IAC_MAC_Draft_RFP_Qs_and_Answers_19Jul17.xls
XLS spreadsheet 453 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AFICA IAC MAC - DRAFT RFP Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8075-17-R-0001
About this file
This draft request for proposal is for the Defense Technical Information Center's Information Analysis Center Multiple Award Contract. The Air Force Installation Contracting Agency will award the IAC MAC contract. Offerors must submit any questions on the draft RFP by April 18, 2017. The awarded contracts will provide research, scientific and technical analyses in support of warfighting, security and operational needs. Large businesses and small businesses may both apply under separate pools, with the small business set-aside threshold set at $15 million. Contract performance will begin on October 1, 2018 following award by September 30, 2018. The RFP requires detailed proposals on technical capability, past performance, and cost/price to be evaluated.
IAC MAC Draft RFP Dated 31 March 2017 Questions and Answers.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| IAC_MAC_Draft_2nd_RFP_FBOPosted_19Jul17.docx | DOCX document | |
| IAC_MAC_New_Major_Milestones_19July17.ppt | PPT presentation | |
| IAC_MAC_Draft_RFP_FBO_Amend2_20Apr17.docx | DOCX document | |
| IAC_MAC_Draft_RFP_FBO_Amend1_7Apr17.docx | DOCX document | |
| IAC_MAC_Draft_RFP_Qs&As.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| IAC_MAC_Draft_RFP.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
IAC MAC RFP Q&A
| IAC MAC Questions and Answers 19 July 2017 | ||||
| # | Draft RFP Section & Para. | Question/Comment | LB/SB | Government Response |
| 1 | Section L4.2.1 & M3.2 | With the huge prevelance for todays contracts and Task Orders covering multiple mission areas at once is asking for 12 Past Performance contract references for just 13 mission areas asking for way to many references. **** Please strongly consider asking for 10 Past Perfromance contract references to cover just 13 areas vs. the 12? | LB | The Government will reduce the number of overall Past Performance requests from 12 to 10 for the Unrestricted Full & Open competition Pool 1. Furthermore the Government added C4ISR and there is now a total of 14 technical focus areas for Past Performance. |
| 2 | Section C Section 6 PUBLICATIONS AND REFERENCES | "See Attachment 1 – Issuances Affecting Operation of the DoD IACs. Additional publications and references applicable to individual TOs will be specified in the TO’s PWS. " |
| Attachment 1 is cited in Section 6 as "Issuances Affecting Operation of the DoD IACs" yet in Section J it is identified as "IAC MAC Fair Opportunity Ordering Process." ****Please clarify the correct title of Attachment 1. | LB | Two distinctly different things. One is a listing of issuances affecting the operation of the DoD IACs the other in Section J is the process for Fair Opportunity on the IAC MAC. However, you bring up an interesting point. The Government is removing the attachment "Issuances Affecting Operation of the DoD IACs currently in Section C and placing it into Section J. Therefore Section J will list both areas you asked about. | |
| 3 | Section C Section 8 PWS ATTACHMENTS 1 | "Issuances Affecting Operation of the DoD IACs" |
| Section 8 - PWS ATTACHMENTS lists "1 – Issuances Affecting Operation of the DoD IACs" which is in conflict with Section 6 and is not provided. ****Please resolve the conflict and provide the "Issuances Affecting Operation of the DoD IACs" | LB | The Issuances Affecting Operation of the DoD IACs will be provided at RFP release in Section J. | |
| 4 | Section C Section 1 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES / GENERAL INFORMATION 1.5.1.4 | "The Contractor shall maintain throughout the duration of the contract period of performance, commencing at the date of contract award: |
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level III (in either software or development) and at least one of the following:
1) A certification within the ISO 9001:2015 Quality Certification standards OR
2) A certification within the ISO 27001:2013 family of Information Technology Security standards"
The CMMI and ISO 09001 requirements are cited in four other Section / Paragraphs [L3.4; M3.1.1.4; M3.1.2.3; and M3.1.3.2] but reference ISO 9001:2008 vice 2015 and do not reference the ISO 27001:2013 family at all. ****Please clarify the requirement. LB The Government re-wrote this area to read: All Contractors shall maintain throughout the duration of the contract period of performance, commencing at the date of contract award certifications for at least one of the following four certifications:
1) Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level III (in either Development or Services) OR
2) A certification that is valid and current within the ISO 9001 Quality Certification standards OR
3) A certification that is valid and current within the ISO 27001 family of Information Technology Security standards OR
4) A certification that is valid and current for AS9100D.
5 Section C Section 1 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES / GENERAL INFORMATION 1.7.2. Personnel & Facility Clearance Security Qualifications. Section C Section 1 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES / GENERAL INFORMATION 1.7.2. Personnel & Facility Clearance Security Qualifications. b. states "The prime Contractor shall possess a minimum Top Secret Facility Clearance." and Section M3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS, M3.2 PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2) – VOLUME II, M3.2.3 RELEVANCY states "For the purpose of this evaluation the term “Offeror” will include the prime Offeror and/or teaming members and major subcontractors."
| In various places throughout the Solicitation terms such as "Offeror," "Contractor," seem to be used interchangeably. In Paragraph C1.7.2 it clearly states that the requirement is for the "prime Contractor"... while Paragraph M3.2.3 states "For the purpose of this evaluation the term “Offeror” will include the prime Offeror and/or teaming members and major subcontractors." ****Please clarify if the requirement are for the Prime Contractor and which can be met by teaming members or major subcontractors. | LB | The interim Top Secret Facility requirement is clearly for the Prime and shall not be allowed to be obtained through sub-contracting. For Section M3.2.3 Relevancy, it specifically fell under the Past Performance relevancy evaluation and stated that it was for "this evaluation" under the paragraph that it was stated under. However, the Government to the extent possible and when appropriate will delete or change the wording for clarity. The intent is when the Government uses the term "Prime Offeror in Section L or M for the proposal we mean it must come from the Prime. When the Government uses the term "Offeror" then it can be met by teaming members or major subcontractors. Section C uses the term contractor because unlike sections L & M it will be included into any contract awarded to contractor that won a contract. | |
| 6 | Section L Section 2.0 PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS 4.2.10 CONSENT/ CLIENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER | "Should the Offeror not submit a completed consent letter for a major or critical subcontractor/teaming partner the Government will not disclose/discuss the applicable past performance information other than with that prospective subcontractor or teaming partner being reviewed.The completed consent letter(s) submitted as part of the Past Performance Information Volume will not be considered in the page count of that Volume. Should the Offeror not submit a completed consent letter for a major or critical subcontractor/teaming partner the Government will not disclose/discuss the applicable past performance information other than with that prospective subcontractor or teaming partner being reviewed. " |
| Twice in this Section and in multiple other places throughout the Solicitation refers to the term "major subcontractor" without defining what qualifies a subcontractor as "major" or otherwise defining the intent. ****Please define the intended meaning of "major subcontractor." | LB | The term "major or critical subcontractor" refers to all subcontractors/teaming partners submitted to be evaluated under the Past Performance Volume. When information is submitted under the Past Performance Volume the Government requires a consent letter form the identified subcontractors in order to contact and evaluate the submitted past performance. | |
| 7 | Section L Section 3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS 3.4 TECHNICAL CAPABILITY – FACTOR 1 - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SUBFACTOR | "The program management proposal shall demonstrate the ability to manage all aspects of work associated with providing services to the Government, to include the ability to concurrently execute and manage a large volume of complex task orders effectively. “Large volume” and “complex” shall be demonstrated in accordance with the criteria in the respective Program Management Subfactor evaluation criteria set forth under paragraph M.3.1." |
| While "Large volume" appears to be defined in M3.1.1.4 Pool 1: Subfactor 1d – Program Management as "The capability and capacity to successfully execute the equivalent of at least ten TOs valued over $10M each concurrently, to include leveraging the resources of a multifunctional team and managing subcontractors as necessary;" "complex" is not defined. ****Please clarify the definition / intent of the term "complex" with regard to Subfactor 1d. | LB | Complex was changed to read "..similar Task Orders to the requirement." | |
| 8 | Section M Section 3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS 3.2 PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2) – VOLUME II | "The Offeror shall provide at least 3 Past Performance contract references from the Prime Offeror to cover at least 3 of the following 6 focus areas of RMQSI, Weapon Systems, Military Sensing, Survivability & Vulnerability, Software & Data Analysis, and Cyber Security." |
| ****Please confirm the Government's intent is for the 3 references to collectively cover 3 of the 6 cited focus areas vice each of the 3 references covering 3 of the 6 cited focus areas. | LB | Correct. However, the Government changed the requirement from 3 to 2. Collectively Pool 1, the 3 submittals will cover at least 2 of the 6 focus areas required. | |
| 9 | Section M Section 3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS 3.2 PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2) – VOLUME II | "The Offeror shall provide at least 2 Past Performance contract references from the Prime Offeror to cover at least two of the following 7 focus areas of Autonomous Systems, Advanced Materials, Non-Lethal Weapons, Directed Energy, Energetics, Homeland Security & Defense, and CBRN Non-Labs." |
| ****Please confirm the Government's intent is for the 2 references to collectively cover two of the 7 cited focus areas vice both of the 2 references covering two of the 7 cited focus areas. | LB | Correct. However, the Government changed the requirement from 2 to 3. Collectively, the 2 submittals will cover at least 2 of the 8 focus areas (added C4ISR so now it is 8 vice 7 focus areas). | |
| 10 | Section M Section 3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS 3.2 PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2) – VOLUME II 3.2.3 RELEVANCY | M3.2.3.1 Relevancy Criteria for Pool 1 and 3 [and M3.2.3.2 Relevancy Criteria for Pool 2]: "In determining relevance for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the extent that the effort, or portion of R&D effort, that is the same or similar in technical nature and scope of the IAC MAC technical focus areas, complexity of the requirement, contract type, and dollar value [magnitude of effort]. The technical nature, scope, magnitude, and complexity...." |
| ****The term "technical nature & the term complexity (Sections M3.2.3.1 & M3.2.3.2)" is not defined and the specific intent for its application is not clear. It appears to play an important role in the Relevancy evalution. Please clarify the intended meaning of "technical nature and complexity." | LB | Deleted the term "nature". Complexity is the quality or state of being complex. The complexity of the contract. | |
| 11 | Section L Section 3.0 TECHNICAL (FACTOR 1) – VOLUME I 3.4 TECHNICAL CAPABILITY – FACTOR 1 - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SUBFACTOR and Section M Section 3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS 3.4 TECHNICAL (FACTOR 1) - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SUBFACTOR | "The program management proposal shall demonstrate the ability to manage all aspects of work associated with providing services to the Government, to include the ability to concurrently execute and manage a large volume of complex task orders effectively. “Large volume” and “complex” shall be demonstrated in accordance with the criteria in the respective Program Management Subfactor evaluation criteria set forth under paragraph M.3.1." |
The first bullet in M3.1.1.4 Pool 1: Subfactor 1d – Program Management cites "...The requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates: - The capability and capacity to successfully execute the equivalent of at least ten TOs valued over $10M each concurrently, to include leveraging the resources of a multifunctional team and managing subcontractors as necessary."
| Comment - Given this element's position as the first for Subfactor 1d is reflective of the importance of this portion of the requirement, recommend that one of the Past Performance references be required to be a competitive task order IDIQ contract that demonstrates the offeror's ability to meet this requirement. | LB | The Government believes this is covered by the way Past Performance relevancy magnitude of effort is evaluated. | |
| 12 | Section L 4.0 PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2) - VOLUME II 4.2.7 PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION SHEETS | "All competition pool Offerors shall submit information on contracts considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform across the technical focus areas that make up the IAC MAC requirements for the Pool they are bidding on (see Section M3.2)." and |
"The table in ATTACHMENT L-1 at Item K of the Information Sheet "Past Performance Relevance Evaluation Matrix for PWS Scope" shall be submitted not as a Word file with the Past Performance Information sheet Word document, but rather as one separate Excel file per Offeror."
ATTACHMENT L-1 PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION SHEET Section K. require completion of the "IAC MAC Past Performance Relevance Evaluation Matrix for PWS Scope, attached below. (Note, this table must be submitted as a separate Excel file and will not be counted toward the page limitation. See L.4.2.6)." ATTACHMENT L-2 PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE, SECTION 4: EVALUATION states at the top of the form "FOR EACH OF THE FOURTEEN (14) TECHNICAL FOCUS AREAS LISTED BELOW IDENTIFY WITH AN “X” WHICH AREAS PERTAIN TO THE CONTRACT YOU ARE EVALUATING" M3.2 PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2) – VOLUME II states "Offerors will not receive an overall past performance confidence assessment rating of “Satisfactory” or “Substantial” confidence if they do not have coverage across the following thirteen most predominate technical focus areas of RMQSI, Weapon Systems, Military Sensing, Survivability & Vulnerability, Software & Data Analysis, Cyber Security, Autonomous Systems, Advanced Materials, Non-Lethal Weapons, Directed Energy, Energetics, Homeland Security & Defense, and CBRN Non-Labs."
| Comment - there is no guidance in Section 4.0 that specifies only some (13 for Pool 1) of the Technical Focus Areas will be evaluated. That can be inferred from the INSTRUCTIONS at the top of the EVALUATION Section of the PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE. Nevertheless, the Table required in ATTACHMENT L-1 at Item K covers all 23 Technical Focus Areas. The resulting implication is that the Technical Focus Areas not listed in in M3.2 are not considered important and therefore do not need to be addressed the the selected / submitted PAST PERFORMANCE references. | LB | The Government will change the Attachment L-1 item K to read 14 Technical Focus Areas. The Government added C4ISR. | |
| 13 | Section C – Descriptions and Specifications SECTION 1 -- DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES / GENERAL INFORMATION 1.5.1.4 and multiple other locations | "Pool 1 and 3 Unrestricted Full and Open: The Contractor shall maintain throughout the duration of the contract period of performance, commencing at the date of contract award certifications for: |
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level III (in either Development or Services) and at least one of the following:
1) A certification within the ISO 9001:2015 Quality Certification standards OR
2) A certification within the ISO 27001:2013 family of Information Technology Security standards"
Comment - The DRAFT RFP requirement for all DTIC prime contractors to have and maintain CMMI Level 3 for Development and one of two ISO certifications illustrates the Government’s desire for strong Quality processes among IAC MAC awardees. Since the CMMI certification only applies to the organization within a company that was certified and not a company overall, and often only applies to a specific project or contract, we understand the difficulty the Government will have in ensuring that the certified organization is the actual performing organization. Additionally CMMI for Development, in particular, is much more relevant for some Technical Area Tasks (TATs) than others, just as the ISO 9001 and 27001 are each applicable for significantly different TATs.
Question - In keeping with the overarching desire to ensure the establishment of quality processes of each awardee and the disparate requirements on each TAT, is the Government willing to make the requirement for CMMI Level 3, ISO 9001, or other industry standard for quality associated with the IAC MAC tasks to be a requirement at time of task order award instead of at time of contract award? Then individual TATs can further refine specific certifications as applicable, and the awardee pool has the utmost flexibility to address all requirements. We believe aligning specific quality certifications based on the nature of each task to be most effective and will further benefit the Government by maximizing overall competition. LB Section M Subfactor Program Management has been re-written to state.
"...The requirement is met when the Prime Offeror demonstrates:
• Evidence demonstrating at least one of the following certifications; CMMI Level III (DEV or SVC), ISO 9001:2008/2015, ISO 27001:2013, or an AS9100D certifications;..."
14 1.5.2.2.4 Request the Government consider removing the Monthly Metrics Report (CDRL A004) as a duplicate requirement. The financial summary information is reported in the Monthly Status Report (MSR) CDRL A010 and the training numbers are not apropos the IAC MAC as much as the BCO. LB The Monthly Metrics Report (MMR) covers other metrics besides financial summary information, and so it will remain as a deliverable. However, to remove redundancy, the questions that pertain to financial summary information will be removed from the requirement that is embedded into the MMR CDRL. The training numbers still have validity and will remain.
| 15 | 1.5.2.3.6 | The Government requests two reports required for the Final Technical Report (CDRL A012), the first of which is delivered at the POP halfway point. For a short study (2-3 months) this may place a high burden on the investigator. Request this CDRL be amended so that the report due at the halfway point is required for all TOs of twelve months duration or more. | LB | You would only be required to submit a final report in this case. We added a sentence in the CDRL to clearly delineate state this. |
| 16 | Section I page 52 | Request the Government consider adding the following FAR clause for application to Nonprofit Institutions and Small Businesses: CFR 52.227-11, Patent Rights Ownership by the Contractor for Nonprofits and Small Businesses. Rationale: Per the FAR (27.309(b)(1)), FAR 52.227-11, Patent Rights Ownership by the Contractor, is used in research and development contracts with Nonprofit Organizations and Small Businesses. | LB | Added the recommended clause and as a result had to also add Clause 252.227-7039. |
| 17 | Section I page 48, 52.215-2 | Audit and Records –Negotiation. Request Alternate II for cost-reimbursement contracts with State and local Governments, educational institutions, and other nonprofit organizations. | LB | Added the recommended clause. |
| 18 | Section I page 50, 52.243-1 | Request the Government consider adding the following FAR clause applicable to research and development programs, as prescribed by the FAR: FAR 52.243-1, Changes – Fixed Price (Aug 1987), Alternate V | LB | Added the recommended clause. |
| 19 | 52.216-7 | Would the Government consider adding the following FAR clause applicable to an educational institution and/or nonprofit organization, as prescribed by the FAR 16.307 (a)(3)? FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment (Jun 2013), Alternate II (Aug 2012). | LB | Added the recommended clause. |
| 20 | L2.1, page 95 | For Volume I – Technical, currently there is no requirement for an Executive/Proposal summary. Request the Government consider adding a three-page summary that contains an introduction and a listing of the teammates. | LB | The listing of the teammates is already required under L3.4. The Government will change the wording to ensure it is clearly stated. |
| 21 | Attachment L-2, page 121 | The table calls for 14 items, but there are 9 items for Technical Performance, 4 items for Management Approach, 2 items for Small Business Utilization, and 4 items for Cost Performance. Request clarification for the 14 items called for on the first row of the table for Technical Performance. | LB | Changed to read "…;FOUR (4) SEPARATE FACTORS…" |
| 22 | M3.3.8, page 108, Amend 1 | Request clarification on the section numbering. Should it be changed to reflect Section L? | LB | Corrected to read L5.8 |
| 23 | Section I, page 47, DFAR 52.277-3 | Patent Indemnity: Request the government consider using Authorization and Consent, Alternate I for R&D solicitations and contracts for which the primary purpose is R&D work. | LB | Added 52.227-3 not 52.277-3. |
| 24 | Section I, page 48, DFAR 52.204-2 | Security Requirements: Request the government consider using of Alternate I, which gives universities and colleges option to de-scope, or to terminate for convenience. | LB | Added clause as recommended. |
| 25 | Section I, page 52, DFAR 252.227-7020 | Request the government clarify when DFAR Clause 252.227-7020, Rights in Special Works, will apply to a Task Order, versus 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data. Per the DFAR prescription at 227.7106, the 252.227-7020 clause is either (1) used in lieu of the clause at 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data—Noncommercial Items, when the Government must own or control copyright in all works first produced, created, or generated and required to be delivered under a contract; or (2) in conjunction with 252.227-7013, when the government must own or control copyright in a portion of a work first produced, created, or generated and required to be delivered under a contract. In this case, the specific portion in which the Government must own or control copyright must be identified in a special contract requirement. Since the 252,227-7020 is being used in conjunction with 252.227-7013 in IAC MAC solicitation, a special contract requirement should be included (at the Task Order level) to clearly define the data rights. | LB | Both clauses were included because one or both may apply to the individual Task Orders. The Task Order Contracting Officer will follow 227.7105-3, 227.7106 or 227.7205 when making their determination about when DFAR Clause 252.227-7020, Rights in Special Works, will apply to a Task Order, versus 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data will apply. |
| 26 | Section L Attach L-1 | For Attach L-1 J. There is no "proposed effort" "being reported here" in the past performance. |
Each past performance contract is either completed or ongoing within the specified timeframe to be considered a past performance contract. Can the
| Government please explain item J in the past performance information sheet? | LB | Rewrote this area to the following: "J. Describe for all Subcontractor Past Performance referenced contracts what technical focus areas the Offeror intends the Subcontractor to perform on and estimate the percentage of the total proposed effort to be performed by this Subcontractor entity for the first three years of the IAC MAC. The Government realizes no one contractor will know the amount of work to be performed in the future. However, the Government understands that in teaming with this Subcontractor you had a plan to utilize them on Task Orders no matter the outcome." | |||
| 27 | Section M3.2 | In the paragraphs for Pool 1 and Pool 2 reference "Non-Lethal Weapons" instead of the more complete "Non-Lethal Weapons and Information Operations" which is the full PWS requirement (PWS 1.4.2.2.6). The PPQ form also contains "Non-Lethal Weapons and Information Operations." We assume Section M3.2 is also meant to include the full reference "Non-Lethal Weapons and Information Operations." Is this correct? | LB | Correct and will be corrected to add the full name of that Technical Focus Area. | |
| 28 | Section L, 2.1 | Will the Government provide an additional 3 to 5 pages at the beginning of Volume 1 for an Executive Summary? | LB | The Government is not requiring an Executive Summary. Please see Section L3.4 TECHNICAL Capability - FACTOR 1 - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SUBFACTOR. Section L3.4 asks for a listing of teammates to cover the most useful purpose of the Executive summary. | |
| 29 | Section C, 5.2.2 | The DRFP indicates that Prime Offerors selected in the Pool 2 Small Business Set Aside will be eligible to bid on the Pool 1 Unrestricted Tasks. What is the Government’s rationale for permitting this, as the Small Businesses are not required to demonstrate capability for all of the Technical Focus Areas in their IDIQ proposal responses? That is, how will the Government determine that small businesses are qualified to bid these Unrestricted Tasks? How does the Government propose to resolve the conflict of interest for small businesses that are teamed with Prime Offerors within Pool 1 and who are also bidding as Primes within Pool 2? The Small Business requirements for Prime Offerors in Pool 1 already guarantee small business participation in Task Orders under Pool 1—this would seem to ensure participation in all TFAs by capable small businesses. | LB | As a result of industry questions on the Draft RFP and responses from the 2nd Request For Information (RFI), the Government has increased the SB set aside threshold from $10M to $15M, a 50% increase. In addition, Offerors will be required to propose to and meet the Unrestricted F&O Pool 1 evaluation criteria in order to receive an award and propose on Task Orders in Pool 1. Further, the Government also made numerous changes to the evaluation criteria. The following are a few of the changes made; allow an interim TS Facility clearance at proposal, adding C4ISR to the Past Performance factor, reducing the overall dollar amount for very relevant IDIQ Pool 2 references and the number of required Past Performance submittals. | |
| 30 | Section M3.1.1.3 | DRFP Amendment 1 has been changed to include the version number for ISO 9001 certifications (ISO 9001:2015) for Pool 1 and Pool 2 bidders. Currently, ISO 9001:2008 certifications remain valid until September 2018. Given ISO's process for migrating to the 2015 version of the standard during the three-year recertification audit cycle, we assume a bidder with a current ISO 9001.2008 certification that is scheduled to recertify to the 2015 standard before ISO’s September 2018 deadline, meets the Government's requirement. Is this correct? | LB | Yes. Changed the wording in Sections C, L & M to address this. The Government also added AS9100D Certification and regardless of the Pool Offerors submit in they will have to supply only one of the four certifications. | |
| 31 | C.1.14 Permits and Responsibility for Work | When the permits required to do work pertain to a Government facility and will be on-going, will the Government obtain these permits? | LB | Depends, but most likely not. This can be addressed on a Task Order by Task Order basis. | |
| 32 | C.1.5.2.2.2 | Redacted IAC MAC and Redacted TOs (CDRL A002). What is the process for determining which areas of the IAC MAC and related TOs are approved for redaction? | LB | That is a business decision. The determining factor is it appropriate for public release. The intention is to provide the information freely and does reduce the administrative burden of Freedom Of Information Act requests. | |
| 33 | C.1.5.2.2.2 | Redacted IAC MAC and Redacted TOs (CDRL A002). Who is the final decision authority for redaction, the Government or the contractor? | LB | The Government. However, for purposes of redaction the Government normally agrees with the contractor. If a contractor deletes to much a FOIA could still be requested and a determination could be made at that time by the Government that certain aspects not be redacted or other parts be redacted. | |
| 34 | L.2.1 | Reference, "Subfactor 2c – Program Management (includes up to a 3 page marketing plan)." Are the 3 pages included in the overall 18 page allocation or in addition to it? | LB | Yes you are correct. This was a 15 page limit. For this acquisition the Government increased this area to an 18 page limit to allow for the marketing plan. | |
| 35 | L.2.2.2 | Reference, "Normal proportional spacing and one inch (1”) margins (top, bottom, left and right)." Is header and footer information permissible within the margins? Does the font restriction apply to header and footer information? | LB | Included the following sentence to L2.2.2: "Headers and footers can be within the one inch (1") margin." | |
| 36 | L.5.3 | IDIQ MAC Minimum Ordering Guarantee: states in part; "The Offeror shall propose a Firm-Fixed Price for CLIN 0004 in Section J attachment called “IAC MAC Cost/Price Table”, for exactly $3,600. The “$3,600 Minimum Order Guarantee” is the price proposed to support the Offeror’s proposed Marketing Plan per PWS requirement 1.5.1.2 K." Is the Contractor required to develop a bottoms up Basis of Estimate to support a $3,600 value? | LB | You are not required to explain this cost. It is a FFP for the requirement. On Multiple Award Contracts by law the Government has to provide a minimum order guarantee. This requirement fulfills this mandatory minimum Task Order guarantee for all awardees. It will be automatically filled in for you on the Cost Model. | |
| 37 | M.1.0 | Reference, "All Offerors will be placed into competition pool(s) based on the Offeror's submission of the Section L, Attachment L-5 Choice of Competition and an Offeror will only be evaluated for and potentially awarded a contract in the competition pool(s) for the box(es) checked on Attachment L-5 with a valid proposal for the respective pool(s)." In which Volume/Section of the proposal submission does the Government want the Offeror to include Attachment L-5? | LB | Added language in L6.0 CONRACT DOCUMENTATION VOLUME IV. The added language in L6.10 states that this requirement will be included into your Documentation Volume IV. | |
| 38 | M.3.1.1.5 | The 2nd paragraph states that the Offeror will be evaluated on meeting Small Business subcontracting goals of 13% based on total obligated dollars, and the requirements of FAR 52.219-8. It then states that offerors will be evaluated on the adequacy of their plan to achieve subcontracting goals of at least 3% for VOSB, SDVOSB, and HUBZone and 5% for SDB and WOSB. Could the Government please clarify if these individual goals are based on total planned subcontracting dollars per 52.219-9 or if they are to be evaluated based on total obligated dollars on the contract. | LB | The social economic goals are based on subcontracted dollars. Only the overall Small Business subcontracting goal of 13% is based on total obligated dollars to SBs versus a percentage of subcontracted dollars to SBs. | |
| 39 | 1.5.2.3.6, pages 29 | For each TO, the Contractor shall provide two Technical Reports. The first report will be due half way into the task order period of performance (inclusive of options, if any). If a Task Order has a 12-month base and four 12-month option periods, would the first report be due at month 6 since the Contractor will not know at that time if the options are going to be exercised? Or would the Contractor assume all options will be exercised and submit the first report at month 30? | LB | Changed the wording to address this question. You don't submit at the 6th month in this circumstance you would plan on submitting at 30 months. However, if an option was not exercised before the 30 months you would submit only a final technical report. | |
| 40 | 4.5, Page 35, “Small Business Participation Goals” |
4.7.1, Page 35, “Off Ramps” 5.2.1, Page 36 “Pool 1 – Unrestricted/Full and Open Competition Ordering Process”
| L1.0, Page 93 “General Instructions” | In various sections of the draft RFP, to include 4.7.1, 5.2.1 and L.1.0, the Government establishes that the Set-Aside Pool 2 will have a $10M threshold, and all TO’s with an estimated value of $10M or less will be competed only in Pool 2. It is also noted in these sections and other sections of the draft RFP that Set-Aside Pool 2 awardees will be able to bid in the F&O Pool 1 on competitive TO requirements with an estimated value of $10M or more, even though the SB has an award in Pool 2 only. This is in direct conflict with instructions in L.1.0, third paragraph, which states: “All Offerors who want an award in more than one competition pool must provide a separate proposal for that competition pool.” In addition to this conflict, industry questions why the threshold is set so high in the Set-Aside Pool 2, particularly when the Government has stated that SB awardees can also bid in the F&O Pool 1 on TO’s with an estimated value of $10M or more. Based on our experience as an IAC Prime contractor for decades, over the last 5 1/2 years we have successfully awarded 616 contracts and/or task orders to 326 SBs with an average ceiling value of slightly over $1.1M, and we are only one of multiple IAC Prime contractors. Consequently, we believe that a lower threshold of $8M would allow for growth opportunities for SBs and be more suitable to the Capabilities and Capacity we have seen in the SB community supporting the complexity and the unique nature of the IAC work. | ||||
| Additionally, Pool 2 should establish a reasonable ceiling for SBs based on their Capacity and Capability to simultaneously manage several TOs at any given point in time. Given that a good number of TOs are valued at less than $8M, this threshold level will provide a generous amount of potential set-aside work for SBs and enable them to succeed when managing multiple task orders awarded to them in Pool 2. Between the recommended $8M threshold for SBs in Pool 2, and the measures in place to ensure LBs meet or exceed their SB goals, we believe that the Government will provide ample opportunity for SBs to participate on the IAC MAC. With regard to SB participation in Pool 1, unless a SB submits a proposal and receives an award in Pool 1 via the same requirements and evaluation criteria as LBs must demonstrate for an award in Pool 1, we believe allowing a SB to participate in Pool 1 TO bids is inappropriate | LB | As a result of industry questions on the Draft RFP and responses from the 2nd Request For Information (RFI), the Government has increased the SB set aside threshold from $10M to $15M, a 50% increase. In addition, Offerors will be required to propose to and meet the Unrestricted F&O Pool 1 evaluation criteria in order to receive an award and propose on Task Orders in Pool 1. Further, the Government also made numerous changes to the evaluation criteria. The following are a few of the changes made; allow an interim TS Facility clearance at proposal, adding C4ISR to the Past Performance factor, reducing the overall dollar amount for very relevant IDIQ Pool 2 references and the number of required Past Performance submittals. | |||
| 41 | M3.1.1.5, Sub factor 1e, Page 133 “Small Business Participation Plans” | Section M3.1.1.5 establishes a minimum 13% SB goal that the LBs must meet based on total obligated dollars. Section 4.7 provides Off-Ramp procedures which allow the Government to Off-Ramp Contractors that continually fail to meet their small business subcontract goal as established in the PWS 4.5 and evaluated in M3.1.1.5. Section 4.7 also allows the Government to provide Unsatisfactory CPARs rating to LBs that fail to meet the required SB goals. We commend the Government for taking measures to ensure that all IAC MAC Primes will support SBs on the contract. In our own experience as an IAC Prime, we continuously strive to seek out small business partners, we take pride in exceeding our SB goals on the IACs and other contract vehicles, and believe all IAC MAC awardees should do the same. The SB goals established in the IAC MAC allow LBs to provide significant work and opportunities for SB contributions, experience and success on the contract. | LB | The 13% subcontracting goal based on obligated dollars versus for subcontracted dollars for Pool 1 was established based on multiple factors and one of them is the partial Set-aside. This percentage took into consideration the increased Prime opportunity that Small Businesses will have on this acquisition compared to the current Multiple Award Contracts (MACs). With the new IAC MAC and the increased Prime opportunities that Small Businesses will have with a $15M Small Business Set-aside, the Government has determined that 13% goal based on obligations is a reasonable and achievable percentage under the new IAC MAC. | |
| 42 | 4.2, page 34 | Would the Government considering adding the following, or similar, language to the third sentence in this paragraph: "A task order period of performance, including any option periods that may be exercised after the end of the IDIQ contract, may not extend more than 60 months past the end date of the overall IDIQ contract ordering period." | LB | Added the recommended language. | |
| 43 | 4.5, page 35 | The last sentence appears to be missing language. Possible edit solutions shown in blue: "The Government will obtain data from the Contractor's eSRS reports and the Monthly Cost Tracking report deliverable A001 and the data will be assessed by the Government and the results will be reflected in an annual assessment using the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)." | LB | Added the recommended language for clarification. | |
| 44 | 4.7, page 35 | In the list of examples of non-performance at the end of the paragraph, it is missing item 2). | LB | Corrected. | |
| 45 | 4.7, page 36 | In the list of off-ramp methods, should item (2) "FAR Subpart 9.4501-1" be "FAR Subpart 9.405-1"? | LB | Yes and corrected. | |
| 46 | Section D, page 41 | What is the intent of the Minimum Quantity as shown in the CLIN Order Value table, "CLIN Delivery/Task Order Minimum/Maximum Quantity," since there is a requirement for a one time Marketing Plan TO that will satisfy the IDIQ minimum ordering guarantee? | LB | This section will either be deleted or changed for clarity. | |
| 47 | Section I, page 48 | Will the Government consider adding the following clauses to Section I: 52.215-17 (Waiver of FCCM), 52.215-20 and 52.215-21 (Requirements for CCCorPD)? | LB | Added. | |
| 48 | Section I, page 51 | Clause 52.249-6 Alt V is for T&M or Labor Hour contracts. Does the Government intend to award T&M or Labor Hour Task Orders under the IAC MAC IDIQ Contract? | LB | Depends and would be rare. But you could have a Subcontractor that you have a T&M rate agreement with. This question could stem from the fact that T&M is out of favor with the Government for various reasons. A Prime contractor that makes a case for T&M for a subcontractor will most likely be allowed. However, at this time it is strongly encouraged to validate the type of arrangement you have with your Subcontractors and realize that FFP, FFP-LOE, CPFF are not out of favor at this time. | |
| 49 | 52.216-18, page 62 | Should this Clause be aligned with the CLINS listed in Section B of the RFP. | LB | Yes. Corrected. | |
| 50 | 252.216-7006, page 79 | Should CLIN 3000 be added and CLINs 0008 through 0013 be deleted from the last sentence of paragraph (a)? | LB | Yes. Corrected | |
| 51 | L5.5.3, page 107 | Based on the NOTE: "Labor and handling rates may be discounted at the TO level," is it the Government's intent to allow for T&M rates under the IAC MAC? | LB | No. About 99.9% of Task Orders are CPFF. However, you could have a Subcontractor that you have a T&M rate agreement with. | |
| 52 | 1.5.1 | Paragraph 1.5.1 stipulates the cost accounting treatment required for the charging of PMO to task orders. This treatment may vary from a contractor to contractor's accounting practice as disclosed in their CASB Disclosure Statement. Will the DTIC PMO permit contractors to follow their CASB Disclosure Statement cost accounting practices for the allocation of PMO cost to task orders in lieu of the formula prescribed in stipulations 2 and 5 of paragraph 1.5.1? | LB | Yes. | |
| 53 | L.4.2.1 page 102 | Can the Government confirm that the reference to “thirteen (13) technical focus areas” should be “twenty-two (22) technical focus areas” as specified in section 1.4.2.1.2 and as shown in Attachment L-1? | LB | No the correct number is reflected in Section L4.2.1. Section C 1.4.2.1.2 is correct. Section L Attachment L-1 Section 4 was corrected to actually state fifteen (15). | |
| 54 | M3.1.1.3 page 132 | Can the Government confirm that the term “contractor” used in this paragraph means the contractor team? | LB | Not in this instance. The Government will have to relook at this as a whole for the RFP. However, in this particular case the wording was changed to state "…Offeror…" The word contractor was deleted. The Offeror can be from the team. | |
| 55 | M3.1.1.3 page 132 | Can the Government confirm that the term “Offeror” in this paragraph means the Offeror team? | LB | Yes you are correct. | |
| 56 | In Section L2.1, L3.1, Subfactor 3 – Pool 3, Unrestricted Full & Open CBRN Laboratories, first bullet and M1.1 (FACTORS and SUBFACTORS), under Pool 3 | In all three sections it states or cites“……includes additional tasks involving Survivability & Vulnerability, Modeling and Simulation, RMQSI and Weapons Systems.” This seems outside the scope for the CBRN Laboratories scope for Pool 3. Please clarify if these focus areas are to be included in Pool 3. | LB | Pool 3 will only get work when there is an actual predominate CBRN Laboratory requirement that requires legitimate work in the stated Laboratories. Any of the other technical focus areas could be in Pool 3 with the fact of the first sentence above in mind. Most Task Orders today touch multiple areas like Software Data and analysis could be used secondarily to a predominate CBRN Lab requirement for example. | |
| 57 | M3.2.2 RECENCY | Regarding the information in M3.2.2 RECENCY, would the Government consider changing the recency end date to 28 February 17? | LB | The Government has changed the date. Currently the dates for recency have been changed to 1 September 2013 and 30 April 2017. | |
| 58 | Attachment L-1, Past Performance Relevance Eval Matrix | Is the complete matrix table necessary for Pool 3? Only the last technical focus areas is relevant to Pool 3. | LB | Based on the answer to you question above the matrix table could be used. For example you or another contractor could potentially have some relevant Past Performance in those other technical focus areas. However, you can make a business decision if you believe that CBRN Laboratories is the only area for 100% of the scope for your submitted contracts then you can streamline the matrix table. For Pool 3 the Government is only evaluating the predominate area of CBRN Laboratories that will be performed for that Pool. But if your Past Performance submittal touched on another Technical Focus Area and it was relevant to the CBRN Laboratory work then leave the matrix table as is. | |
| 59 | 1.4.2 Technical Focus Areas, Domains and Award Pools; | ||||
| 5.2 Pool Competition Selection Process for TOs | We are concerned with the decision to allow Pool 2 Small businesses to compete on Pool 1 task orders based on the considerably lower technical requirements in Technical capability Subfactor 1 and 2. |
Sample TO requirements only address 3 focus areas (vs 6 in Pool 1) in a significantly less complex requirement. Demonstrated capability narrative covers 10 (vice 16) focus areas leaving the following 9 areas undemonstrated by either technical subfactor. Past Performance information across 13 focus areas is “desired” vice reqired. At a maximum, the Pool 2 awardess will have only demostrated capability in 13 of 22 Technical Focus Areas. Therefore, allowing the Pool 2 awardess too bid in Pool 1 lessens the breadth and depth of the competetition for those task order.
| We understand and support the desire to increase the SB participation and feel this can be better acheived through other methods such as incresing the SB set aside threshold from $10M to $15M. We feel both these options will serve the purpose of increasing SB participation without weakening the position of IAC MAC as an efficient and accessible DoD resource to affordably deliver technical research, scientific and technical analyses in support of warfighting, security and operational needs. | LB | The Government has looked at alternatives and your recommendation has some merit. With our initial research and the results of the 2nd RFI the Government has struck the right balance for both Large and Small businesses with the acquisition strategy being implemented. | |||
| 60 | 1.4.2.4.8 (7) & 1.4.2.4.9 (7) | In the interest of harmonizing tehcnical focus areas as much as possible, we suggest that the requirement for "container security/intrusion detection devices" may be better aligned with the Technical Focus Areas 1.4.2.4.1 Homeland Security & Defense or 1.4.2.4.2 Critical Infrastructure Protection rather than the CBRN Non-Laboratory and CBRN Laboraotry Areas that it is presently aligned with. | LB | Changed 1.4.2.4.8 (7) and 1.4.2.4.9 (7) to read as follows: "container security/intrusion detection devices for CBRN agents" | |
| 61 | 1.5.1.4, L3.4, M3.1.1.4, M3.1.2.3, M3.1.3.2 | We are certified under ISO 9001:2008 until Sep 2018 at which time 9001:2008 will no longer be a valid standard. Our ISO9001:2015 Transition Surveillance audut is scheduled for 1/29 - 2/2/2018 with certification expected in Mar 2018. We recommend the requirement for ISO9001:2015 be validated with evidence of a confimred plan to have the certification in place by contract award. | LB | Either one will be fine at time of Proposal. The evaluation criteria was changed to make sure that the RFP is clear and AS9100D certification was added. Also, the RFP will clearly state that an Offeror will only need to have one of the four certifications. | |
| 62 | L3.0 TECHNICAL (FACTOR 1) – VOLUME I, L 3.5 Technical Capability Factor 1 - Small Business Participation Plan Subcfactor - Pool 1 Subfactor 1e, Pool 2 Subfactor 2d, and Pool 3 Subfactor 2c, L3.5.1 OFFEROR IS OTHER THAN A SMALL BUSINESS | If an Offeror is bidding within multiple pools, should said Offeror submit separate individual IDIQ Small Business Participation Plans using the value of $900,000,000.00, one for each pool, meeting the requirements for subfactor(s) 1e, 2d, 3c? | LB | Yes. For every pool you are bidding you will have to submit a completely separate proposal for each. Pool 1 has a 13% and Pool 3 has a 9%. | |
| 63 | L3.0 TECHNICAL (FACTOR 1) – VOLUME I, L 3.5 Technical Capability Factor 1 - Small Business Participation Plan Subcfactor - Pool 1 Subfactor 1e, Pool 2 Subfactor 2d, and Pool 3 Subfactor 2c, L3.5.1 OFFEROR IS OTHER THAN A SMALL BUSINESS | If an other than SB Offeror is bidding within multiple pools, should said Offeror submit an individual IDIQ Small Business Subcontracting Plan, one for each pool? | LB | Yes. | |
| 64 | L3.1 | Section L3.1 states, "The Offeror’s Technical Volume I shall provide, as specifically as possible, high quality Scientific Technical Information (STI), the actual methodologies that will be used with the necessary materials, equipment and facilities, and how the IAC MAC requirements will be accomplished/satisfied." Would the Government confirm that what is desired is “an approach to delivering high quality Scientific Technical Information (STI), to include the actual methodologies that will be used with the necessary materials, equipment and facilities, and how the IAC MAC requirements will be accomplished/satisfied"? | LB | The statement will be modified to read, "The Offeror’s Technical Volume I shall provide, as specifically as possible, the actual methodologies that will be used with the necessary materials, equipment and facilities, and how the IAC MAC requirements will be accomplished/satisfied." | |
| 65 | L3.3 Paragraph 1 | Section L 3.3 asks offerors to: "propose an approach that covers the remaining 16 technical focus areas ." Whereas Section M 3.1.1.3 seeks despcritions of "demonstrated capability." Please confirm that the government is seeking a backward looking narrative substantiating the offeror's ability to provide services similar to those to be procured via the IAC MAC rather than a forward looking approach to how prospective services may be delivered. | LB | Confirmed: the Government seeks a summary of capabilities currently possessed by the Offeror that demonstrates competence in the 16 remaining technical focus areas. L 3.3 paragraph 1 has been changed to state the following: |
"Pool 1 Subfactor 1c: The Offeror shall demonstrate technical capabilities that covers the remaining 16 technical focus areas not covered in Sample TO 1 and Sample TO 2."
"Pool 2 Subfactor 2b: The Offeror shall demonstrate technical capabilities that covers 11 technical focus areas (RMQSI, Military Sensing, Cyber Security, Autonomous Systems, Advanced Material, Non-Lethal Weapons & Information Operations, Directed Energy, Energetics, C4ISR, Homeland Security & Def and CBRN Non-Laboratory) not covered by Sample TO 3."
| 66 | L5.0 COST/PRICE (FACTOR 3) – VOLUME III, L5.1 and L6.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION – VOLUME IV, L6.4 For other than Small Businesses: | Within section L5.0 Volume III – Cost/Price Factor it details all cost/price information shall be addressed within the cost/price volume. Further referenced within section L6.0 Volume IV – Contract Documentation, L6.4 it calls for other than SB Offerors to submit the SB Subcontracting Plan. Please confirm that an other than SB Offeror submitting a SB Subcontracting Plan, including cost and pricing information, may be submitted within the Contract Documentation Volume IV? | LB | Per RFP Section L6.4 you include "For other than Small Businesses: your subcontracting plan. Since that is in Section L6.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTAT - VOLUME IV you would place it in that volume. The SB Subcontracting Plan is not considered cost/price information. |
| 67 | L5.5.4 SUBCONTRACTS | For teammates with more than 10% of costs on any Sample TO, please confirm they do not need to submit a cost proposal narrative or any other documentation with their supporting cost/pricing data. | LB | They do. Please keep in mind that any subcontractor above 10% that a Prime lists as having a CPFF arrangement will also be evaluated for having an adequate accounting system. |
| 68 | L5.5.4 SUBCONTRACTS | For teammates with less than 10% of costs on any Sample TO, please confirm they will not need to submit any supporting cost/pricing data or cost proposal narrative. | LB | They don't. But the Government reserves the right to ask for more information and the pricing of all Subcontractors will be on the Cost/Price Model. |
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 .