO RFP?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #70a: The evaluation of the on-site task order manager is handled at task order level after award of this main AFCAP IV contract.

QUESTION #70b. Should only the Program Manager be addressed in response to Section L.6.5?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #70b: Yes.

QUESTION #70c: Should the Attachment L-1, L-2, and L-3 on-site TO managers be combined with the Program Manager as key personnel and included in the response to L.6.5 for a total of four key personnel?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #70c: See Section L, paragraph 6.3 for sample task submission requirements.

QUESTION #70d: Should each on-site task order manager be excluded from the key personnel requirements of L.6.5 since they may only be evaluated “at” task order award?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #70d: Yes.

QUESTION #71: Section 1.2.1.5 Key Personnel, 1.2.2.1.1.1 Meeting Contractor’s Work Requirements, and Attachment L-6 PMO Pricing Question: The RFP refers to an On-site Task Order Manager (in Section 1.2.1.5), a Site Manager (in Section 1.2.2.1.1.1), and a Task Order Manager (Attachment L-6). Would the Government please clarify if these three positions are in fact three different positions or the same and just worded differently across documents? If different, would the Government please clarify the position descriptions? If positions are intended to be the same, which title would the Government prefer?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #71: The “On-Site Task Order Manager” is the same as the “Site Manager.” Section C, paragraph 1.2.1.5 and 1.2.1.5.3 have been updated for clarity. The “Task Order Manager” is not the same as above. The “Task Order Manager” as shown in Attachment L-6 is in the Program Management Office.

QUESTION #72: Section J, Attachment L7 - DD Form 254 is watermarked as “Draft” on pages 3, 4, and 5.

Question: Please clarify whether DD Form 254 information is draft or current information that offeror(s) may use as part of their proposal methodology for responding to Classified Requirements?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #72: The information was current as of the 10 July 2014 release date.

QUESTION #73: Section L.6.2 says that Offerors shall provide teaming arrangements and/or Letters of Intent. For each arrangement, a cover letter describing what AFCAP services would be executed via the arrangement should be provided yet Table 4.1 Volume II Technical Section 6.2 limits pages to “2 Per Team”. Question: Please clarify whether page limit is 2 pages per team “partner”?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #73: The page limit column is correct at 2 pages per team.

QUESTION #74: Section J, Attachment L6 – Program Management Office Price Summary. Question: Does the personnel list constitute a directed labor pool that offerors are limited to use for their PMO or may this list of personnel be modified to meet each offerors methodology?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #74: Please refer to the responses to questions #35 and #42.

QUESTION #75: Section L, Table 4.1 and L.3.9; Question: Table 4.1 states that we are to submit original copies unbound, however L.3.9 states “Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring, appropriately sized, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open.” Please specify if the original should be bound or unbound by paper clip.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #75: Section L, Table 4.1 and paragraphs 3.1 and 3.9 have been updated for clarity.

QUESTION #76: Section L.5.9 states “The Prime and Team Partners financial documents referenced previously shall be submitted immediately upon receipt of the solicitation but no later than 15 days after the release date of the solicitation. Question: How many hard copies of the financial documents are being requested? Should the Offeror refer to Table 4.1; 1 Original Unbound and two hard copies or just submit one hard copy?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #76: See Section L, Table 4.1, Volume 1, Item 5.9.

QUESTION #77: Section L.3.11 stipulates the "original" proposal shall be identified and proposals shall be addressed to the CO and mailed or hand carried to: 139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1, Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319.

Proposals shall also be sent to your Corporate Administrative Contracting Officer (CACO) and the Defense Contract

Audit Agency (DCAA). Question: Will the Government please clarify if the offeror is to submit electronic copies to the CACO and DCAA only or also submit a hard copy as well?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #77: Please send one hard copy and one electronic copy to each.

QUESTION #78: Section L.3.4: Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures may be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be legible, easy to follow and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume and count as two pages. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics, not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the font shall be no smaller than ten (10) point. Question: Is the offeror restricted to a Font Style Requirement for tables, charts, graphs, and figures? Most RFPs allow the Offeror to use Times New Roman for text but allows Arial Narrow for tables, charts, and figures because it allows more space for diagrams.”

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #78: Yes, please refer to answer #22. Section L.3.4 is correctly stated.

QUESTION #79: Reference: 4.2.2 Reasonableness: The Government will review the prices submitted in the Price Model and the resultant TEP and Attachment L-6 for Price Reasonableness. Pricing may be considered “unreasonable” if a sample task order price or TEP is significantly above the Government estimate or the average price of all Offerors for that specific element or Attachment L-6. Failure to provide reasonable prices may result in a proposal being rated un-awardable. The rates provided as part of Attachment L-6 will be validated as part of the submitted rates included in the Price Model for each sample task. Question: How will the government evaluate the reasonableness and validate the PMO rates presented in Attachment L-6 for PMO positions deemed not applicable for the sample task orders by the offeror?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #79: For PMO positions not included in any of the three task orders, offeror should not provide a price. Offerors should place N/A in the cell of the spreadsheet or delete that classification. The three sample tasks are representative of all requirements of AFCAP (service, construction, and commodities). Therefore, if a labor category is not used for any of these three sample tasks, expectations are for them to never be used during duration of the contract.

QUESTION #80: Reference Attachment L-5: Question: For offerors with an approved DCMA indirect rate pool that accounts for all the identified payroll taxes, can the government specify which category provided within Labor Burden section of attachment L-5 (FICA, FUTA, SUTA) should be utilized to account for the lump payroll tax cost?

Question: For offerors with indirect costs in addition to the G&A cost listed in attachment L-5, can the government specify how these costs should be incorporated into the sample task summaries within attachment L-5?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #80: Attachment L-5 has been adjusted; please make your data conform to the spreadsheet.

QUESTION #81: Reference: 208. TEAM/TEAM MEMBER (S)/TEAMING PARTNER (S) The Government will consider the Offeror and all subcontractors a “team” when evidence of a signed Teaming Arrangement (TA) or Letter of Intent (LOI) is provided. This RFP will refer to the Offeror and all identified teaming subcontractors as a “team”. This RFP will refer to all identified teaming subcontractors as “team members” or “teaming partners”. A teaming partner is a team member who will do 20% or more of the effort.

QUESTION #81a: Will the government consider relaxing the exclusive TA requirements and leaving the TA terms and conditions up to the Primes?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #81a: No.

QUESTION: #81b: Can the government specify if the “20% or more of the effort” means 20% of the total dollar value of the proposal, or 20% of each cost element?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #81b: By total dollar value of the proposal; see Section L, paragraph 7.1.

QUESTION #81c: Is the 20% measured by year or by total contract performance on each task order award (i.e. can be spread out among a Base Year and subsequent Option Years)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #81c: This will be measured by year.

QUESTION #82: Section I Contract Clauses: The RFP flows down (1) 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan – JUL 2013; (2) 52.219-9 Alt II Small Business Subcontracting Plan (JULY 2013) Alternate II – OCT 2001, and (3) 252.219-7003 Small Business Subcontracting (DOD Contracts) – AUG 2012; and (4) 252.219.7003 (Dev) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DOD Contracts) (Deviation) – SEP 2013, Section I Contract Clauses.

QUESTION #82a: If it is determined that a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required per FAR 19.7 (Page 125 of 137) Paragraph 6.6 Small Business Participation (Technical Subfactor 1.4), where does the Government want the Small Business Subcontracting Plan for CONUS work to be submitted with the proposal?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #82a: Please refer to the responses to questions #9, #30, and #67.

QUESTION #82b: If the Government prefers the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be a part of the Small Business Participation, will the Government consider increasing the page limit from 5 pages to 10?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #82b: No.

QUESTION #83: Property Control Plan. The Offeror shall submit a Property Control Plan which explains how the Offeror will execute pre- and post- task order award inventories as well as property control throughout the life of each task order.

QUESTION #83a: Can the Government clarify whether the inventory requirement is for pre-task order start or pre-task order award as stated in Section L, 6.4?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #83a: Section L, paragraph 6.4 and Section M, paragraph 2.3.7.

have been updated for clarity.

QUESTION #83b: What would be included in a pre-task order award inventory?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #83b: Section L, paragraph 6.4 and Section M, paragraph 2.3.7.

have been updated for clarity.

QUESTION #84: Reference: Section C Performance Work Statement, Section 1.2.1.2.1.2 “Proof of Permission to Conduct Business. The contractor shall provide with their proposal for any task order, the relevant copies of any permissions, licenses, approvals, etc. to conduct business in the relevant country, state, province, city, site, location, etc. Discussion: The U.S. Department of State Bureau of Intelligence and Research indicates that there are 195 independent states in the world. Each of these states has a unique set of legal requirements and procedures relating to the establishment of a legal presence and authorization to conduct business within its borders. Even if a U.S.

contractor has established a legal presence to conduct business in a foreign country, it is likely that this authorization would not extend to the specific activities being undertaken in the AFCAP contract for the U.S. Government. In many instances, it would not be possible under local law to obtain permission to conduct AFCAP business in a foreign country until AFTER the Task Order has been awarded, not at the time of proposal. Only one legal entity (e.g., a corporation, limited liability company, etc.) can actually execute the contract with the U.S. Government and be a “party” to the contract. If the contractor is a U.S. company, the ability to conduct business in a foreign country may only be possible via the formation of a foreign “branch office” under the laws of the host nation. In many countries, including Middle East countries such as Qatar, the formation of a “branch office” is at the discretion of the host government and is commonly withheld.

QUESTION #84a: If a contractor does not produce the requested permission, license, approval, etc. to conduct business in the relevant country, state, province, city, site, location, etc. at the time of submitting a Task Order proposal, is the contractor disqualified?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #84a: Please refer to Section H002, Subsequent Task Orders, paragraph (c).

QUESTION #84b: If a contractor does produce such documentation at time of Task Order proposal, will the Government complete an independent confirmation that such documentation actually applies to AFCAP activities?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION #84b: It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure compliance with all local and/or country requirements.

QUESTION #85: Reference: Section C, Performance Work Statement, Section 1.2.1.5, Key Personnel. “The Contractor agrees to assign a program manager for the contract and on-site task order managers for task orders whose credentials, experience and expertise meet the qualification requirements identified below.