DoD IAC PMO RFP Questions and Answers 14 Jan 20.pdf

Draft RFP

Section &

Para.

Question/Comment Answer

J2 DoD IAC

PMO

Section L and M Final, Page 5, L3.2.4.1

The solicitation states, "The Offeror shall include the Section L-1 attachment, as a worksheet/tab in the single Past Performance

Relevance Matrix Excel file, called "Aggregate PP Relevance

Matrix" that represents the aggregate roll-up of all its individual contract matrices/worksheets in the file. The value in each cell of the Aggregate Matrix shall be the sum of the values in the corresponding cell of the individual contract matrices

(worksheets/tabs). The Past Performance Relevance Evaluation

Matrix for Performance Work Statement (PWS) Scope Excel file is not counted toward your page count but will be included as a part of the Past Performance Volume." Would the Government clarify what values are to be provided in the worksheet/tabs?

Since the only values that can be summed in L-1 are in Cells numbered 6 & 7, is the Government asking that we reproduce the entire L-1 for each of the 5 PP citations in individual

Worksheets and then create an additional Worksheet that provides the sum of the values for the Cell 6 and 7 amounts?

In this attachment the Government is looking for the offerors assessment of their relevancy, and which

Technical Scope (M3.1.3.1) PWS areas they cover in each past performance reference.

Offerors will fill out one tab for each PP reference and one tab will be the sum of all references. The maximum value will be the number of PP references submitted.

J2 DoD IAC

PMO

Section L and M Final, Page 7, M3.1.3.1 &

L.4.4.1

The list of "Technical Scope - PWS Areas" provided does not include PWS paragraph 1.5.1, Program Management. Was it the

Government's intention not to evaluate PWS Paragraph 1.5.1, despite its being included in Section L4.4.1 "The offeror shall detail its approach to provide R&D Acquisition and

Requirements Engineering and program management analysis support to the IAC Program (PWS 1.5.2 and 1.5.1)" or was this an oversight?

That is correct. Most all references should cover

Program Management, therefore minimal value would be gained by including it.

J2 DoD IAC

PMO

Section L and M Final, page 21, M3.1.3

The solicitation states, "The Prime Offeror must provide at least three (3) of its own Past Performance contract references out of the five overall Past Performance contract references in order to be eligible to receive an overall "Substantial" confidence rating.

Offerors will not receive an overall past performance confidence assessment rating of “Satisfactory” or “Substantial” confidence if

See amended M3.1.3.

they do not have recent and relevant coverage from the Prime

Offeror within four (4) of the five (5) Past Performance contract references covering R&D Acquisition and Requirements

Engineering (PWS 1.5.2), IAC Program Analysis and Operations

Research (PWS 1.5.3), Science and Technology Field Advisors

(PWS 1.5.7), and one other covering the requirements listed in the PWS. Would the Government clarify whether a

Substantial confidence rating can be obtained if the Prime submits "at least three (3) of its own Past Performance contract references out of the five overall Past Performance contract references" or whether the only way to achieve a

Substantial rating is for the prime to submit four (4) of the five (5) Past Performance contract references covering PWS paragraphs 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.5.7, + one other PWS paragraph?

Can the Prime submit 3 PP references that cover the 3+1 requisite PWS paragraphs and submit 2 PP from its subcontractors and still achieve a Substantial rating?

J2 DoD IAC

PMO

Section L and M Final, page 22, M3.1.3.1

The Solicitation states, "Technical Scope of effort will be evaluated based on the following PWS areas listed in order of importance:" Since the only way to achieve a Satisfactory or

Substantial confidence rating is to provide PP in PWS paragraphs

1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.5.7, + one other PWS paragraph, they seem to be of higher importance than PWS paragraphs 1.5.1, 1.5.4, 1.5.5, or

1.5.6. Would the government please clarify the relative

importance and/or update the solicitation accordingly?

See amended M3.1.3.1.

PMO

Section L and M Final, page 22, M3.1.3.1

In accordance with 13 CFR 145.506(2)(ii), a direct award for professional services may not exceed $4M, unless it is to a tribally-owned or ANC-owned concern. In light of this restriction on direct awards to non-tribal/ANC 8(a) companies, would the Government consider modifying the

Dollar Value threshold for "Relevant" contracts to $4M and adjusting other values to be consistent with this? Specifically, the three sub-bullets under "Dollar Value): "Very Relevant –

DoD type Contract(s) greater than $10M performed in the

The Government is aware of the direct award thresholds. In establishing what is relevant for this acquisition, we gave consideration to contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy this requirement.

capacity as the Prime; Relevant – DoD type Contract(s) greater than or equal to $4M and at or below $10M; non-DoD contract(s) greater than $10M... Somewhat Relevant – DoD type Contract(s) greater than $1M and below $4M; non-DoD contract(s) greater than $5M and at or below $10M...

The government will evaluate the relevance of each past performance to assess the extent of its similarity to the IAC PMO requirement based on technical scope, complexity, and magnitude (dollar value). Note that

Magnitude is one of the three.

PMO

Section L and M Final, page 22, M3.1.3.1

The Solicitation states, "The government will evaluate the relevance of each past performance to assess the extent of its similarity to the IAC PMO requirement based on technical scope..." and "Technical Scope of effort will be evaluated based on the following PWS areas listed in order of importance:"

Would the government please clarify how much of the present scope needs to be covered by EACH past performance submission in order for it to be assessed as Very Relevant, Relevant, etc.?

Technical Scope is one of the three.

As far as how much of the present scope needs to be covered by EACH past performance submission the

Government will utilize the Past Performance

Relevancy chart above M3.1.3.1.

PMO

Section L and M Final, page 22-23, M3.1.3.1, M3.1.5

The Solicitation states, "The government will evaluate the relevance of each past performance to assess the extent of its similarity to the IAC PMO requirement based on technical scope..." and "The Performance Confidence Assessment represents the single overall assessment, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance record, of the Government’s expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation." Will the aggregate performance confidence rating consider the aggregate scope coverage across all individual past performance submissions?

The government will evaluate the relevance of each past performance.

The Performance Confidence Assessment represents the single overall assessment, based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance record, of the

Government’s expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation.

Page 5, L3.2.4.1

Section L3.2.4.1 references an Excel file called “Aggregate PP

Relevance Matrix”, but that file was not included with the solicitation documents located in beta.SAM.gov. This section also references Section L-1 attachment, which is currently presented as a MS Word file. Is the Aggregate PP Relevance

Matrix a government-generated Excel file that the offeror will fill out or is this an offeror-generated Excel file? If it is the former, please provide the file. If it is the latter, please provide additional

This is an Offeror-generated excel file.

In this attachment the Government is looking for the offerors assessment of their relevancy, and which

Technical Scope (M3.1.3.1) PWS areas they cover in each past performance reference.

guidance as to the information the government expects to see in the cells of this matrix. The instructions provided in L3.2.4.1 implies that certain cells need to be the “sum of the values in the corresponding cell of the individual contract matrices

(worksheets/tabs)”. Please advise what information should be included from Section L-1 Attachment.

Offerors will fill out one tab for each PP reference and one tab will be the sum of all references. The maximum value will be the number of PP references submitted.

Page 8, L.4.5.3

Section L4.5.3 asks to provide a Quality Control Plan. In order to properly address the requirements, will the Government allow the

Quality Control Plan to be included outside of the 30-page limit for this volume?

Please see amended L2.2.1

Page 3, L2.2.3

Section L2.2.3 allows for pages no great than 8.5 x 14 inches

(counting as a single page). Will the government increase this to

11x17 inch (ledger) page size?

See amended L2.2.3

L4.3.2

“Per DFARS 215.3 and DoD Source Selection Procedures, the

Offeror shall submit a small business participation plan.” DFARS

215.371-4(3) appears to exempt us from this requirement:

“Exceptions.(a) The requirements at sections 215.371-2 do not apply to—…(3) Small business set-asides under FAR subpart

19.5, set asides offered and accepted into the 8(a) Program under

FAR subpart 19.8…”

We are a small business in all NAICS and an approved 8(a) program participant. Are we correct in our interpretation of the above in concluding that we do NOT need to submit a Small

Business Participation Plan?

Offeors are to follow the solicitation and submit a small business participation plan.

DFARS 215.371-4 specifically states “The requirements at sections 215.371-2 do not apply to—

…Small business set-asides under FAR subpart 19.5, set asides offered and accepted into the 8(a) Program under FAR subpart 19.8…”

The requirement for submitting a Small Business

Participation Plan does not fall under 215.371-2.

This RFP does NOT require a Small Business

Subcontracting Plan.

Please note FAR 52.219-8.

Is there a workshare percentage or dollar value that triggers the requirement to provide subcontractor Direct Rates/Sealed package. For example, we have seen many solicitations where subs whose workshare is greater than 10% (of the contract value) necessitated submission of their rates, and if it was less than that

(so minor participation by a sub), then their rates were not required.

The following applies to all subcontracts:

If subcontractors are not willing to provide direct rates to the prime contractor, then the subcontractor shall send a copy of this cost model (including their direct rates) to the Government directly.

Please advise if ALL subs, regardless of allocation, are required to provide full rate information.