CATS RFP Question sets 1 2 3 4.pdf

1 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

CATS RFP

Question Set 1, 2, 3, 4

ID Date Question Response

Note 6/15 Acquisition Team Note Offerors should ensure that the Technical proposal matches everything in Section L and Section M including addressing all evaluation criteria in

Section M.

Note 6/15 Acquisition Team Note Offerors shall enter 0% in each handling rate cell in

Sample Task Order #1 and in Section J Attachment 5, Table B-1. See Question 68 for additional information.

1 5/25 Past Performance Tool collection tool (MS Access database) was not attached.

The Past Performance collection tool (MS Access database) is now attached in FedBizopps.gov as of

3 Jun 2011. Use the 3 Jun 2011 version instead of the previously posted 23 May 11 version.

2 5/25 Section J, Attachment 6 – DD254 states the level of safe guarding of classified material is “N/A” and block 11a requires access to that classified material only at another contractor‟s or government activity site. Given this, is a COMSEC account and OPSEC required? If yes, is that COMSEC account and OPSEC required pre-award?

No. Classified information, if any, will only be accessed at government facilities. COMSEC account access and

OPSEC is not required for pre-award. A Task Order

Proposal Request will identify security requirements and needed safeguarding. This will come in the form of a

Task Order level DD 254.

3 5/25 In order to comply with submitting the Past Performance

Questionnaire within seven days of RFP release, can you let us know to determine the optimum Past Performance submittal if a sub is going to do five or less percent of the task order work, do we need to submit a Past Performance for them?

Please see Section L 4.2.2 and M 4.2.2

4 5/25 Page 120, Para. 4.3.2, Past Performance Questionnaires - Subject paragraph states that the Offeror is responsible for sending

Attachment L-2 Past Performance Questionnaires to the Customer points of contract within 7 days of RFP issuance. Can the

Government explain the rationale for this short suspense to send the

a. This is a recommendation to ensure that the Primary

Customer has sufficient time to complete the Past

Performance Questionnaire and return it to the

Commodity Council.

2 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1 documents to the customers since the Past Performance Volume is not due to the Government until 29 June? If the offeror initially identifies their past performance and then decides to use a different past performance reference for the proposal response will the Offeror be allowed to send the questionnaire to the point of contact so it can be included in the past performance evaluation?

b. There are no evaluation criteria or requirement associated with the request to submit past performance within 7 days from the RFP issuance. The government will evaluate past performance references contained in the offerors proposal.

5 5/27 Since it is typical to submit the questionnaires at the same time as the past performance volume itself and the deadline (7 days prior to the

RFP close date) stated on Attachment L-2 also matches the deadline for Volume IV

- Past Performance, defined in paragraph L.4.1 Early Proposal

Information, can we assume the past performance questionnaires deadline stated in paragraph L.4.3.2 is incorrect (7 days after the issuance of the RFP) and that we should refer to the deadline stated on Attachment L-2 (7 days prior to the RFP close date)?

This question presents two separate issues. The government asks that the past performance questionnaires be sent to references 7 days after RFP release. The past performance volume is requested 7 days before proposals are due.

6 5/27 The PPI tool provided defaults Step 6, with no opportunity to complete Steps 3 through 5. Is this correct?

The past performance tool is not a web-based application but a Microsoft Access Database. Please refer to instruction # 4 in “Downloading the PPI Template” in

Attachment L-1. It is important that you save the database to your computer prior to entering data or you will skip to Step 6. You may be defaulting to Step 6 because you have a version of the PPI tool already on your computer. Suggest deleting the current PPI tool currently on your computer and reload the PPI tool template from www.fbo.gov that was saved on 3 June

2011. This should refresh and allow you to access all steps of the, “Entering information in the PPI Template”

Attachment L-1. Also, per Section L.4.3.2, “If the offeror is unable to download the past performance information tool, contact the contracting officer for assistance.

http://www.fbo.gov/

3 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

7 5/26 Section L.3.4.3.1further instructs the offerors to submit the request for a Pre Award Audit contained in Attachment L-5: Pre-Award

Audit, to initiate an accounting system review if they do not have an

"approved accounting system."

We request that the Government revise the RFP in light of the following:

a. The new DFARS Interim Rule on Business Systems effective

May 18, 2011 assigns the authority to approve contractors' accounting systems to the Administrative Contracting Officer.

b. There is currently no such thing as a DCAA "approved" accounting system. This can be confirmed by contact with DCAA.

Given that DCAA will not provide a written "approval" for any of the cost accounting systems of the contractors who submit proposals, the current RFP requirement will not be satisfied.

c. Contractors cannot force DCAA to audit their cost accounting system on a timely basis. Due to resource constraints, DCAA is on a minimum 4 -5 year cycle in performing full scale audits of contractor cost accounting systems. For those contractors whose last full scale

CAS audit occurred prior to December 2008, DCAA applied an

"inadequate in part" rating even if the inadequacy addressed administrative issues that do not in any way impact the contractor's ability to determine costs applicable to a contract. Contractors have no ability to force DCAA to conduct a full scale audit of their cost accounting system in order to gain an "adequate" standing by the time of award of this contract. For example, our DCAA recently informed us that it will not perform a full scale audit of our cost accounting system until sometime in GFY2012. Notwithstanding this fact and notwithstanding the "inadequate in part" rating, we have

DCAA authorization to direct bill, which DCAA clearly would not

An amendment will be issued to update Section L.

3.4.3.1. “… all contractors must have a Government acceptable accounting system” and 3.4.3 will be updated to read “….provide evidence of an acceptable accounting system as determined by the DCMA (ACO)….” This update is made to comply with the DFARS Interim Rule on Business System effective May 18, 2011 update. Also see Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 96, May 18, 2011, 252-242.7005

4 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1 allow if there were questions regarding our ability to accumulate, record, and segregate costs.

We believe other offerors on this procurement have similar issues with their accounting systems. In fact, as discussed in the attached statement by Stan Soloway of the Professional Services Council, this matter is a concern for many companies in our industry. (I have highlighted the relevant sections on page 3.)

d. Requesting a DCAA pre-award audit will not solve this problem.

The RFP provides for a DCAA pre-award audit for offerors who do not have a recent audit, but we have been informed by our DCAA representatives that DCAA will NOT perform pre-award audits on major contractors. As a result, Air Force's intention to request a pre-award accounting audit on offerors without recent audits will not produce results in all cases. In addition, the requirements to "pass" such a DCAA pre-award accounting audits are significantly less stringent than for a DCAA full scale cost accounting system audit.

As a result, the cognizant contracting officer will be required to evaluate some offerors based on the results of the stringent full scale

DCAA accounting system audits performed after December 2008, others on the DCAA pre-award survey results, and still others on

DCAA's pre-December 2008 rating scale.

We believe the Government can achieve the protection it is looking for by including language in the RFP to ensure that contractors have systems "adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract" and that "appropriate Government surveillance during performance will provide reasonable assurance that efficient methods and effective cost controls are used" per 16.301-3 and that "the contractor's accounting system is adequate for providing data for negotiating firm targets.as well as later negotiation of final costs." We respectfully

5 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1 request the Government revise Section L.3.4.3 to state that "As required by FAR 16.301-3 and FAR 16.403-1, contractors must have an accounting system (1) adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract and (2) adequate for providing data for negotiating firm targets and later negotiation of final costs and in order to be eligible for award" in lieu of the current language.

8 5/27 RFP paragraph 4.3.2 PPQs states that PPQs are to be sent within 7 calendar days of the issuance of the RFP. Is this a hard date that would disqualify a Prime from evaluation if not met? Request a slip to the date if a NLT date is needed.

No, this is not a hard date that would disqualify a Prime from evaluation if not met.

9 5/27 RFP Section L.10 Page Size and Format. L.10.1 states “typing shall not be less than 9 pitch using Microsoft Word, Times New Roman font”. Pitch size is not an option in MS Word. Did the Government intend to state that typing shall not be less than 9 point Microsoft

Word, Times New Roman font?

An amendment will be issued to change pitch to point.

10 5/27 RFP Section L.10 Page Size and Format. L.10.1 states “typing shall not be less than 9 pitch using Microsoft Word, Times New Roman font”. Typing at 9 pitch (or point) for proposal narrative is smaller than what is usually provided in Air Force Proposals. Typically 9 point is the font size identified as the minimum for tables, charts, graphics, and figures (as stated in L.1.10.2). Recommend that the solicitation be revised to reflect no less than 12 point using Microsoft

Word, Times New Roman font for proposal narrative.

An amendment will be issued that will require font to be no smaller than 12 point font, Times New Roman, for information submitted other than tables, charts, graphs, and figures.

6 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

11 5/27 RFP Section L16 Electronic Offers. L.16 states content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. It is common for lines to shift on the page when a document is opened on various computers, depending on the fonts and default values that reside on the individual computer. Is the Government‟s intent to require offerors to ensure that all information provided in the electronic copies must be identical to hard copies, versus attempting to “freeze” each page to ensure no lines shift on the page or from page to page?

Information provided must be identical. Freezing pages is not required.

12 5/27 RFP Section L16 Electronic Offers. L.16 states “Adobe Acrobat

(.pdf) files are not permitted.” Section K and other documentation requiring signatures are usually submitted in PDF format. The solicitation is provided in PDF format. May offerors provide reproduced sections (i.e., Section K) of the solicitation in PDF format?

An amendment will be made to allow PDF documents to be submitted where signature are required.

13 5/27 RFP Section Attachment L-1 PP Collection Steps 3 through 5. The

PPI Template does not default to the Set-up Pop-Up. The Template defaults Step 6, with no opportunity to complete Steps 3 through 5.

Is it the Government‟s intent to omit Steps 3 through 5 on the PPI

Template?

See response #6.

14 5/27 RFP Section Attachment L.2.5 Proposal Cross Reference Matrix.

The cross-reference matrix appears to contain a couple of incongruities. For example, Sections L and M references 2.3.1.3 and

a. The order of Section L 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.1.5 are not significant to the evaluation process

b. Section L 2.3.1.4 was omitted and the reference

7 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

2.3.1.5 appear later than Section L and M references 2.3.3.2.

Additionally, Sections L and M references 2.3.1.4 are not included in the matrix. Is the Proposal Matrix provided in the solicitation intended to serve as an example to offerors, with offerors developing and completing the matrix components based on solicitation L, M, and the PWS and offerors proposal paragraph references?

number will be added to the matrix in an amendment.

c. The proposal cross reference matrix must be filled in per Section L 2.5.

15 5/31 Please advise if you would like the Organizational Change History requirement in L 4.4 of the solicitation be included as a separate tab in the Past Performance Volume.

Yes, an amendment will be added to address the inclusion of the organizational change history to Volume

IV.

16 5/31 Does the government want us to duplicate the information that will be provided in Tab 5 of the Price Proposal (Professional

Compensation Plan) and insert it with Volume 2, Tab 2. Both sections reference FAR 52.222-46.

The requirement under Section L, paragraph 2.2.2.3 requires the contractor to “describes how the offeror, will execute an adequate and effective total compensation plan to compensate professional employees IAW FAR

52.222-46 where as Volume 3, Tab 5 requires the submission of the Professional Compensation Plan.

17 5/31 If you have a planned timeframe to release answers to all the questions you have received can you please provide.

Answers will be published as soon as possible after receipt.

18 5/27 Page 106 of 150/Section L.1, Subsection 1.8. The government requires the attachments in Table 1.8 be bound, separately, in three ring binders. If the bidder is preparing all documents in three ring binders, please confirm that it is acceptable to include the attachments in the proper tabs and respective volumes and that they do not have to be in a standalone binder.

Attachments should be included in the respective binder and not in standalone binders.

19 5/27 Page 107 of 150/Section L.1, Table 1.8. Please clarify that the required electronic version for Past Performance in Table 1.8 is referring to electronically submitting the past performance information in the PPI system. In Section 1.16 on page 109, the government does not request a CD submission of Volume IV, therefore, please verify that the reference to the electronic system in

The PPI tool should be printed and placed in the Volume

IV as well as saved to a CD and submitted

“electronically” with Volume IV. The remaining requirements of Volume IV may be submitted in the binder.

8 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

Table 1.8 only refers to the PPI system and that no other electronic version of Volume IV is required.

20 5/27 Page 109 of 150/Section 1.16. Please clarify the number of CDs required for each volume.

Per Section L 1.16, 1 CD per volume or you may save volumes I – III on the same CD if all required information fits on the CD. Volume IV information should reside on a separate CD.

21 5/27 Page 108 of 150/Section 1.10.1. The government refers to a pitch size of 9, please clarify that this should be 9 point and not 9 pitch.

See response #9.

22 5/27 Page 107 OF 150/Table 1.8. Volume IV - Table 1.8, it states “(1

Original 4 copies) Electronic Version. Is the government requesting that offerors deliver hard copies of the past performance volume at least 7 days prior to the RFP due date, or will the government accept electronic delivery instead? Or are both methods required in combination? If hard copy delivery is required at least 7 days prior to

RFP due date, will offerors then be required to again deliver a hard copy past performance volume to Air Force with their final submission that includes all other proposal volumes?

The RFP instructs offerors to submit the PPI content electronically through the PPI tool, but there is no electronic option given for transmitting the Consent letter (Attachment L-3) and Client authorization letter (Attachment L-4). Please clarify on how each section of the ”Early Proposal Information” is to be transmitted to Air

Force.

a. A hard copy volume IV is requested.

b. If a complete Volume IV (with appropriate number of copies and the CD (electronic) PPI tool) is submitted prior to the RFP due date, it will not need to be resubmitted with the remaining volumes.

c. Early proposal information should be mailed or hand carried to the same address as required for proposal submission.

23 5/27 Page 116 of 150/Section 2.4.1 AND Page 107 of 150/Table 1.8.

Please clarify the content that the government expects to see with regards to the Sample TO. It appears that the information provided requires bidders to provide a “resume” or summary of qualifications for the Health Physicist. Does the government also required a written technical methodology or other content with regards to the TO?

Attachment L-8, Sample Task Order 1 states, “To satisfy this technical requirement, a resume or recruiting approach that satisfies government timelines must be submitted with the Price element below.”

24 5/27 L. 5.0 List of Section L Attachments, Past Performance Instructions Answer #2 is correct.

9 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

(PPI) for Offerors, page 125. For this section of the PPI input, is the government requesting that offerors identify their place of work, percentage of work, and responsibilities for:

1. Future anticipated work on Air Force CATS, or

2. Past/current work on the project written up in the PPI tool as a past performance reference?

Please indicate which one is correct.

25 5/27 Please provide the start date and period of performance, for pricing purposes.

See section F of the RFP.

26 5/27 Attachment 3, Labor Categories and Descriptions, p.83. Level II requires an Associate‟s Degree + 5 years‟ experience, and a Desired

Bachelor‟s degree. If a resource is provided with a Bachelor‟s degree, please confirm that the years of experience to meet the Level II requirements would be reduced. For example, within the Level II category, Associates + 5 would be equivalent to Bachelor‟s + 1 year of experience.

No. Years of experience requirements will not be reduced under these circumstances.

27 5/27 M.1.1 Basis for Contract Award, page 139. Please confirm that

“price” as used in M.1.1 is intended to be the “Total Evaluated Price” as defined in section M.3.0 Price Evaluation.

The word “price” is used multiple times in Section M 1.1.

Please provide a more specific question.

28 5/27 Sample Task Order 1. Will the Government provide additional descriptive information for the “Descriptions” listed in the Sample

Task? This will ensure that all offerors have a common understanding of the requirements for the purposes of preparing labor rates.

If there is a certain description that requires additional information, please identify it and the types of additional information requested.

29 6/2 Will both the team members and prime contractor undergo a DCAA audit or only the prime contractor?

See Section L paragraph 3.4.3.1 “…each offer and those teaming partners who will perform any part of the

10 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1 effort…”

30 6/2 Regarding small business prime contractors, must at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel be expended for employees of the prime contractor? May the prime utilize their first tier small business subcontractors to help them meet this requirement?

a. See Section L paragraph 2.1.3.2 and FAR 52.219-14.

Yes, at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel is expended for employees of the prime contractor.

b. No, the prime may not utilize their first tier small business subcontractors to help them meet this requirement

31 6/3 RFP Section L.10 Page Size and Format. L.10.1 states “Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software.” Normal style in MS Word 2007 has default tracking, kerning, and leading values of: 0 points before each paragraph; 10 points after each paragraph; and 1.15 line spacing. Typically new styles are based on the “normal” style. Are offerors required to ensure that all styles used in proposal narrative have 0 points before each paragraph; 10 points after each paragraph; and 1.15 line spacing?

See section L paragraph 1.10.1. Normal default values should not be changed.

32 6/3 RFP Section L.10 Page Size and Format. L.10.2 states “For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than Microsoft

Word, Times New Roman, 9 point font. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.” This indicates that fonts other than Times New Roman may be used in tables, charts, graphs and figures, as long as the font size is not smaller than Times New

Roman, 9 point font. May offerors use Ariel 9 point font for tables, charts, graphs and figures?

No, only Times New Roman shall be used.

33 6/3 Section L, para 2.5 provides Proposal Cross Reference Matrix instructions (Table 1.8, Vol 2, Tab 5) along with instructions that

Changes to the matrix will be address in an RFP amendment. Offerors shall not revise the matrix and

11 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1 offerors shall fill in and provide corresponding Sections L M proposal paragraph references in the column entitled “Offeror

Proposal Paragraph Reference into the matrix below. Offerors references should mirror and cross reference numbering to the maximum extent practical….” The matrix provided in the solicitation includes entries that do not correspond to the RFP

Sections L, M and C as highlighted above. It appears that the matrix provided refers to paragraph numbers which are not identified in the solicitation (i.e., L2.3.3.1, L2.3.3.2, L2.42, M2.3.3.2, M2.4.2), and that some Section L and M requirements are missing from the matrix

(L2.2.2.4, L2.3.1.4, M2.2.2.3, M2.3.1.4). Should offerors revise the matrix to include missing information and/or correct reference if necessary? Alternatively, will the Government reissue the matrix to correct applicable references and include missing information?

should only fill out appropriate reference information per section L paragraph 2.5.

34 6/3 RFP Page 107 -108, Table 1.8, Reference item “***” at bottom of page 107. States the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment L-

2) is part of the Past Performance reference to be included in each

Tab of the volume. Since Past Performance Questionnaires are returned directly to the Government by each evaluator, is the

Government looking for Offerors to include a copy of each Past

Performance Questionnaire as sent to customer evaluators? For example, the Past Performance Questionnaire with only SECTION 1 filled out.

Past Performance Questionnaire is not a required submittal in the Past Performance Volume. It will be inserted into the volume after it is completed by and received from the primary source.

35 6/3 RFP Page 119, Paragraph 4.1 Early Proposal Information. The reference states that each reference includes the PPI, Consent Letter and/or Client authorization letter. There is no mention of the Past

Performance Questionnaire per Table 1.8 reference which includes the PPQ. Please clarify whether the PPQ should be included within the tabs for each past performance reference.

See Response #34

36 6/3 RFP Page 120, Paragraph 4.3, Specific Content. Second sentence See Section M paragraph 4.2.2 and 4.2.2.5

12 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1 reads “Categorize the relevant information into technical factors and price factor.” Request the Government provide clarification as to what information it requires regarding relevancy of price on submitted past performance citations.

37 6/3 RFP Page 120, Paragraph 4.3.2 Past Performance Questionnaires

(PPQs). First sentence states “The Offeror is responsible for sending

Attachment L-2 to the Primary Customer point of contact (POCs)

…within 7 calendar days of the issuance of the RFP.” Request the

Government clarify how it intends to verify all Offeror‟s compliance with this requirement? For example, will a past performance tracking sheet be required or will a statement of compliance be required in the past performance section?

See response # 4.

38 6/3 RFP Page 120, Paragraph 4.3.2 Past Performance Questionnaires

(PPQs). Request the Government clarify when past performance questionnaires are due back to the government. The last sentence of

Paragraph 4.3.2 states they are due No Later Than (NLT) the RFP due date; however, the past performance questionnaire, Attachment

L-2 states 7 days prior to RFP close date.

Original intent was for PPQ‟s to be received 7 days prior to RFP due date however, due to administrative error, PPQ‟s will be accepted until the RFP due date.

39 6/3 RFP Page 121, Paragraph 4.4 Organizational Structure Change

History. Request the Government provide guidance on where to include the organizational change history. Paragraphs states to include a roadmap describing organizational change history and relevance of the change history to past performance submitted. It does not state which volume or the maximum page length. Also, Proposal Organization Table 1.8 on RFP page 106-107 does not include Organizational Structure Change History.

See response #15.

40 6/3 RFP Page 123, Paragraph 4 and PPI Template, Posted may 23, 2011.

The setup process as indicated on RFP page 123, paragraph 4 and

An updated PPI tool was posted Friday June 3, 2011 on fbo.gov

13 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

Figure 2 does not execute. It appears that the database version posted has already been through the setup process. …Please post a PPI template that has not already been through the setup process.

41 6/3 RFP Page 149, Paragraph 4.2.2.6 Geographic Areas. The state of

New York (NY) is missing from the list. Request the Government provide guidance on the geographic area for NY.

New York will be added to the Northeast area in an amendment to the RFP.

42 6/3 RFP Page 127, Programs Details Tab, Second Major Paragraph beginning with “Explain how your experience on this program is relevant for each subfactor under the Technical Factor in Section

M…”. In Section M, the Government added paragraph 2.4 Subfactor

4: Sample Task Order 1. Does the Government require Offeror‟s to address how each of their submitted past performance is relevant to

Sample Task Order 1?

An amendment will be made to exclude Section M 2.4 from the L-1 instructions. The government does not require the offeror to address past performance relevancy for Subfactor 4, Sample Task Order 1.

43 6/3 In section 1.21.1 the government states “1 1.21.1.1 Section A – SF

33, Solicitation Contract Form: Complete blocks 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the RFP Section A, SF 33. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP

Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract.

The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes. Block 14 is for acknowledging amendments to the solicitation. There is only space to acknowledge four solicitation amendments. If more than four amendments are issued, sign Block 15A and complete Blocks 15B and 15C of each SF 30, Amendment of Solicitation, beyond

Amendment 0004 and include in this section of the proposal”.

Should the offeror include copies of sections A through K of the RFP

See Section L Table 1.8.

14 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1 in the Contract documentation volume 1 or should only the executed copy of the SF 3 be included in the volume?

44 6/3 In Section 1.21.1.2.3 the government request the offer provide the following “Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and

Applicable Designations: Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; TIN; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s). List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.” Should the offer interpret this to include subcontract locations as well?

Yes, if the work is to be performed at a subcontractor‟s location.

45 6/3 In section 2.3.3.3 the government states “Validate A&AS personnel qualifications against the government‟s minimum requirements including, but not limited to: education, experience, and ability to obtain required government security clearances.” And the government further states 2.4.1 Sample Task Order 1. The offeror shall provide a sample employee record (Reference Section C, Paragraph 2.3.3.3 for a fully-qualified Health Physicist (Subject

Matter Expert) as an example of the contractor„s deliverable for subsequent task orders.) In reviewing the two sections, the government provides limited guidance on what is consider a sample record. May we ask the government to provide additional information on the government expectations on the offerors response to the sample task as it relates to the sample record? There is no

Additional guidance for the technical requirement of the

Sample Task Order is provided at Section L attachment

L-8.

15 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1 further reference to the sample record within the RFP.

46 6/3 RFP Page 16, paragraph iv. 2. Will the Government designate what labor categories to use within each Task Order Proposal Request

(TOPR)? Or, is it up to the offeror to decide on the best labor category and mix of labor categories when responding to each

TOPR?

Further instructions will be defined with each individual

TOPR.

47 6/3 RFP Page 140, first paragraph. Request the Government clarify what price will be used when listing Offeror‟s prices from lowest to highest. Rationale: It is unclear what part of the Offeror‟s price will be used for evaluation, e.g. Table B-1 or Sample Task Order 1 or a sum of both?

Total Evaluated Price will be used to rank proposals by price.

48 6/3 RFP Page 144, paragraph M.3.0 Price Evaluation. Request the

Government clarify how the B-Table will be used during price evaluation. It is our understanding through reading the RFP; the B-

Table will only be used to evaluate price reasonableness and to verify that Sample Task 1 pricing does not exceed the Offeror‟s NTE rate for each labor category set.

See section M paragraph 3.1.

49 6/3 RFP Page 144, paragraph M.3.0 Price Evaluation. Reference the last sentence that states “The Total Evaluated Price will be determined by adding the total proposed prices for the sample tasks in Section L, Sample Task Order 1. Request the Government clarify whether the

Total Evaluated Price is the Sample Task Order Total Price?

Rationale: It is unclear how the Total Evaluated Price will be determined. Also, request the Government clarify if there are any other prices that make up the Total Evaluated Price outside of the

Sample Task Order 1 pricing requirement.

An amendment will be made to Section M 3.0 to clarify the Total Evaluated Price.

16 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

50 6/3 There are several positions subject to SCA. Is the offer‟s burden hourly rate to reflect professional hourly labor rate (not adjusted for

SCA) or will the Government adjust offer‟s hourly rate to the SCA wage at the time of award?

The offerors proposals should reflect the current wage determinations as found in section J attachment 4.

51 6/1 As the Task Orders will be either Firm Fixed Price or Time and

Materials and Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) are the only reimbursable costs anticipated under this procurement, would the government accept receipts for direct Travel and ODCs costs and utilize GSA Schedule pricing which has been deemed fair and reasonable for the Labor portions of the Task Orders as compliance with Clause 3.1.5 -Accounting System? Does Clause 3.1.5 equally apply to Prime's and Subs or just to the

Prime contractor?

a. The RFP does not include a Time and Material CLIN.

b. See response # 29 for accounting system requirements.

52 5/31 Please advise if you would like the Organizational Change History requirement in L 4.4 of the solicitation be included as a separate tab in the Past Performance Volume.

See response # 15.

53 5/31 Does the government want us to duplicate the information that will be provided in Tab 5 of the Price Proposal (Professional

Compensation Plan) and insert it with Volume 2, Tab 2. Both sections reference FAR 52.222-46.

See response # 16.

54 6/3 L.1.12 states that “Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis”. L.2.1.3 lists the Small Business Opportunities submission as a requirement for Volume II, but states this requirement will be fulfilled by Volume I, Tab 9. Please confirm that it is acceptable to address the Volume II requirements (L.2.1.3 and L.2.1.3.1) by simply cross-referencing to Volume I, Tab 9.

Clarification: An amendment will be completed to require offerors to submit small business opportunities in both volume I and volume II.

Small Business subcontracting plan will be submitted as an appendix. This appendix will not be apart of the 46 page limitation.

17 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

55 6/3 Section 3.4.3.1, page 119. Given the significant small business goals combined with the fact that many small businesses do not have accounting systems capable of withstanding CPFF awards, Contractor does not intend to award CPFF type subcontracts to

Subcontractors without approved systems (e.g., those Subcontractors would be eligible for only FFP and LH type subcontracts).

Contractor assumes that a pre-award survey is not required for the

Subcontractors which will not be eligible for CPFF awards. Is this assumption correct?

See response #29

56 6/3 Clause 5352.209-9000 (a)(2)(ii), page 72-73. The clause states in part: “If the Contractor prepares the statement of work or assists in the preparing the statement of work then they may not provide material or bid on potential acquisitions for a period 1 year or the duration of the task order whichever is longer.” [emphasis added]

Contractor assumes the acquisitions that cannot be bid on are limited to those for which Contractor prepared / assisted in preparing the statement of work and that Contractor is free to bid on other unrelated acquisitions. Is this assumption correct?

Correct.

57 6/3 H.13 Section A, Organizational Isolation, page 32. Based on the

Government‟s answers to questions on the Draft RFP, Contractor assumes Organizational Isolation is only required if an actual or perceived OCI is identified at the contract level. Is this assumption correct?

H.13 is a special clause for Task Orders Only.

58 6/3 Table 1.8 Proposal Organization, page 107 and L.4.4 Organizational

Structure Change History, page 121. Please clarify and/or amend

Section 4.0, Volume IV to provide a place to address the L.4.4

Organization Change History requirement. Is it an accurate

See response #15.

18 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1 assumption that the Contractor would address this requirement as an additional tab between the last reference Tab and the Final Tab –

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms?

59 6/3 Section L, Attachment 8. The Technical Element for the sample task states that the work is to be performed at Bolling AFB. However, the instructions for the Price Element ask the Offeror to enter both on and offsite rates. If we know that the work is to be performed onsite, are we still required to submit offsite rates as well?

Both onsite and offsite rates are required for Sample Task

Order #1.

60 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section B, Pages 2-6) Please advise if Section B needs to be populated or should the Contractor only respond to Attachment L-

8, Sample Task Order 1?

Prices shall be submitted in attachment B-1in the form of

NTE rates and prices will be submitted in Attachment L-

8 for Sample Task Order #1.

61 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section B, pages 2, 3, and 4) Please advise if Section B is to be populated with total amounts since CLIN 0001 requires a Not to

Exceed (NTE) total amount and also indicates “*Prices will be submitted – Attachment B-1”; and NTE amounts are provided for

CLINS 0002, 0003 and 0004.

See response #60.

62 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section B, Pages 2-6; Attachment 8, Sample Task Order)

Please advise if the grand total for the Sample Task Order is to be included with any of the CLINS in Section B.

It is not to be included.

63 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section B, Table B-1, Attachment 5, Labor

Categories/NTE Rates) Please advise if NTE rates are inclusive of

Overtime Premiums for non-exempt labor categories.

Yes.

64 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section B Table B-1, Attachment 5) Table B-1 has provided a place to enter the Material Handling rate referenced in

RFQ Sec. L, 3.2.4; however, no place is provided to enter the G&A rate as required to be applied to all travel orders under any task

An amendment will be issued to remove G&A and material handling from paragraph Section L 3.2.4

19 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1 order. Will Table B-1 be modified to provide a row and columns for the G&A rate? We assume G&A is an allowable cost on travel?

65 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section B, CLIN 0001 Page 2; Table B-1, Attachment 5)

CLIN 0001 requests Firm Fixed Price Labor – FFP labor rates to be submitted in accordance with the pricing rate schedule in Table B-1.

The table provided in Attachment 5 requests NTE rates. Please clarify if Firm Fixed Price labor rates or NTE rates are desired. Also please advise if a total amount is required for this CLIN.

Table B-1 (NTE rates) is required. FFP proposals will be required in response to FFP TOPRs.

66 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section B, CLIN 0002, Page 3) CLIN 0002 requests Cost

Plus Fixed Fee – CPFF labor rates to be submitted in accordance with the pricing rate schedule B – 1 Attachment 5. The table provided in this attachment requests NTE rates. Please clarify if Cost Plus Fixed

Fee labor rates or NTE rates are desired. A NTE amount for a total of $98,500,000 is provided for this CLIN along with the request for a new total estimated cost plus fixed fee. Please advise if the NTE amount applies to this CLIN.

An amendment will completed to remove this sentence from CLIN 0002.

67 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section B, CLIN 0002, Page 3) Is it the intent to use the

NTE amount of $98,500,000 then subtract the fee and provide both as total for CLIN 0002?

No, cost plus fixed fee will be subtracted from NTE amount of $98,500,000.

68 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section B, Page 3) CLIN 0003 has provided a not to exceed total of $98,500,000. It also indicates “No handling fee is authorized under this CLIN”. This statement is in conflict with Table

B-1 where material handling percentages are requested. Please advise if applicable G&A burdens are allowed in accordance with our estimating system when pricing actual task orders as provided on

Material Handling rate was originally authorized however, it was removed during a rewrite prior to release. An amendment will be made to Section L 3.2.4 and Section H, special clause H.3, paragraph 9.C. to remove the allowable costs for the handling fee. Offerors shall enter 0% in each handling rate cell in Sample

Task Order #1 and in Section J Attachment 5, Table

20 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

RFP page 6. B-1.

69 6/3 (Ref: CLIN 0003 Description, Page 3 and RFP Section 9. C, Page 15)

The CLIN description states “no handling fee is authorized,” however, Section 9.C. states that handling fee is acceptable. Please confirm that handling fee is authorized under this procurement.

See response # 68.

70 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section B, CLIN 0004 Page 5) With reference to CLIN

0004, is G&A an applicable burden in accordance with our estimating system when pricing task orders?

No. See response 64.

71 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section F, Page 9) For pricing purposes please advise if we should assume an award date of 01/6/2012 as indicated in Section

F.

Yes

72 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section H.5, Associate Contractor Agreements – ACA, Pages 19, 20)

Is it correct to assume such agreement will be required after initial contract award?

Yes

73 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section H.5, Associate Contractor Agreements – ACA, Pages 19, 20) Please advise if the Government will provide a copy of the ACA to be used.

No. See Section H.5 (b) for general and minimal information required for an ACA.

74 6/3 (Ref: RFP Page 34, Non-Disclosure Agreement) Is it correct to assume such agreement will be required after initial contract award?

Yes, Section H.13 applies to task orders.

75 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section L, 3.2.4, Page 118) Will the G&A and Material

Handling rate provided by the Contractor in Table B-1 be fixed or capped through the life of the contract or will the contractor be allowed to apply their actual DCAA approved G&A and Material

See responses 64 and 68.

21 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

Handling rate when bidding on Task Orders?

76 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section L, 3.4.3.1, Attachment L-5, Page 119) The requirement states that if an offeror has not been determined to have an approved accounting system…”they shall complete the Prime

Contractor Pre-Award Audit, Attachment L-5…no later than 15 days after the release of the RFP.” If the Prime Contractor adds a Team

Member beyond the 15 day deadline, may the L-5 be submitted at that time?

a. Yes, attachment L-5 may be submitted after the 15-day requirement but should be submitted as soon as possible prior to the RFP due date.

77 6/3 (Ref: RFP Para. L.1.10.1 and L.1.10.2, Page 108: Proposal

Instructions). The requirement in 1.10.1 states: “Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, typing shall not be less than 9 pitch using Microsoft Word, Times New Roman font”

However, the instructions in 1.10.2, for graphics and tables are given in “point.” Due to the difference in definition between “pitch” and

“point”, please clarify minimum font size for typing of text in terms of “point” size.

See response #9.

78 6/3 (Ref: RFP L.1.8, Table 1.8, Pages 107, 108: Proposal Instructions;

RFP L.4.1, Page 119: Volume IV – Past Performance) The instructions below Table 1.8 state that a complete Past Performance reference consists of Attachments L-1, L-2, L-3, and L-4; however, L.4.1 does not identify Attachment L-2 as a part of each reference. Is

L-2 (with Section 1 completed), required to be included as part of each Past Performance tab in Volume IV?

No. See response #34.

79 6/3 (Ref: RFP L.1.8, Table 1.8, Pages 107, 108: Proposal Instructions;

RFP L.4.4, Page 121: Volume IV – Past Performance) Table 1.8

No. See response #15.

22 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1 allows up to 8 tabs for Past Performance citations and a final tab for

Glossary in Volume IV; however, L.4.4 states that an

“Organizational Structure Change History” is to be included as a part of Volume IV. Under which tab is the Organizational Structure

Change History to be incorporated?

80 6/3 (Ref: RFP L.4.1, Volume IV – Past Performance, Page 119) The

Government states that “Offerors shall submit their Past Performance volume (Volume IV) seven (7) days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals”. Can the Government clarify that the 7 days prior submission of our Past Performance Volume is only for the electronic

FBO submission or does it apply to the hard copy (paper) submittal as well?

See response #22.

81 6/3 (Ref: RFP L.4.3.1, Page 120: Past Performance) Since the

Government is requesting that our Past Performance Volume be submitted through the fbo.gov portal and that portal is only set up for

Past Performance citations, please confirm that the electronic submittal for Past Performance is not required to include other information required in the hard copy submittal such as Attachment

L-3 Consent Letters.

1 original, 4 copies and electronic version (CD) are required for the volume IV submission. Submission due date is identified in Section L 4.1 as 7 days prior to the date set forth for receipt of proposals.

82 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section I – Contract Clauses, 52-215-12: Subcontracts

Certified Cost or Pricing Data, Page 38) Since the prime will be issued on a competitive basis, and according to section L, page 99, subcontractors will be required to submit other than cost and pricing data, we request that FAR 52.215-12 be removed as this clause requires subcontractors to provide certified cost and pricing data.

No, FAR 52.215-12 will not removed. This clause may be applicable at the task order level.

23 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

83 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section I, 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business

Participation Program, Page 38; Section L, 1.21.1.8, Subcontracting

Plan – Participation of Small Business - SB, Page 112) Does the title of L.1.21.1.8 indicate that there is a requirement for a Small Business

Participation Plan in addition to the Small Business Subcontracting

Plan required for Volume I Tab 9, as cited in FAR 52.219-9?

No.

84 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section H.3.14, Subcontracting Plan, Page 19) H.3.14 states that Large Businesses will subcontract 25% (by total dollar amount) to small businesses. Does the 25% represent total

Subcontract value or total Contract value? If this is total Contract value, respectfully request that it be changed to Subcontract total value as expressed in 52.219.9.

An amendment will be made to Section H, paragraph

H.3.14 to add language to read, “… and total subcontract dollar amount.”

Clarification: The government requires the submission of a subcontracting plan expressed in both total dollars and total subcontracted dollars to comply with the AFFARS

5319.704, DFARS 219.704 and FAR 19.7. The plan still must meet the 25% subcontracted to Small business by total dollar amount requirement.

Please note: FAR 52.219-9 requires plan submission at the contract level.

85 6/3 (Ref: RFP Para H.14, Page 18) The requirement states that

Contractors shall be aggressive in subcontracting to small business concerns IAW FAR Subpart 19.7. May the Contractor propose a zero dollar goal, if they do not have a subcontractor in a particular socio-economic class, for example HubZone?

It is a business decision in determining to whom and how much is subcontracted per category.

86 6/3 (Ref: RFP Section C, PWS Para 2.4.5.1.1, Option year contracted escalation rates, Page 11) Paragraph 2.4.5.1.1 does not discuss

Individual Task Order Performance criteria NTE rates. Please clarify

“Option year contracted escalation rates.” Will the NTE rates proposed determine the escalation allowed when bidding individual

TOs? For example, if the contractor‟s escalation rate is 3% in the

An amendment will be made to remove escalation rate terminology from the RFP sections C, L and M.

24 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

NTE rates, will the contractor be prohibited from escalating an individual task order rate by more than 3% even if the bid rates are below the NTE rates?

87 6/3 Please confirm the font size. Is this supposed to be Times Roman 9 point font (as opposed to 9 pitch)? Pitch only applies to fixed fonts, such as Courier New, and not to proportional fonts, such as Times or

Arial.

See response # 9.

89 6/3 Would it be permissible to use Arial (or another san serif) font in tables, charts, graphs and figures? A sans serif font is easier to read in a small font size. Also, our company has some graphics that were created in Arial font – paying to have these redone would impose a financial burden on a small business.

See section L, paragraph 1.10 for format requirements.

90 6/3 In Table 1.8 – Proposal Organization, it appears that we are to provide paper (hard) copies of Volumes I-IV, and that the only

Volume that is required to be electronic is Volume IV. Then in

Section 1.16, the RFP states “The offeror shall submit volumes I through III in electronic format, using recordable CDs”. This seems to contradict the information provided in Table 1.8.

An amendment will be made to clarify the requirement for the Electronic Version (CD) on each volume submitted.

91 6/3 Paper (Hard) Copies: Please confirm we need to provide five (5) hard copies (1 original and 4 copies) of Volumes I-IV?

Electronic Offers: Please confirm we need to provide an electronic version of each Volume (I-IV)? Should all four Volumes be on one

(1) CD? Or should each Volume be on a separate CD? How many full electronic versions (CDs or sets of CDs) are required? Please confirm that Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) files are permitted – some of the required documents are in .pdf format (SF 33, SF 30, Reps and

a. Yes, see Section L table 1.8.

b-e. See response #20.

f. See response #12.

25 | P a g e , J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 1

Certs).

92 6/3 Table 1.8 – Proposal Organization refers to a Professional

Compensation Plan to be included as Tab 5 in Volume III. The inclusion of this information is also subject to evaluation per the evaluation criteria in Section M.

Please provide the information required in the Professional

Compensation Plan and how this information will be evaluated. Do we need a Professional Compensation Plan from the Team? From the

Prime? From ALL Team members? Or from the Prime members and the Key Team?

Clarification:

a. All offerors and subs are required to submit, IAW FAR

52.222-46 and 29 CFR 541, a total compensation plan setting forth salary and fringe benefits proposed for professional employees as a part of their proposal. FAR

52.222-46 describes the required content. It is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor to ensure all elements of the contractor‟s proposal is complete and submitted.

b. Evaluation will be conducted per Section M, paragraph

2.2.2.3

93 6/3 Professional Compensation Plan. Paragraph L 2.2.2.3: The Human

Resource Management plan describes how the…