DoD IAC BCO RFP Questions & Answers.pdf

RFP Questions Received Government Response

3.1 PHASE-IN – INTRODUCTION AND

OVERVIEW indicates ”Phase-In activities will be performed by the contractor in accordance with the specific requirements of subsection 4.3 below…”. The paragraph reference should be 3.2 – correct?

PWS updated to reflect correct reference.

3.3 PHASE-OUT - INTRODUCTION AND

OVERVIEW indicates “…the contractor shall perform phase-out transition activities in accordance with the specific requirements of subsection 4.5…”. The paragraph reference should be 3.4 – correct?

PWS updated to reflect correct reference.

“SUB Labor Prime Fills in” tab. Cells AB23-

AB27 and cells AC23-AC27 have errors. Can the government please correct the errors in the cells?

The Cost/Price Model has been updated.

“Grand Totals” tab. Cell D4 is pulling from

'Labor Hrs & Cost'!E33’. It should be pulling from G33

The Cost/Price Model has been updated.

“Grand Totals” tab. Cell E4 is pulling from

'Labor Hrs & Cost'!G33’. It should be pulling from I33.

The Cost/Price Model has been updated.

“Grand Totals” tab. Cell F4 is pulling from

='Labor Hrs & Cost'!G33. It should be pulling from K33.

The Cost/Price Model has been updated.

“Grand Totals” tab. Cell G4 is pulling from

='Labor Hrs & Cost'!I33. It should be pulling from M33.

The Cost/Price Model has been updated.

“Grand Totals” tab. Rows 6, 7, 8, and 9. The

Cells for the HD and CS Transitions are pulling from incorrect cells in the 'SUB Labor

Prime Fills in' tab. Would the government please review these and make sure the formulas are accurate?

The Cost/Price Model has been updated.

“BOE Yr2” tab. The spreadsheet as currently constructed will not align with pricing. For example, not sure why ETIs and STOs are included when they aren’t being priced.

Also, “1.5.3.3.1 Interactive Webinars” has been removed from the PWS. Not sure why

“1.5.3.4 Awareness (Community of Practice and Service Promotion)” is included because it’s two subordinate paragraphs are included.

(1.5.3.4 is a roll-up of 1.5.3.4.1 and

1.5.3.4.2). To avoid double-counting, suggest including an element either at the roll-up or at the subordinate level, not both. Same comment applies to 1.5.3.4.2 Service

Promotion. It’s two subordinate elements are included as well and 1.5.3.4.2.2 IAC

Websites is included twice. As constructed,

1.5.4 Program Management, includes only the

ISS. Suggest one element for the ISS and another for PM excluding the ISS. Don’t think an element is needed for 1.5.4.1.1 ISS

Database Details.

As indicated under Section L 7.0, the Offeror shall propose a single fully burdened labor rate, based on the average rate proposed, that is automatically calculated in the IAC BCOs

Cost/Price Model, for each respective year/period, which will be used for ETIs in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.5.2.4. The

ETI&STO value is a ceiling/maximum order value that has been set/determined by the

Government. The model has been updated to remove references no longer included, and to align task numbers in the PWS. "BOE YR 2" tab name has now been updated to reflect

"BOE OPTION 1" as HD, DS, and CS will have fully transitioned to CLIN X004.

Section L1.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

AND INFORMATION indicates, “The ordering period, will include a one year base, and five (5) one (1) year options…” yet the

Solicitation CLIN structure for the BCO Base

Period (CLIN 0004) and Option Periods 1

(CLIN 1004) and 2 (CLIN 2004) reflect a period of 24 months or 2 years. Please clarify.

The Solicitation CLIN is correct (each Period is 2 Years). Section L has been updated to correct this.

The response period for this solicitation covers two holidays that each fall in the middle of a week and that typically involve out-of-town personal travel. This makes it difficult to prepare a response, especially when coordination with Government personnel is required as is the case in getting past performance questionnaires completed.

Would the Government please consider granting an extension for the due dates for

Volume I (Past Performance) to December 27 and Volume II (Technical), III (Cost/Price), and IV (Contract Documentation) to January

17?

The RFP will be extended to reflect a due date of 31 December 2019 for past performance questionnaires, and all other remaining volumes will be due 17 January 2020.

L2.2 PROPOSAL FORMAT, reads: The

Government does not require any paper or

CD-ROM copies for Volumes I, II, or III.

Does the government require paper or CD-

ROM copies for Volume IV?

No. Section L2.2 has been updated to reflect this.

Given all of the information that is required to be included in volumes (e.g., teaming agreements) the file sizes are likely to be large. It there a limitation on the size of the files that can be received at the e-mail address provided? Is there a limit on the file size of an e-mail that can be received? If so, can the proposal be submitted in multiple e-mails?

Or can the Government use/provide a secure site to which we can upload the files?

No, we are currently not aware of any specific network limitation for regarding file size.

However, Section L2.2 has been updated to reflect that if the file size is larger than 10MB, it is recommended that the offeror submit the files through multiple emails and number for tracking purposes (ex: 1/3, 2/3, 3/3 etc.). It is the responsibility of the offeror to confirm receipt of all emails and attachments submitted.

Can items/sections that do not count against the page be included as separate attachments to volumes to keep volumes from getting cluttered and difficult to evaluate (as well as keeping file sizes from getting too large for transmission)? For example, can subcontracting plan/teaming agreements and the small business participating plan be submitted as attachments to the technical volume?

Yes. However, please keep in mind that a

Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not required.

Are the most recent available CPARS to be embedded into the Past Performance volume or submitted as a separate file? If embedded, is there a preference as to where they are located?

Section L3.2.6.2 has been updated to reflect that these should be submitted as a separate file.

Since the requirements (# of instructions and evaluation criteria) have increased relative to recent IAC BCO solicitations, would the

Government consider increasing the page count for the Technical Volume from 45 pages to 55 pages?

No. The Government has taken this into consideration and 45 pages for the Technical

Volume is adequate to address the requirements of the RFP.

In paragraph L5.2, does the phrase “price out all CLINS” refer to CLINs (0001, 0002, 0003) or to CLINs (0001, 0002, 0003, and

0004)? “If an Offeror proposes no need to transition from another contractor or a shorter than 90 day transition period, the Offeror shall still price out all CLINs based on their proposed cost to perform the initial 90 days of services after contract award.”

L5.2 refers to Phase-In Transition CLINS for the efforts required in the assumption of full responsibility of the DSIAC, HDIAC, and

CSIAC BCO requirements (CLIN 0001 (DS), CLIN 0002 (HD), CLIN 0003 (CS)).

Since the Transition CLINs ((0001 (DS), 0002 (HD), 0003 (CS)) and the Operation

CLIN (0004) overlap, do the instructions mean that only costs associated with transition (e.g., cost associated with mobilizing, training, and otherwise preparing to assume complete responsibility of an IAC) are to be priced in a transition CLIN and that any costs associated with IAC operations that are assumed or ongoing during the 90-day transition period are to be priced to the Basic

Center Operations (BCO) CLIN (0004)?

The transition CLINS refer to the 90 day transition-in period for DS, CS, and HD to include the costs associated with transition and ramping up services to full operational capability. Please see Section F, Deliveries

Performance.

Is this an accurate interpretation of paragraph

L5.2? “Phase-In Transition (CLIN 0001

(DS), CLIN 0002 (HD), CLIN 0003 (CS)).

The Offeror shall propose Cost Plus Fixed-

Fee (CPFF) amounts for the efforts required in the assumption of full responsibility of the

DSIAC, HDIAC, and CSIAC BCO requirements. If an Offeror proposes no need to transition from another contractor or a shorter than 90 day transition period, the

Offeror shall still price out all transition

CLINs (0001, 0002, 0003) based on their proposed cost to perform the initial 90 days of transition services after contract award. The

Offeror shall price all BCO services (non-transition services) assumed or on-going during the initial 90 day period to the BCO

CLIN (0004). The offeror’s approach to providing services during the initial 90 day period shall be addressed in Technical

Capability Volume II.”

As indicated in Section L5.2, the Offeror shall still price out all CLINs based on their proposed cost to perform the initial 90 days of services after contract award. It is a business decision to be made by the offeror as to how they will fulfill the 90 day transition period requirement.

L.5.1 states “Assumption of a 1 July 2020 start date for transitioning the DSIAC and

HDIAC BCOs, and a 4th Quarter Fiscal Year

2021 (1 July 2021) start date for transitioning the CSIAC BCO.” The solicitation Page 18 under CLIN 0002 shows delivery period start date of 1 SEP 2020. PWS 3.1 chart also references 4th Qtr. FY2020. What is the correct transition start date for HDIAC?

The PWS and RFP have been updated to reflect estimated transition dates for HDIAC as 15

October 2020, and CSIAC as 01 July 2021.

The offeror shall provide the company/division’s street address; county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code, tax identification number, size if business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation.

Is this information required solely for the

Prime offeror or shall it be included for all planned operating locations and subcontractors?

This information shall be provided for the

Prime's location(s) where performance will occur only at time of proposal. Subcontractor

DD254 considerations shall be addressed after award (if applicable).

M3.2.2.1.1 providing transition criteria references PWS 4.2 & 4.3, the PWS references should be 3.1 and 3.2.

Section M has been updated to reflect the correct PWS references.

(RFP pages 3-6, Section B) The Basic Center

Operations (BCO) CLINS 0004, 1004, 2004, and 6001-6006 describe IAC operations for a given time period but fail provide an indication of how/if the funding should be allocated to each of the three IA Cs. The

Excel Cost/Price Model is also not designed to address these allocations if the Government has a preference.

The three previous IACs will now be performed and funded under one IAC BCO

(CLINs X004, 6001-6006); the cost/price model is designed to allow for an offeror to identify all associated costs and hours for the

IAC BCO.

(Section Ll .2) Please clarify the proposal delivery date. In this section it is 45 calendar days after the RFP release which conflicts with the RFP cover page that indicates that it's due on 12/31/19.

The RFP will be extended to reflect a due date of 31 December 2019 for past performance questionaires, and all other remaining volumes will be due 17 January 2020.

(Section L3.1) The RFP requires 22 total

Technical Focus Areas (TFAs) to be addressed in the three IACs' operations.

However, the requirements of Past

Performance limit the offerors' ability to address it full IAC capabilities by the limitation to addressing only nine arbitrary

TF As in Past Performance. Why not let the offeror select its own nine-technology set of technologies as a more equitable process for a small business competition? Is there a preference for prioritizing the IACs' costs, operations and staffing to these nine areas?

The requirements of the Past Performance state that experience is shown in "at least" 6 of the 9

TFAs listed. The offeror may indicate expertise in any or all of the 22 TFAs in their IAC BCO

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCE

EVALUATION MATRIX (Attachment J-5).

The selected TFAs were not chosen arbitrarily but reflect the TFAs with the highest volume of work performed mitigated so that about half of each current domain areas are represented in order to ensure a more equitable process for competition while minimizing risk of non-performance in certain technical focus areas.

Upon award, the contractor will be expected to prioritize its cost, operations, and staffing in support of all 22 TFAs as needed.

( Section L3 .1) The Past Performance section requires three to five contract examples; can two separate consecutive competitive contracts for many of the same activities be used as two examples.

Yes.

(Section L3 .1) Because at least three past performance examples are required, and the prime is required to address at least four of the nine sample TFAs, can it be concluded that each contract example can apply to more than one relevant TFA?

Yes.

(Section L3 .1) Please clarify the offerors' ability to use bodies of non-government technical work as past performance examples in terms of the representative number of customers of various product types, the impact on systems/equipment designs and practices and the ability to improve designs on a national/international scale.

See Section L 3.1.2.1. - The past performance examples allow non-DoD cost-reimbursement contracts if they reach the minimum stated level of magnitude and have the required level of technical complexity.

(Section L.2.2.5) This section requires Tabs for the appropriate proposal sections; this seems inconsistent with the requirement to provide Electronic Documents?

This section uses tab/index interchangeably.

This allows for the Government to quickly locate information in an offeror's proposal.

(Section L 5.0) The RFP IAC transition dates seem inconsistent with respect to previous information for the three IA Cs. It was understood that DSIAC would be transitioned at contract award, and CSIAC and HDIAC would be transitioned at the end of the current performance period for each center.

Please see Section F (Deliveries Performance) of the RFP for transition dates, and Para 5.2 of

Section L.

(Section Ml.4) Please clarify the relative importance of the Factors and Subfactors.

As described under M1.4, "Technical and Past

Performance are equal in importance, and when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Within Factor 2 –

Subfactor 2 (Operations Approach), is more important than Subfactor 3 (Management

Approach)."

(Section M3.2.2.3.5) Since the competition is a small business set-aside, is it appropriate to require a Small Business Participation Plan?

Yes. A Small Business Participation Plan does not convey the same requirements/obligations as a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. As described under M3.2.2.3.5, "The proposal shall include a small business participation plan, describing an approach that demonstrates small business concerns will be utilized to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance."