HD_TATs_Draft_RFP_Compiled_QandA_Final_08Oct12.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 45 KB Posted Oct 8, 2012

Attached to: Homeland Defense and Security Technical Area Tasks (HDTATs)
Solicitation number: FA8075-12-R-0002
Issued by: Department of the Air Force Air Combat Command

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Amendment_3_HD_TATs_RFP_SF30.doc	DOC document	Dec 11, 2012
HD_TATs_RFP_Compiled_QandA_11Dec12.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Dec 11, 2012
Amendment_2_HD_TATs_RFP_SF30.doc	DOC document	Dec 7, 2012
HD_TATs_RFP_Compiled_QandA_6Dec12.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Dec 6, 2012
Amendment_1_HD_TATs_RFP_SF30.doc	DOC document	Nov 9, 2012
ESG_HD_TATs_RFP.doc	DOC document	Nov 1, 2012
Pre-Solicitation_Notice.docx	DOCX document	Oct 9, 2012
DRAFT_HD_TAT_RFP.doc	DOC document	Jul 26, 2012
Industry_Day_7Mar12_QA_Final.docx	DOCX document	Apr 27, 2012
Industry Day Attendees 7Mar12.xls	XLS spreadsheet	Mar 15, 2012
IAC Industry Day 7Mar2012 FINAL.ppt	PPT presentation	Mar 9, 2012
Draft_HD_TATs_PWS.docx	DOCX document	Feb 9, 2012
HD_TATs_Special_Notice.doc	DOC document	Feb 9, 2012

Show all 13

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

HD TATs Draft RFP Q&A, Solicitation No. FA8075-12-R-0002
#	Solicitation Section	Paragraph	Page(s)	Question/Comment	Response: As of 8 Oct 2012
1	General	N/A	N/A	Is it the Government’s intent that all tasks be competed amongst large business IDIQ holders and SB IDIQ holders alike and that only tasks designated as a SB Set-Aside limit the bidding pool?	A determination will be made on a case by case basis whether a TAT requirement can be conducted as a small business set aside (competed among the small business pool awardees) or as unrestricted (competed among the unrestricted, full and open pool awardees). If a TAT is not set aside, only those contractors who hold contracts in the unrestricted F&O pool will be able to compete for it.
2	General	N/A	N/A	Do the maximum allowable rates for FFP task orders and fully loaded labor rates established for CPFF contracts also apply to our subcontractors and team members or will subcontractor costs be proposed separately as other direct costs and not subject to these limits?	Yes the fully loaded rates will be your maximum allowable rates and apply to subcontractors and team members. Subcontractors will not propose separately.
3	General	N/A	N/A	Do all prime contractors need to have top secret clearance or is the

necessity of such clearance dependant on the TAT they are proposing to work on? If so, is there a list of TAT areas requiring top secret clearance?

All prime contractors must demonstrate they possess a Top Secret Facility Clearance at time of award to be eligible for award.
4	General	N/A	N/A	Is there a TPOC that can be contacted to obtain feedback regarding

relevancy of our proposed technical approach to this program? If so, can I receive their contact information?

No, the Government cannot make a determination of the relevancy of an offeror's approach until its proposal is formally evaluated.
5	General	N/A	N/A	If only one Small Business qualifies for award under the Small Business competition pool would that award still be made, and if so would that Small Business be permitted to bid in the Full & Open competition? If one Small Business is awarded and still excluded from the Full & Open competition pool for bidding on TATs how would the Small Business pool work?	A SB Offeror will only be evaluated for and potentially awarded a contract for the boxes they checked in Section L Attachment L-5 Small Business (SB) Choice of Competition. If only one small business proposal is submitted or only one small business that is evaluated is eligible for award, then an award to that small business would not be made in the "Small Business Set-aside reserve pool". The HD TATs contract would not have a "small business set-aside reserve" feature (small business pool) for exclusive small business TAT competitions. There would be no TAT competitions conducted as small business set asides.

Instead, all TATs would be competed among only the awardees in the unrestricted/full and open pool.

6	General	N/A	N/A	If no Small Business awards are made as part of the Small Business competition pool will the Small Business subcontracting requirement of 12% for Full & Open awardees be adjusted up to a higher percentage post award?	No. Full and Open large business offerors would have already submitted their Subcontracting Plan and received an evaluation assessment based on the 12% requirement.
7	General	N/A	N/A	Will the Government provide a list of chemical and biological agents that have historically been handled under the existing CBRNIAC contract?	There are government technical reports and publications that list compounds of interest. These are available through DTIC Online. Reference the publications "Potential Military Chemical/Biological Agents and Compounds", Army Field Manual 3-9, Navy Publication P-467 and Air Force Manual 355-7.
8	General	N/A	N/A	A Bailment Agreement with the U.S. Army is required for chemical warfare agent work, however, there is no reference to bailment agreement in the draft RFP. Will the Bailment Agreement and the following compliance regulations be referenced in the final RFP:

• AR 50-6 - Chemical Surety

• AR 385-10 - The Army Safety Program

• AR 190-59 - Chemical Agent Security Program

• Implementation Guidance Policy for New AELs - Implementation Guidance Policy for Revised Airborne Exposures Limits for GB, GA, GD, GF, VX, H, HD, and HT

• DA Pam 50-6 - Chemical Accident or Incident Response and Assistance (CAIRA) Operations

• DA Pam 385-10 - Army Safety Program

• DA Pam 385-61 - Toxic Chemical Agent Safety Standards	Paragraph 1.4.3.1 of the PWS already includes and references Army Regulation (AR) 50-6. This regulation in turn incorporates requirements of AR 385-10, AR 190-59, DA PAM 50-6 and DA PAM 385-61. The final RFP will include references to AR 50-1 Biological Surety and the requirement to have access to a facility with a bailment agreement with the U.S. Army. Any other standards or instructions not included in the RFP that are applicable to individual TATs will be referenced the TAT respective PWS's as appropriate.
	9	Section B	CLIN 0002	2	Page 2 of 120 specifies ITEM NO 0002 HD TATs as CPFF. However, Attachment J-6_HD_TAT_Cost_Price_Table.xlsx specifies CLIN 0002 as FFP.	Yes. However, The description for CLIN 0002 on page 2 of the RFP states. "TATs will be priced separately and may be issued as CPFF, FFP, or FFP-LOE task orders."
	10	Section B	CLIN Structure	2-8	The CLIN structure on pages 2-8 indicate a 1-year FFP for PM and 1-year CPFF for TATs, 6 one-month extensions for PM , and then three more 12-months PM extensions. This seems inconsistent with the 5-year IDIQ period of performance ( see page 95). Please clarify.	If the Government exercises option(s) for CLINs X001 and/or 0004, the Period of Performance will be extended for CLIN 0002 and 0003. For Program Management Support (PM) there is CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001 for up to 5 years and then CLIN 0004XX is for up to 6 Months for extension of services if the Government deems necessary.(Note: an X in the CLINs represents any number)
	11	Section B	N/A	2-9	Would the government consider adding a separate CLIN for facilities? There are several references throughout the PWS specifying the requirement for the prime to have access to various types of facilities for work with chemical agents or explosives. There is also a high likelihood for new customers to bring PWS requirements for technical development of capabilities best suited in new or other leased facilities. It would make cost accounting easier if a separate CLIN was established to track facility lease/use costs.	Note: Data CLIN 0003 is now CLIN 0005 and CLIN 0003 is now going to be used for A&AS related to R&D TATs and CLIN 0002 will only have R&D TATs. This was done for tracking purposes and both 0002 and 0003 will support CPFF, FFP, or FFP-LOE task orders. To answer your question we will not on the basic contract if you win an award. If awarded a contract CLIN X001, 0002, 0003 and 0004XX will be the only "Priced" CLINs that you will have on your basic contract. CLIN 0002 or 0003 will be used to do a Task Order match in the contracting system and draw down the ceiling awarded to you on your basic contract. CLIN 0002 and 0003 for TATs will be priced separately and may be issued as CPFF, FFP, or FFP-LOE task orders. There will be the ability on individual TAT orders to have further identifying CLINs for Other Direct Costs like travel and facilities if the Contracting Officer deems it necessary on a TAT by TAT basis.
	12	Section B	CLIN 0004	3-6	It is not clear how CLIN 0004 and 0004AA-0004AF (6 1-month Extensions) are to be applied. Can you provide more detail on the CLIN structure?	If the Government exercises an option per FAR clause, 52.217-8, "Option to Extend Services", then subCLINs under CLIN 0004 will be exercised up to a 6-month period. The CLIN may be exercised a month at a time, up to a total of six months. For example the first month of the "Option to Extend Services" would be CLIN 0004AA.
	13	Section B	CLIN 0002	9	Can the Government clarify how the CLIN 0002 amounts will be determined for the respective Contract Holders by the Government?	The ceiling on this contract vehicle is $900M. Our ceiling for each awardee will be $900M and will include CLIN X001, 0002, 0003, and 0004.
	14	Section C	1.4.2.2	15	Would the government consider adding “military, civil, and commercial space" to the STI subject areas listed in this section? Space systems are inextricably tied to cyber, telecommunications, COOP planning and many other HLD aspects.	The descriptions of Homeland Security and Defense and Critical Infrastructure Protection at 1.4.2.1 and 1.4.2.2 are considered broad enough to encompass these subject areas.
	15	Section C	1.4.2.2	15	Would the government consider adding a secure grid element to this section? This is an area of significant research and importance to national security.	The descriptions of Homeland Security and Defense and Critical Infrastructure Protection at 1.4.2.1 and 1.4.2.2 are considered broad enough to encompass these subject areas.
	16	Section C	1.4.2.2	15	Would the government consider adding a hydrologic component to this section? Establishing and maintaining a secure water system impacts public health on a large scale and is directly related to the agricultural portion highlighted in the draft RFP.	The descriptions of Homeland Security and Defense and Critical Infrastructure Protection at 1.4.2.1 and 1.4.2.2 are considered broad enough to encompass these subject areas.
	17	Section C	1.4.2.6	16	Would the government consider occupational training for wounded soldiers and addressing the “quality of life” issues injured soldiers may have upon their return to civilian life? This is important area for the government to be able to address through the Information Analysis Center.	Analyses relating to quality of life and occupational training for wounded soldiers would generally not fit within the scientific and technical R&D scope of the HD TATs contract.
	18	Section C	1.4.2.8	17	For the alternative energy area, would the government consider including expertise in “smart”-grid and micro-grid technology and power storage? Expertise in these areas is also a critical aspect as the United States moves forward with alternative energies.	The descriptions of Homeland Security and Defense and Alternative Energy at 1.4.2.1 and 1.4.2.8 are considered broad enough to encompass these subject areas.
	19	Section C	1.4.2.8	17	For alternative energy STI areas, would the government consider including small modular reactors (SMRs)? Generation 3+ and Generation 4 nuclear reactors have introduced the strong potential for deploying a new class of small, and substantially safer nuclear reactors, commonly called SMRs. The government would benefit by allowing research into this technology as part of the Alternative Energy section of the PWS.	The descriptions of Homeland Security and Defense and Alternative Energy at 1.4.2.1 and 1.4.2.8 are considered broad enough to encompass these subject areas.
	20	Section C	1.4.2.8 (10)	17	For micro-scale power sources, would the government provide an example of “micro?” For instance, powering the gear carried by an infantryman? Or powering the motor of a gram-sized miniaturized vehicle?	Resources that provide information on micro-scale power sources are available in the DTIC Online Repository at www.dtic.mil. The RFP will not establish a specific definition of "micro".
	21	Section C	1.4.3.1	17	Could the Government provide additional detail on the definition of ‘rapid prototyping facilities’?	Resources that provide information on how the term "rapid prototyping facilities" is used within the DoD Scientific and Technology domain are available in the DTIC Online Repository at www.dtic.mil. The RFP will not establish a specific definition of "rapid prototyping of facilities".
	22	Section C	1.4.3.1	17	Is the requirement for active quality program certifications equally applied to life sciences facilities and engineering facilities and if so does GLP certification suffice for the life sciences laboratories in lieu of ISO?	Yes, facilities must hold quality certifications relevant to, and recognized by, governing bodies in their focus area. The quality program certifications ISO 9000 or ISO 17025 listed in the RFP are examples. Para. 1.4.3.1 references GLP certification requirements.
	23	Section C	1.4.1	17	Paragraph 1.4.3.1 states that “the contractor (or its team members/ subcontractors) must be able to receive, store and utilize chemical warfare agents (surety materials) under clauses of AR50-6. To conduct RDT&E for DoD using biological select agents and toxins (BSAT), does the contractor (or its team members/subcontractors) have to have facilities and programs that are compliant with AR50-1, Biological Surety?	Yes. The RFP will include a requirement for the contractor to be able to adhere to AR 50-1 Biological Surety.
	24	Section C	1.4.2	18	Paragraph 1.4.3.1 states that “the contractor (or its team members/subcontractors) must be able to receive, store and utilize chemical warfare agents (surety materials) under clauses of AR50-6. To conduct RDT&E for DoD using biological select agents and toxins (BSAT), does the contractor (or its team members/subcontractors) have to have facilities and programs that are compliant with AR50-1, Biological Surety?	See answer to Question #23.
	25	Section C	1.4.3.1	17	Question 3. Laboratory and Surety Facility Access Requirements. Paragraph 1.4.3.1. In bullet 2 it states, “…additionally, the facilities shall meet both surety and BSL3 requirements. Does the Surety requirement apply to both Bio and Chemical Surety Programs for Animal and Life Sciences Facilities? Many research facilities have the (AALAS) accreditation standards but do not have the DoD surety reviews. Is there a time frame that these facilities would have to meet surety requirements after award?	See answer to Question #23 and #41.
	26	Section C	1.4.3.1	17	Question 2. Laboratory and Surety Facility Access Requirements. Paragraph 1.4.3.1. In reading through the draft section 1.4.3.1 the implication of the first bullet may be a requirement for the surety laboratory to have a bailment agreement with the government, although it is not crystal clear. Can you clarify the requirement for a Bailment Agreement with the Government?	See answer to Question #8.
	27	Section C	1.5.2.3, 1.5.2.8, and 1.10	19, 22, and 24	Reference PWS, Sections 1.5.2.3, 1.5.2.8, and 1.10. These sections seem to be requirements for the HDIAC BCO RFP rather than this IDIQ.	This was an error and the final RFP will include corrected content for the monthly metrics report.
	28	Section C	1.5.2.5	20	Please verify that the WAR should address all TATs being performed by the prime.	As stated in paragraph 1.5.2.5, the WAR applies to the "contractor". This term means the prime contractor and all of its subcontractors. The WAR SOP referenced in CDRL A004 provides guidance on TAT topics to include in the WAR.
	29	Section C	1.5.2.3	20	The bulleted list of metrics appears to be more suited to the BCO-IAC rather than the MAC-TAT with significant references to BCO, CAT, BCO spending, IAC sales, etc. Could the Government clarify the intent of the inclusion of BCO-IAC data rather than MAC-TAT data?	See answer to Question #27.
	30	Section C	1.5.2.5	20	Weekly Activity Report (WAR) (Section 1.5.2.5, pg. 20 of 120) appears to be more related to the BCO. Will these references and requirements be removed? If they were meant for this solicitation will greater clarity regarding these requirements be provided?	The requirement for the WAR is applicable to TATs efforts performed under this contract and will not be removed. The WAR SOP referenced in CDRL A004 provides details on what is required to be reported.
	31	Section C	1.5.2.7.1	21	It appears that the alpha-numeric list is a repeat of section 1.5.1.2. Was it the intent of the Government to replicate this list in section 1.5.2.7.1?	The alpha-numeric list is provided twice deliberately and addresses different requirements. The list under paragraph 1.5.1.2 identifies performance requirements of the contractor in managing the work under the contract. The same list provided under 1.5.2.7.1 identifies the types of non-STI deliverables the contractor may be required to provide under individual TATs.
	32	Section C	1.5.2.7.2	22	Could the Government expand the definition/expectation of ‘sanitized version’ of STI reports?	Additional information is available in Attachment D of the TAT SOP, which is included in the draft RFP as Attachment 4 in Section J.
	33	Section C	1.1	24	Can the Government clarify which of the Section B CLINs is to be considered a “Phase-In/Transition CLIN”, as the current Section B nomenclature does not includes these terms?	References to phase-in and transition were included in error and will be removed from the final RFP.
	34	Section C	1.7.2	24	The draft RFP requires the prime contractor to possess a Top Secret Facility Clearance as well as employees who already possess the appropriate security clearance levels for all task orders. Will contractor’s be required to perform classified work in the Laboratory and/or Surety Facilities?	Yes contractors will. The RFP will be clarified in this regard.
	35	Section C	1.10	24	States that “The contractor shall perform phase-in/transition activities during the first 90 days after contract award in accordance with the Phase-In/Transition Task Order that will be issued at time of, or shortly after, contract award for the work transitioning from the legacy CBRNIAC contract.” It further states that “The contractor's approved Phase-In/Transition Plan, as stated in its proposal (or as modified based on negotiation with the contracting officer if discussions are conducted before contract award) shall be made an attachment to the contract at time of award and/or will be referenced in the Phase-In/Transition Task Order.”

Question 1: Does this refer to the IDIQ contract or to the award at the TAT level?

Question 2: What is the work that would transition from the legacy CBRNIAC contract?

Question 3: If the Phase-In/Transition Plan is intended at the IDIQ level is it to be submitted with the proposal, and if so, in which Volume should it be located?

Question 4: If submission of the Phase-In/Transition Plan is required for the IDIQ proposal, how will the Government evaluate the Phase-In/Transition Plan?	See answer to Question #33.
	36	Section C	1.10	24	Section 1.10 Phase-In Activities (pg 24 of 120) speaks of transitioning work from the legacy CBRNIAC contract. Is this meant for this solicitation and if so what is the scope of this effort?	See answer to Question # 33.
	37	Section C	1.4, Section 1	14-17	The Technical Scope in this section requires the offeror to submit a proposal response to the STI subject areas for each of the 8 Technical Focus Areas. The RFP states in each of the Technical Focus Areas: "Examples of topics that fall within the general scope of xxx (this list is not all-inclusive) are shown below." Question: Does the Government wish offerors to consider and propose additional STI subject areas or should offerors limit their submittal to just the subject areas identified in the RFP?	The requirements are as stated in the RFP. Please see proposal instructions and evaluation methodology information stated in the RFP paragraphs L.3.3. and M.3.1. which address proposal requirements and the evaluation process.
	38	Section C	1.4.3.1	17-18	The following two requirements are inherently an incumbent capability. Would the Government consider not establishing these laboratory requirements as mandated for the base contract but considered on a task order basis (if requirements emerge that require such facilities?) (1) A laboratory meeting the requirements in the Guidebook of Performance Standards for Operations of an RDTE Chemical Agent Laboratory. (2) The contractor (or its team member/subcontractor) must be able to receive, store and utilize chemical warfare agents (surety materials) under clauses of AR50-6 with facilities and permits in place to conduct Man-In-Simulant Tests (MIST).	There are a number of different facilities in the United States that can meet these requirements. This capability and access to these facilities are not limited to the incumbent contractor. The only way for the Government to ensure that all contractors holding the HD TATs contract can compete for TATs containing the para. 1.4.3.1 requirements, and also ensure that the contractors are held to the same mandatory government standards, is to write the requirements into the basic contract.
	39	Section C	1.5.2.3	19-20	Monthly Metrics Report items list--this list appears to be for BCOs. Can the government verify the bullet items on page 20 apply to the TAT IDIQ prime holders?	See answer to Question #27.
	40	Section C	1.5.2.3	19-20	Monthly metrics report (Section 1.5.2.3, pgs.19 & 20 of 120) refers to “CATS” and other “BCO” type reporting requirements. Will these references and requirements related to the BCO be removed? If they were meant for this solicitation will greater clarity regarding these requirements be provided	See answer to Question #27.
	41	Section C	1.4.3.1		PWS section 1.4.3.1 states that the contractor is required to have access to a list of laboratory types. Is it mandatory to have access to all of these laboratory types in order to propose on HD TAT, or is the requirement applicable on a TAT by TAT basis (depending on scope)?	See answer to Question #38. All requirements stated in the PWS paragraph 1.4.3.1 are mandatory for contractors to propose on the contract.
	42	Section C	1.5.2.9		PWS section 1.5.2.9 states that redacted HD TATs will be posted to a public website by the government. Is this practice currently in place for the IACs? If so, could you provide website?	http://www.foia.af.mil/reading/ Click on "Frequently Requested FOIA Documents" to start your search.
	43	Section C, 1.10, 1.5.2.8., and CDRL A007	1.10, also 1.5.2.8 and CDRL A007	24	This section appears to be more relevant to the BCO RFP. Could the Government clarify its intent in including this section and expand upon what is actually being ‘phased-in,’?	See answer to Question #33.
	44	Section I	FAR Clause 52.216-22	48	FAR 52.216-22 states that TATs may be awarded for 36 months following the ordering period expiration; however, the CLIN structure in Section B does not have PM CLINs past the 4th option period. Please clarify how PM requirements for the IDIQ will be met after the ordering period ends.	There are two types of Program Management support - contract level and TAT level. The contract level Program Management support CLIN 4001 may be ordered on the last day of the contract ordering period (at the end of contract year five) with a period of performance for that order of 36 months. The contractor would thereby be able to perform contract-level Program Management support for 36 months past the end of the five year contract ordering period. In addition, a TAT may be issued on the last day of the contract ordering period (at the end of contract year five) with a TAT period of performance of 36 months. That TAT may contain its own Program Management Support requirements applicable only to that TAT.
	45	Section I	DFARS clause 252.204-7000	N/A	DFARS Clause 252.204-7000, Disclosure of Information, is not included in Section I – Contract Clauses. Under the awarded contract, will there be any restrictions on releasing unclassified information that is not already in the public domain?	The clause was excluded in error and will be included in the final RFP.
	46	Section J	Attachment J-2	N/A	Section J, Attachment 2 entitled “DoD Issuances Affecting Operation of the Homeland Defense and Security Information Analysis Center (HDIAC)” provides a listing of references from DoD directives, DoD instructions, DoD publications, and the DoD manual. Is this referenced material provided for informational purposes or will they be incorporated into the awarded contract? Will this information be a required flow-down to our subcontractors?	These references will be an attachment incorporated into the awarded contract. The prime contractor has the responsibility for determining which references are applicable to its subcontractors.
	47	Section J	Attachment J-6		Neither the Government Site nor the Contractor Site worksheets provides the opportunity to add profit at the labor category level. Profit is factored in at the Grand Total level within the grand total worksheet. The Table B-1 worksheet, HD TAT FFP Rates, includes embedded formulas which pulls rates, without profit, from the Contractor Site and Government Site worksheets. This approach does not allow offerors to bid profit at the labor category level which does not allow offerors to bid different profit rates for different labor categories which is a practice often used and accepted by the government on IDIQ contracts. Is this the government's intent? Additionally, as constructed, is it the government's intent to have HD TAT FFP Rates (Table B-1) loaded but without profit?	Section J attachment J-6 will be changed to allow for profit at the labor category level. Yes it is the Governments intent to have HD TATs FFP Rates (Table B-1) loaded with profit. The Section J attachment J-6 Table B-1 will include in the header the following statement: "The below FFP rates are fully loaded with profit"
	48	Section L	2.1 Table	87	There appear to be a potential inconsistency in the Instructions. The Acronym list in paragraph L.2.1 is showing as required in Volume 1 but appears to be required by paragraph L.2.2.6 and L.3.1. Is it the intent of the Government that the Acronym List be added in the Table for Volume 1?	There is no inconsistency. L2.2.6 clearly states that each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations, acronyms and/or terms used, with explanation corresponding definition for each.
	49	Section L	2.1 Table	87	Sample TAT 1 consists of CBRN and WMD. The Technical Focus Area listed in paragraph 1.4.2.4 is CBRN Defense. Question: Is it correct to presume that TAT 1 in Table at paragraph L2.1 indicates CBRN Defense and WMD?	Yes, The table at L.2.1 will be corrected to read "CBRN Defense" instead of "CBRN".
	50	Section L	2.1, 2.2	88	If we are to deliver the Past Performance volume 15 days earlier than the remainder of the proposal, it will not be possible to provide your preferred electronic submission of a single CD-ROM with all volumes. Please clarify.	Volume II CD-ROMs are required at time of submission. The requested two CD-ROMs containing all volumes can be provided when remaining volumes are due. This is preferred method but multiple CD-ROMs are acceptable.
	51	Section L	2.2	89	Can the Government please clarify what is meant by an “IBM-compatible” CD-ROM? Does the Government actually mean PC or Microsoft Windows compatible?	This will be revised to "Windows-compatible".
	52	Section L	2.2.1	89	Can the Government please clarify where the “skill set descriptions”, listed as not counted in the page limits, will be required in the proposal?	Volume III Cost/Price Proposal.
	53	Section L	2.2.1	89	Can the government please clarify the difference between the “skill set descriptions” described in L2.2.1 and the “labor category descriptions” provided in Attachment J-6? Are there additional expectations for the “skill set descriptions” beyond what has already been provided?	For clarification in Section L2.2.1 we added labor category.
	54	Section L	2.2.4	89	Please clarify the requirements for the cross reference matrix; Is the matrix intended to cross reference the proposal with RFP requirements, or merely internal references? Is a cross-reference matrix required for all proposal volumes, or only for volumes that feature internal cross-references?	L2.2.4 states each volume shall be written on a stand alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-reference to other volumes of the proposal. It is up to each offeror to decide how best to structure its proposal within stated RFP requirements.
	55	Section L	1.3.3.1	90	For the SAMPLE TATs 1and 2 Para 1.3.3.1. the Draft RFP states, "The Offeror shall propose a solution...to fulfill the requirements described within each Sample TAT PWS." Question: Would it be correct to presume that the Government intends that the Offeror propose a solution based upon the Sample Task 1 (CBRN, WMD) and Sample Task 2 (Homeland Defense and CIP) in the PWSs described in paragraph 1.4 thru 1.4.2.4 or the Sample Tasks 1 and 2 PWSs which will be provided at formal RFP release as stated on page 70, Section J?	The wording in PWS paragraphs 1.4.2.1 through 1.4.2.4 are descriptions of technical focus areas, not performance work statements. The final RFP will include a PWS for Sample Task 1 and a PWS for Sample Task 2, as stated on page 71, Section J. Offerors' proposals shall address their approach to performing each sample task, as required by paragraph L.3.3.1.
	56	Section L	3.5.1, 3.5.3	91	Question: Is the small business requirement of 12% measured at the IDIQ contract level as a percentage of total obligated dollars consistent with the 19% socioeconomic targets divided among the various categories of small business?	Yes it is consistent. For example if a Large Business subcontracts 5% of their work to a SB that Is classified as a Small Disadvantaged Business and Women Owned business and 7% to another Small Business that is classified as HUB Zone, Veteran Owned, and Service Disabled Veteran owned, then you have met your subcontracting requirement of 12% and met all of the socioeconomic goals.
	57	Section L	4.1	92	Would a correct interpretation of this section be that only one business unit per company can bid on a team?	No.
	58	Section L	3.3.3	92	Para L.3.3.3 states that the Offeror will address the criteria within this paragraph to demonstrate experience/capability for the four specified “focus areas.” Para M.3.1.1.3 states that the requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates experience/capability in a subset of the total “emerging technologies” (e.g., 4 of the 12 emerging technologies in the Biometrics focus area). Is it a requirement to write to all of the ”emerging technologies” within a “focus area,” or is it acceptable to write to the subset of ”emerging technologies” selected by the Offeror in a particular ”focus area”?	The requirement is as stated in paragraph M.3.1.1.3.
	59	Section L	4.2	93	Would the government consider expanding the page limit for the Organizational Structure Change History? This might be a "no page limit" section as it offers no advantage to bidders. Depending on the number of companies required to submit inputs IAW para. L.4.2.2, it may be difficult to provide the required information in 2 pages. Many companies have been bought/sold during the past few years.	No.
	60	Section L	4.2	93	Would the government consider increasing the number of references to 20 for the Past Performance Information Sheets and allowing flexibility to the requirement for 4 references from the Prime (e.g., requiring up to 4 references, or a minimum of 2 and maximum of 4? Given the breadth of the Technical Focus Areas in the PWS, the government would have better insight into team capabilities with a larger number/increased flexibility for contract/task order references. The total page count (50) could remain the same, with shorter page limitations for each reference (e.g., 2-3 pages). Additional consideration should be given to the fact that the govt has asked for significant SB play on this contract. It will be difficult to demonstrate SB capabilities with 6 remaining citations for the entire team.	The overall number of ten (10) references will not be changed. However a requirement for the number of references for subcontractors has been included. The language in Section L of the final RFP will be revised to add wording to clarify submission requirements, i.e.., "Past performance information shall include a minimum of four (4) recent contracts performed by the prime contractor. Offerors with three (3) or more subcontractors on their team shall submit recent past performance references for at least three (3) different subcontractors. Offerors with less than three (3) subcontractors on their team shall submit at least one (1) recent past performance contract for each subcontractor.
	61	Section L	4.2.2	93	Line 11: Organization structure change history is required on the Offeror…and major subcontractors. How does the Government define “major subcontractors” since this is an IDIQ contract (where number, scope, and size of TATs are not known)?	The language in paragraph L 4.2.2 has been revised.
	62	Section L	4.2.2	93	Organizational Change History, states the purpose of the History is to facilitate determining the relevancy of past performance (presumably on the efforts cited in the Volume). The paragraph concludes with this statement: “This information is required on the Offeror, teaming partners, and major subcontractors, as necessary.” Please clarify whether Change History is required for all members of a team or just those submitting past performance citations as part of the Volume.	The requirement is as stated in paragraph L4.2.2. This would apply to each subcontractor/teaming partner for which past performance information is being provided.
	63	Section L	4.2.4	93	Will the government allow resumes from individual team members in addition to Past Performance Information Sheets? The PWS is broad and also technically specific in certain areas. Some of this work is new to DTIC and the IACs. Small companies may not have recent and relevant work, but they can bring significant, nationally-recognized talent that would enhance inputs in selected areas.	The requirement is as stated in paragraph L4.2.4.
	64	Section L	4.2.7	94	Should there be specific instructions and an attachment with a sample of the Client Authorization Letter? Para. L4.2.7 does not include guidelines for Client Authorization Letters.	Attachment L-4 within Section L of the RFP provides the sample for the Client Authorization Letter.
	65	Section L	4.2.7	94	Please clarify if the consent/client authorization letter is required for all subcontractors/teaming partners, or only for subcontractors/teaming partners with references submitted in the Past Performance volume'	Yes consent/client authorization letters are required of all major subcontractors/team partners identified in the offeror's past performance volume. Additional consent/client authorization letters for subcontractor/teaming partners not identified in the offeror's past performance volume may be included as well.
	66	Section L	5.4	95	The “Table B-1” tab of the “J-6_HD_TAT_Cost_Price_Table.xlsx” workbook identifies rates only – how should this data be applied to generate the Section B submission as directed by this item?	Offerors will not include a Section B in their proposal. The HD TATs Cost/Price Table will serve as your submission for cost and pricing. The HD TATs Cost/Price "Table B-1" tab will be included in your proposal and will serve as you Section B. Section L5.2 and L5.3 have been changed.
	67	Section L	5.4.1	95	“Rates for Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts will be negotiated at the task order level with the Contractor’s loaded (fully burdened) labor rates for each applicable labor category and location, and any applicable handling rates, serving as the baseline for negotiations.” Can the Government clarify this statement? The two rate development methodologies are widely divergent and a CPFF rate would appear realistic and reasonable due to the fact that the billing thereof will consist solely of actual costs incurred and the negotiated fixed fee element.	The CPFF negotiation language has been removed. The fully loaded rates Offerors propose in Section J attachment 6 called J-6 HD TATs Cost Price Table TAB Table B-1 are your maximum rates that can not be exceeded on FFP type orders.
	68	Section L	5.4.1	95	Section L.5.4.1 requirements to provide hourly labor rates states “If composite rates are used, provide the calculations used in deriving the composite rates.” Does the Government expect one set of rates per team, or will the Government accept one set of rates for the Contractor and separate rates for the subcontractors?	The Government will accept the submittal of one cost model from the Prime contractor. The FFP rates you provide in the HD TATs Cost/Price "Table B-1" tab will be the FFP rate that can't be exceeded for the Prime or their Subcontractors for FFP orders.
	69	Section L	5.0	95	What are the requirements for cost/price submission for subcontractors?	What the RFP states.
	70	Section L	5.4.1	95	Is the expectation that the proposed “fully-burdened” Firm-Fixed Price rates include fee?	Yes they will include profit
	71	Section L	5.3	95	Pg 95 of 120 Section L5.3 references CLINS 0002 “and” 0004. Was this supposed to be CLINS 0002 “through” 0004 instead of the word “and”?	On the final RFP CLIN 0003 A&AS related to R&D HD TATs took the place of the Data CLIN 0003. The data CLIN is now CLIN 0005. Yes it should now.
	72	Section L	5.4.1	95	Section L.5.4.1, Hourly Labor Rates (Page 95) states, “CPFF contracts will be negotiated at the task order level with the Contractor’s loaded (fully burdened) labor rates for each applicable labor category and location, and any applicable handling rates, serving as the baseline for negotiations.” Section J, Attachment 6, does not provide a table for CPFF labor rates (only FFP labor rates are requested for the labor categories listed). Will a separate table be provided to propose CPFF labor rates?	No.
	73	Section L	5.4.5	96	Is this section required only for the offeror, or does it apply to the subcontractors too?	Prime only.
	74	Section L	5.4.2	96	“Offerors shall attach basis and cost methodology for G&A and M&H”. Can the Government confirm that this direction requests the Government estimating methodology for these rates and does not require that Contractor provide the cost basis for the development of the proposed G&A and/or M&H rate?	Offerors shall attach basis and costing methodology for G&A and M&H. RFP requires it from the prime contractor offering on this proposal.
	75	Section L	5.4.4	96	“The cost proposals from each subcontractor and/or IOT shall be submitted in a similar format as Table 1….” This Table appears to be for the purpose of reporting hours on an awarded TAT. Is the Table 1 reference correct?	The content of this paragraph will be moved to and combined under L.3.3.1, proposal instructions for the sample TATs in the technical volume. Cost proposals/basis of estimates are not being requested on the sample TATs. L.3.3.1 will be revised and requirements for offerors to detail the allocation of hours between the prime and subcontractors will be stated there.
	76	Section L	5.4.4	96	This section indicates that Offerors are to provide information about each subcontractor’s specific work share, a breakdown of tasks performed by each subcontractor, and the percent of labor hours performed by the prime and each subcontractor “in each sample TAT proposal.” However, it does not appear that the government is requesting pricing information for Sample TATs. Please clarify.	No pricing for HD TATs sample TATs.
	77	Section L	5.4.5	96	Does the prime contractor only submit a compensation plan, or are subcontractors/team members required to also submit a compensation plan?	Prime only.
	78	Section L	5.4.4	96	Section L5.4.4, Subcontracts, Page 96, reference is made to DFARS 252.215-7003, Excessive pass thru charges – identification of subcontract effort (this clause is listed as “reserved” in the current DFARS); however, Section I references FAR 52.215-23, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges (Page 37). Which clause applies, FAR 52.215-23, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges, or DFARS 252.215-7003, Excessive pass thru charges – identification of subcontract effort?	See answer to Question 75. The DFARS clause "Excessive Pass through Charges" has been deleted from the DFARS. The reference to FAR 52.215-23 in Section I is correct and DFARS 252.215-7003 is still being used but it is now called "Requirement for Submission of Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Canadian Commercial Corporation Jul 2012".
	79	Section L	5.4.4	96	Reference Section L5.4.4, Subcontracts, page 96; is the requirement for a Basis of Estimate (BOE) based solely on labor hours performed (greater than 10%)?	See answer to Question 75
	80	Section L	6	97	“a completed copy of Page 1 of DD Form 254 Contract Security Classification. Specification….” Can the Government clarify which fields of this Form need to be completed by the Contractor?	Block 6 labeled Contractor A, B and C.
	81	Section L	5.4.4	97	Section L.5.4.4 states “BOEs for subcontractors/teaming partners/IOT may be provided either through the Offeror or individually by each subcontractor directly to the Government.” What should be included in the BOE?	See answer to Question 75
	82	Section L	3.5.3	92 and 113	States that “The socioeconomic targets list Veteran-Owned (3%), Service Disabled Veteran-Owned (3%), Small Disadvantaged (5%), Women-Owned (5%), and HUB Zone (3%).” However, Page 113, M3.1.3 Subfactor 3 – Small Business (SB) Utilization lists goals of 5% Small Disadvantaged Businesses, 5% Woman-Owned Small Businesses, 3% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, and 3% HUBZone Small Businesses. Will the Government clarify which socioeconomic target list is correct?	Veteran-Owned (3%) will be added to M3.1.3 in the final RFP. With that change, both areas will be exactly the same.
	83	Section L	4.1	92-93	As a large business, will the Government permit the use of past performance from multiple CAGE codes provided that performance was from organizations under the control of the same common parent company?	Yes.
	84	Section L	4.1	92-93	Volume I, page count: There appear to be no stated page limits for introductory material within Subfactor 1, Technical Capability (before the sample TAT and experience write-ups). What is the allowable number of pages for this material? Or will any material count against the first sample TAT’s 15-page limit?	The Government considers introductory material as part of the Subfactor 1, Technical Capability 15 page limit. Section L2.2.1 in the last sentence lists what is not counted in the page limits.
	85	Section L	4.0	92-93	Would the government consider removing the maximum number of citations (now limited to only 10) and instead allow bidders to submit an indefinite number of citations within the 50-page limit? Doing so would allow Offerors to present a more comprehensive set of relevant citations for ESG and DTIC’s consideration regarding technical capability across a very broad range of capabilities.	No.
	86	Section L	4.0	92-93	Would the government consider allowing bidders to submit citations at the IDIQ contract level, rather than task order level? Doing so would allow Offerors to present a more comprehensive set of relevant citations. Task order-level citations alone may not be comprehensive enough to reflect sufficient coverage of overall focus area and evaluation criteria.	The requirement is as stated in paragraph L4.2.4
	87	Section L	4.2.5	93-94	On large IDIQ contracts, there may be instances where the named officials (points of contact) may not have direct insight into the actual work that was performed. In some cases, people who had the best information on a contractor’s performance may have moved on, and another point of contact would have to be identified. This section states that “The Offeror shall exert its best efforts to ensure that there are at least two points of contact (Procuring Contracting Officer, Program/Project Manager, Administrative Contracting Officer, or equivalent) per relevant contract.” Will the government consider revising the language to allow Offerors greater latitude in the selection of past performance questionnaire recipients so that the Offeror may select those government POCs that are/were most closely associated with the technical work being performed? We suggest the following revised statement for consideration: “The Offeror shall exert its best efforts to ensure that there are at least two points of contact. These points of contact may include but are not limited to the Procuring Contracting Officer, Program/Project Manager, Administrative Contracting Officer, or equivalent, per relevant contract.”	The requirement is as stated in paragraph L4.2.5.
	88	Section L	4.2.5	93-94	Please clarify what content (if any) the Government desires in the hard copy proposal in the “Past Performance Questionnaire” section of Volume II, given that completed questionnaires are to be submitted directly to the Government by the respondent.	The requirement is as stated in paragraph L4.2.5. It is up to each offeror to determine the content to include in their Volume II submission.
	89	Section L	5.4.1	95-96	Are the maximum rates in this section only for prime contractors or are subcontractors required to submit individual rates as well?	The maximum rates apply to both the Prime contractor and their subcontractors.
	90	Section L	5.4.1	95-96	Section L.5.4.1 indicates that fully loaded rates for CPFF tasks will be negotiated at the task order level. Is it the government’s intention to have these contracts executed as a T&M contract with a not to exceed budget or are the fully loaded rates for bidding purposes only?	The CPFF negotiation language has been removed. The fully loaded rates Offerors propose in Section J attachment 6 called J-6 HD TATs Cost Price Table TAB Table B-1 are your maximum rates that can not be exceeded on FFP type orders.
	91	Section L, Attachment L-1	C.8	99	Paragraph reference to “Amounts for 5 and 6” appears to be in error; respectfully suggest correction to “Amounts for 6 and 7”	This will be corrected in the final RFP.
	92	Section L, Attachment L-1	K	100	Attachment L-1, Paragraph K states: “…estimate the percentage of the total proposed effort to be performed by this entity…” As this proposed effort is an IDIQ contract with as yet undetermined number, scope, and size of TATs, we respectfully suggest deleting or clarifying this requirement.	This area will not be deleted.
	93	Section L, Attachment L-1	A-F	99-100	Recommend government allow use of alternate format for the Past Performance Information Sheets if it includes all required information. The current format in Attachment L-1 can be condensed to provide required information in a table. A recommended format is included for consideration.	Section L, Attachment L-1 will be in a revised table format in the Final RFP.
	94	Section L, Attachment L-1	D and G	99-100	Attachment L-1 Paragraph G appears redundant with part of the instructions for Paragraph D. Respectfully suggest deleting Paragraph G.	Deleted the redundant sentence in Paragraph D.
	95	Section L/M	L 4.2.4, M3.2.3.1	L-93, M-118	For IDIQ contracts, $10M seems to be a low value, while for individual delivery orders on an IDIQ, $10M is generally large (per historical data provided at Industry Day, 44% of CBRNIAC TATs are less than $2M and 68% are less than $5M). Would you consider establishing two different thresholds for size/cost relevance for Past Performance as follows: For IDIQ vehicles:

• Very Relevant – $100M or greater

• Very Relevant – $2.5M or greater

• Relevant – $1M to $2.5M

• Somewhat Relevant – $500K to $1M For Delivery/Task Orders on an IDIQ

• Not Relevant – less than $500Kvehicle

• Relevant – $50M to $100M

• Somewhat Relevant – $10M to $50M

• Not Relevant – less than $10M

Changed M3.2.3.1, 4. Cost: to the following "a. For IDIQ type contracts with past performance assessed at the IDIQ level: Very Relevant - Cost type contract(s) greater than $100M; Relevant – Cost type contract(s) greater than $40M and less than $100M; Any non-cost contract(s) greater than $70M; Somewhat Relevant – Cost type contract(s) less than $40M; Any non-cost contract(s) greater than $10M and less than $70M; and Not Relevant – Any non-cost contract(s) less than $10M. b. For Delivery/Task Orders under IDIQ type contracts where past performance is assessed at the Delivery/Task Order level or any other contract type: Very Relevant - Cost type contract(s) greater than $10M; Relevant – Cost type contract(s) greater than $2M and less than $10M; Any non-cost contract(s) greater than $6M; Somewhat Relevant – Cost type contract(s) less than $2M; Any non-cost contract(s) greater than $500K and less than $6M; and Not Relevant – Any non-cost contract(s) less than $500K."
96	Section M	3.1	90	Reference Section M.3.1, Technical (FACTOR 1) – Volume I

We recommend the government’s final RFP include as many measurable and objective criteria as possible for each Technical Sub-factor to ensure all parties understand how technical responses will be assessed as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable”.

The use of subjective criteria in a technical acceptable/unacceptable evaluation is commonplace and legally permissible.
97	Section M	3.1.2	113	Evaluation of “Access to a Bio Safety Level 3 Laboratory and Chemical Surety Facility”. Are bidders required to have these organizations on their teams? Given that there are a limited number of these facilities, this seems to restrict competition. Will the operators of such facilities be allowed to restrict access to certain bidders?	As stated in PWS paragraph 1.4.3, offerors must have access to Laboratory and Surety Facilities. This requirement is not considered to be unreasonably restrictive of competition. The solicitation will not mandate that subcontractor relationships with prime contractors be non-exclusive. See also answer to Question #123.

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.